Janice Turner interview with Debbie Hayton in the Times

Absolutist, extremist, ultra….those names are pretty loaded and emotive names to be called…potentially I think quite damaging.I wonder who will shout those names at us first to shut down debate?

The hyperbole is strong. Personally I wouldn’t recommend writing to DH’s school to complain about him. The school is activist central and any criticism would fall in deaf ears and likely be wilfully misconstrued. However, it does deeply trouble me that DH’s role in the NEU’s guidelines is glossed over, the fact that pupil’s at DH’s school don’t have the luxury of choice that Janice Turner had, DH’s own views on social transition in schools and assertion that GNC pupils come under the “trans umbrella” are not probed and made clear.

Somehow all the safeguarding issues of gender identity in schools and DH’s role in that either get a pass or become the elephant in the room because what- there’s a need to be “courteous”?

Thank you Rex!

I can't see the comments. Is that because I don't have a subscription, even though I'm reading it through a share token?

It's bloody interesting that the people commenting are not taking their lead from her article. They have been informed elsewhere.

Thanks Rex.

That article merely reinforces the complete disconnect some people deal with between the logic of fighting to retain the integrity of the words women and girls need, and people being kind to their mates.

Although, that was not the intention here I am sure. But it surely does show that disconnected thinking.

She gets to choose? She gets to tell us she chooses all over her national newspaper column. She gets to accuse “women” of sending hate mail to DHs head. What is a woman though? Why does JT get to choose and I don’t. The bottom line is you either are one or you are not one. If you are not one then JT cannot decide for the rest of us how to address you and then tell other women off for not agreeing with her.

Datun, this is currently the top rated comment with 300 votes:

"I rather think the crux of this issue for many, if not most, females is ignored.

In humans, as in all mammals, female has a distinct meaning. That meaning obviously has a limit, a boundary, as does the distinct meaning for male.

Any man declaring himself to be a woman, ie: female, violates the boundary of the meaning of the sex class that is female. It is a violation of the integrity of the sex class that is female.

This violation, occurring as an assertion of male power over females, is against our female consent.

It is a blatant deceit on all women and girls to use 'she' or 'her' when referring to any man who pretends he is not a man, whether it is considered a matter of courtesy or not.

It is a blatant deceit on our entire society for any law to state that a man can become a woman.

Women are very angry about this violation and this deceit."

This one has 205 votes:

"Why is it “common courtesy” to pander to people’s fantasies that they have changed sex? ? Is it also “ common courtesy” to pretend to a skeletal anorexic that she is too fat because she wants you to say she is? In both cases you are participating in a lie."

And this one, 175 votes/likes, whatever it's called:

"When it went from being a courtesy to an enforced obeisance, everything changed."

Women are objecting to being compelled or forced to participate in Haytons fetish.

Hayton says he has a paraphiliac fetish.

This fetish compels him to try to get others to see him as a woman and/or refer to him as a woman.

This is the whole premise of his book.

The Times readers aren't having it.

The comments disagree with her? Are they setting out the reasons why?

Honestly, doesn't she think for one second that women might be a little unhappy that she is not just awarding men women's pronouns on the basis of whether she likes them or not, but specifically to a man who has told her it's arousing to him!

Share token

I’ll use whatever pronouns I think courteous

www.thetimes.co.uk/article/62cd1602-338e-4206-b609-e6e56a0a91ba?shareToken=38108603728dfa974f51eb5210bd5e6c

Both those links take me to a 404 error?

Maybe that's the new sig file on emails or letters from extremists.

Re: pronouns, I use sex-based ones to address or refer to other people.

Certainly doesn't take much does it. Remember the days when Sue Pascoe was referring MN to Prevent? Fast forward, and now these are sufficient grounds for JT that make you an extremist. Whenever I read a history book and wondered how people didn't notice bad things unfolding round them, I know it happened. Arendt wasn't writing playbooks yet here we are, seeing those principles implemented.

For a man who, apparent, doesnt mind being called 'him'.

Can I just check - the refusal to use female pronouns for a.man is 'extreme'? Is that it?

Maybe she offers a better explanation in the body of the article.

She doesn't and she comes off livid that people haven't been falling all over themselves to thank her for her brave, stunning and duly courteous foray into the world of AGPs. The Times readers aren't having it.

I'd be interested to know when and where this happened:

"You can hold concerns about youth transition without screaming at a bereaved mother that her child was a boy."

Truth is, she published a puff piece and glossed over DH's role in the schools guidance. Arguably a key factor in the destruction of safeguarding, arguably helped accelerate the pipeline into GIDS. Which - unless I'm much mistaken - she used to care about?

She called this wrong and she can't seem to think about why people are rightly cross about it. Now she's adding insult to injury.

Probably all the while, those who get their sexual thrills from breaking boundaries and public displays of more and more of their fetish, are fucking delighted. It's all their Christmases come at once.

Janice needs to catch herself on.

And yet the abuse Hayton, a physics teacher, received this week was from extremists on the “gender critical” side, who bombarded her head teacher with messages that she is a pervert, a danger to children, and takes her “fetish to work”. (Ironically, Hayton was similarly targeted before, by trans activists trying to get her sacked for holding sex-realist views.)
I wonder what these women would like Hayton to do?…Now it seems that they want to scrap employment protections for those who have undergone “gender reassignment” under the Equality Act too.
…
No more politesse or pretence. Screw pronoun badges. Women seized the right to call a man a man. Now pronouns became a different line in the sand: to call a trans woman “she” was to be a liar, a science-denier, an enemy of women.

The hyperbole waxes strong in this one. I don't consider that to be an accurate version of some nuanced discussions here. I can't speak for ones that are taking place on TwiX.

And Janice Turner, there is a way to find out what MN women might want to do, come talk to us, unless you only engage on TwiX. The difficulty here is that I have no idea which women you're talking about. Who are these "extremists on the "gender critical" side? Was that part of their sig file to the head teacher? Is there a way to validate their standing? Or is this an identity assigned to people with whom JT disagrees?

As for the last para I quoted, that message hasn't got through to anyone in any of the meetings I described above. I can tell you that a disciplinary would be incoming during a meeting if JT's version of the current reality were to happen.

http://bit.ly/3SSpzEN

tjis should work

Archive link :)

<a class="break-all" href="https://archive.ph/2024.02.09-210747/www.thetimes.co.uk/article/ill-use-whatever-pronouns-i-think-courteous-hqhzmwj55" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">https://archive.ph/2024.02.09-210747/www.thetimes.co.uk/article/ill-use-whatever-pronouns-i-think-courteous-hqhzmwj55

It's behind a paywall, so I can only see the heading.

Which I completely disagree with.

Women's pronouns aren't a prize, or a medal, for people to hand out to those they like, but withhold from those they don't.

I don't respect you, you're a rapist, so you don't get to have a woman's pronoun. You, on the other hand, are perfectly polite, so you can have one.

This is why people think she doesn't get it.

Maybe she offers a better explanation in the body of the article.

I don't know how many of these meetings or conversations other people have. I have several a week. I've described them elsewhere. I some meetings I can have speakers who say the following when you're doing the round of introductions.

"I'm [X], my pronouns are [several]. I live with ADHD, this may manifest as taking thought breaks. If I delay before responding, please don't speak as it interrupts my thought and may trigger mutism. I have rejection sensitivity dysphoria so consider how you frame responses to me." and it goes on. Usually, a couple of (mental) health conditions and maybe even a physical description: "I have [Y]-length, [colour] hair, with [X]-coloured eyes".

Add in the number of people who tell you about the land on which their institution stands, the displaced people, various historical treaties…it genuinely cuts down on any meeting time if there are several speakers. (I do mean virtual as well as in-person.)

There are people who watch you, particularly when specific members speak in order to "call you out" for signs of not appearing to be adequately engaged and therefore displaying unconscious bias or something worse.

There are people who interrupt every time someone uses a pronoun incorrectly or challenges people who opt for 'they' all the time rather than switch between 'they' and 'she' as given in the tiny name and pronoun chyrons.

But those meetings are so interrupted I can scarcely keep a coherent chain of thought. The productivity is nowhere at times.

Helen Joyce may well have even more of those meetings or conversations that I do. I can understand her position and personal decision.

And I still recognise that selective use of indulgences like friend-based pronouns rather than sex-based has contributed to the mess that we're in with the law and even having discussions.

Janice has responded in her column https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/ill-use-whatever-pronouns-i-think-courteous-hqhzmwj55

Why? Private is private but public is public, and a matter of record. Private is my business. I can, and should, take account of the public world in my private life, but I'm not going to let it run it. That's totalitarian.

There's a longer version of the Helen Joyce clip I think where she explains that she only uses sex based pronouns but doesn't police others because it would make conversations hard. I think it's also the principle of not policing someone's language.
I don't read it as fury, more as expletive laden frustration. Then again telling people to fuck off with their pronouns policing does end up looking a lot like policing itself.