Stephanie Hayton in The Times

It is textbook Hayton. It really is.

That regretful bit about 'well we have to fuck up women's sex based rights because otherwise people like me can't have what we want'..... it's just like the paternal, condescending comments made on threads here about having listened carefully to women explaining about their being excluded by Hayton's presence, Hayton had reached the executive decision that.... Hayton was going to do what suited Hayton and oh well, sucks to be those who have lost access to society but Hayton has needs. Nothing changed over four or so years. Nothing.

Duncan Henry has it nailed.

Edited to add: of course TQ+ people (I will not add the grotty leverage reference used by Hayton here), cannot possibly be left to feel misfits in a society...

but female people with disabilities, faiths, beliefs, cultures, needs such as privacy, dignity and safety? Yeah they can be misfits without resources or access at all under this plan. That's fine.

The sexism and inability to see women as human is stark.

Honestly, it's textbook Hayton.

We should keep men and women to mean men and women, except for the select few, like me. A self-confessed sexual fetishist who practices his fetish in public, but at least I don't sound batshit.

And intersex people, of course, because heck, they're the whitewash.

I wouldn't mind, but Hayton is just the latest in a looong line of men who insist that their particular circumstances are the only ones that count.

We had Tara Hudson and his 7 inch surprise, who said it was because he was pretty, we've had men like Jan Morris who claimed it's all about longevity, we've had other men who insist it's based on surgery, or those who claim it's if you pass, and others who declare it's based on a GRC.

Hayton's basing it on the fact that he admits he a woman and women can have any space they want, as long as it's not the one that he actually wants at that given time.

They never stop, do they?

Tweet by Duncan Henry discussing Hayton’s article today in The Spectator:

x.com/DuncanHenry78/status/1755622054068396361?s=20

'Look. Hayton. Today in the spectator.

Please can people open their eyes.

This is pushing the agenda of men, women and special men with extra privileges. And using DSDs as a crutch.

No. Just men and women. As all adults are. '

https://archive.ph/0W0f2

(Excerpt from Hayton’s article)
'For too long, the belligerents in the gender debate have effectively debated what the terms 'man' and 'woman' ought to mean. Their opinions are poles apart so it's no wonder they have failed to find any common ground. As a result, fear and mistrust have torn society in two - there is just too much to lose. If 'man' and 'woman' become gender identities to be claimed by whoever covets them, women's sex-based rights become meaningless. But if they become hardwired to XX and XY chromosomes then transsexual people - not to mention other individuals with certain intersex conditions - risk becoming total misfits in a society organised by gametes.'

'Escalating'. Is an interesting word.

And still pushing the idea that children can have a public humiliation fetish.

Showing that after all, I can still be shocked, Hayton says here that more trans widows should be used for breeding purposes.

x.com/dinobun1/status/1755633375648333843?s=46&t=PSGltfjrMyZmBtYq2-AVIQ

I’m especially interested in the impact of her faith and how much that may make the faith of trans ideology easier to digest.

I can’t speak for SH, but my faith doesn’t make other faiths easier to digest. My Christian faith is provisional (“now we see as in a mirror dimly”) and is in part a seeking after truth, but by its nature cannot be objective and reproducible; it is constantly evolving. Another faith has to make sense to me for me to ‘digest’ it. Genderism makes no sense to me, so it is indigestible, and not only that, it appears to depend on bad science and to lead to unethical behaviour, to self harm and harm to others. I have rejected Christian fundamentalism for similar reasons. I am left with both my outworking of Christianity, and my outworking of a ‘gender critical’ position, both of which are a bit messy but the best models I have found.

I respect the right of everyone else to live by different frameworks or worldviews, but not if their worldview imposes itself too heavily on people around them. So I reject ‘theocracies’, and I reject forced speech and thought. I embrace discussion about ethics, and hard questions. This is why “no debate” is so problematic. I hope SH can speak up fully within her marriage; she clearly feels able to criticise DH publicly, though she does that fairly subtly and still stands by him. I wouldn’t have been able to accept the name change to Debbie, but SH has, so far, done so; I note that their children still use “Dad”.

I honestly see nothing wrong, whatsoever, in discussing an article and speculating about the background and context.

SH no longer has a truly private life because her husband is fond of telling the world about embarrassing details of it, with his own spin- she must feel humiliated. But that is on her husband.

She obviously doesn’t want to be pitied, but I don’t pity her any the less because of this article. Who would want to be in a sexless marriage to a man who openly fancies himself more than you, had his genitals refashioned and a pelvic cavity excavated, which he dilates weekly so he can continue his self-absorbed narcissistic sex life at the expense of a sexual relationship with you?
It’s a pitiful situation. And since she is a private person, it must feel like torture to have all these details out there in the public domain.

I think once you’ve agreed to substantial aspects of your life to be included in a book that like it or not is pertinent to this issue and you’ve written your own article for a broadsheet as well as given interview(s) with your husband discussion of what has been written should be expected and is reasonable.

I completely agree, if Stephanie wants to go under the radar, maybe she needs to speak to her husband who seems hell bent on raising his public profile as the acceptable face of AGP.
He's the one who has put their story out there in many interviews and articles. People commenting on it is natural, as we do on many other couples and stories that come up.

I think once you’ve agreed to substantial aspects of your life to be included in a book that like it or not is pertinent to this issue and you’ve written your own article for a broadsheet as well as given interview(s) with your husband discussion of what has been written should be expected and is reasonable.

We can better protect women’s rights by understanding the underlying issues and perspectives. I tend to write my thoughts with caveats like ‘appears’ as I’m presenting my view on what I think about their statements and actions and many others here do the same. We are not stating absolutes about Stephanies thoughts and motivations. The reason we might not take all her statements of she’s fine as absolutes is we have seen enough women in her n be subject to an element of coercive control so recognise that could be happening. And we’ve observed enough of DH modus of operation to recognise he’s manipulative and determined to get what he wants.

Personally I found the article interesting and would and liked to have read more. I’ve found some of the comments on it thought provoking especially TinselAngel’s and Froodwithatowel’s posts.

I’m especially interested in the impact of her faith and how much that may make the faith of trans ideology easier to digest.

Anglicans have tended towards support but have had a split. Welby is supportive, they now have a few trans ministers and they went down the route of making a renaming ceremony a sacrament until there was pushback. They have guidance material which I think was written/contributed on by DH.

The Catholic church has been clearer in their lack of support for this ideology. Is there’s only religion they are going to believe in?

Horses and courses and I feel bad for commenting because she clearly wishes we would not, but yes this reads as a very sad situation. Stephanie Hayton reads as someone extremely wedded to their Christian values for life (literally in marriage vows).

I don’t know why the Times wanted to carry two articles by the same couple though- allowing one half of a couple the right of reply in an individual follow up is unusual.

So I’m not sure who is leaning on who to get that through the editors as it feels quite unusual editorially. The Times maybe have thought they would look bad if she wrote a letter to the editor instead I guess. Which would illustrate a little that someone somewhere can see the male dominance behind Debbie Hayton’s version.

I find the cognitive dissonance just of this part hard:

The common thread between faith and physics is that both involve seeking truth and ensuring that the truth is grounded in reality. I realise that some may disagree with that description of religion, others may shudder at physics, but I find both fulfilling.

i’ve always been intrigued by religious scientists who have faith. And I think genderism is a form of faith. It’s fine to have a faith if you’re not hurting others but it’s a different exercise than seeking objective reproducible truth (other than your subjective emotional ‘truth’). That would be my understanding of scientific truth-seeking anyway.

Yes, I agree with this. I thought that all the posts on MN threads (about Debbie Hayton's interview) that claimed to know that Stephanie Hayton was some downtrodden woman who was being exploited, sidelined, overwhelmed, etc by her husband were very offensive.
It is perfectly possible to adopt a critical stance towards Debbie Hayton, and to support the women who have unquestionably been hurt by their trans-identified husbands, without arrogantly making patronising assumptions about Stephanie Hayton on the basis of minimal evidence. I felt embarrassed for MN when I read those comments and angry that gender critical thinking was being associated with such knee-jerk stereotyping views.

How do mean? It came to be by him deciding he wanted to write a book, I'd imagine?

That's her husband's fault for writing a book, touting for promotional press articles, and dragging her into the spotlight. It invites speculation.

I don't know the story behind how the book came to be.

Happy to speculate about Debbie.

That's her husband's fault for writing a book, touting for promotional press articles, and dragging her into the spotlight. It invites speculation.

Nasty.

Maybe she was told to stop talking because the washing up needed doing

Stephanie Hayton is an adult woman, capable of making her own choices. Why are women on here patronising her by making out that she was coerced into writing that article for the Times? We might think her choice is wrong, or not a choice we would make, but ultimately it's up to her.

I tend to agree and I find this thread a bit distasteful.

Even if she was coerced or suffering from false consciousness I'm not sure this deserves so much public scrutiny.

Stephanie Hayton is an adult woman, capable of making her own choices. Why are women on here patronising her by making out that she was coerced into writing that article for the Times? We might think her choice is wrong, or not a choice we would make, but ultimately it's up to her. I've seen women stay married to men who have endless affairs - they stay with them because the security of marriage, along with the financial benefits, feel like a better option than leaving and making their own way in the world. It's a trade-off. It's not what I would do but I have to acknowledge that it's a choice some women make rather than pretend they are so cowed, or downtrodden, that they can't think for themselves.

It reminds me, also uncomfortably, of the gender stereotypes and very heavily sexist expectations placed on women that I would have hoped these days are very out of date. That a good woman (a strong woman) doesn't walk away from her marriage whatever he does to her, she stays and supports and sees it through at any cost to herself.

Which places no value at all on the woman as a person or an equal, or considers how healthy this might be, or that the woman is actually entitled to a happy, satisfying, mutual marriage that isn't making the best bravely of the crumbs created by a bloody awful situation and a selfish man. And that she is not in the relationship to do all the work and all the care taking.

I don't know how much Christian ethics come into that. Goodness knows anyone familiar with the relationships board knows how much male partners benefitting from the beliefs above loathe and detest women who open other women's eyes to that it is not wrong to want other things or to leave, that they do not have to settle for what he lets her have, or encourages and empowers her should she decide that she wishes to leave.

I would never judge any woman for any decision she makes in that awful situation, no one but her can fully understand it or how she is coping with it or what is influencing her choices. I am very uncomfortable with the framing that to leave is 'weakness': that is rather grimly revealing. Not least that it is rather illustrative of the awful, dehumanised, service unit view of women that is foundational to the TQ+ ideology.

You've said everything I wanted to say. Thanks, Tinsel.

Being strong doesn't unfortunately protect someone from being subject to coercive control.

The idea that if a woman is in a coercive relationship that its because she is weak or stupid or failing somehow is a misconception. Some find it comforting in the way that victim blaming can be an attempt to reassure, and some are just unclear on the dynamics involved.

I agree with a PP that this piece left me sad and uncomfortable, and I don't want to speculate on SH's words too much.

I'd be very happy for Stephanie to go on woman's hour and be interviewed.

My concern is that if DH did, it would be for the book and so quite celebrationary.

Because for balance, I think it's high time there was a feature on trans widows again.

It's the way the bbc like to roll; put it all out there for balance and let people make up their own minds.

I agree with TrainedByCatsToBeScathing's remarks about DH and porn. I thought when I read that first article that it was odd - you cannot reconcile using porn with Christian belief because porn treats human beings as things. Christians believe that we are all uniquely precious; anything that reduces people to things to be made use of is profoundly wrong.

Absolutely. I have too. I tend to cling on to relationships far too long because I find it hard to stop loving people, even when self-respect dictates I ought to.