GC Ultra / GC Lite?

-I think this is an interesting point actually. Men acting out fetishes at work might make women uncomfortable generally.

I think it's an argument on our side as to why female toilets and changing rooms should be female only. Women have rights not to be sexually harassed in the workplace too.

That I don't know. It is certainly an interesting discussion to be had and how to accommodate it.

Do we 'need' to remove it? Or do we need to make absolutely clear when sex matters and should be prioritised? And when 'paraphilia' should or should not be accommodated?

I'm not informed enough on how legislation works.

But personally I would remove gender re-assignment from the equality act. I absolutely believe it was inserted for exactly this reason (AGP normalisation).

I disagree, profoundly, with the entire concept of transgender ideology. I understand that the idea put across was to allow some men to cross dress, in order to salve their inner turmoil over being men, of course. But it's sexist. And should never have been written into legislation (and the equality act of all places).

In specific terms of HR at Hayton's school. They could write a school policy of no fetish gear at work. That would stop him in his tracks. Because he's told them that's what he's wearing.

And again, if there's pushback, let's bloody have it. The only way we get all of this nailed down, is to get it out in the open, examine the laws and what they mean, see if they're correct, fair, and based on evidence.

And I don't have much of an opinion about whether to reinstate the word transvestite. A lot of people understand it, yes, but it's my understanding that the two conditions aren't identical. AGP is an escalation of transvestitism.

But maybe in terms of recognition, it's a good idea to use it.

Kesstrel thanks

karensalright

Just for interest, that Guidance document has been replaced by the NASWUT. The new version is very similar, but doesn't have Hayton's name on it. The site you saw it on is an archive site. This is a link to the new version

https://www.nasuwt.org.uk/static/uploaded/88965336-0820-4308-8a822f79a395e089.pdf

Have there been proposals to remove GR from the EA?
.
Because I haven't seen any suggestions of amendments to the EA whihc would prevent covert agp men using it for their fetish.

How could it be amended to do this? Genuine quetsions btw, because I don't know and I'm interested in how this would work and what the proposals discussed have been?

Yes this is gets to the heart of the problem.

Otherwise we are legislating for gendered clothing.

How do you "clarify" the EA regarding cross dressing without specifying some clothes are "mens" and some are "womens"?
I'd be worried then that we would be seeing a situation where for example enforcing "modesty dressing" for girls would have legal protection?

HR should tell him not to. If a man working in a school is telling you he's wearing fetish gear to work, you should be able to stop him. Also, as I keep saying this only works for the self confessed AGPs like DH. It doesn't work for the majority who are those who deny the agp and claim it's their special identity.

Do we just accept them with the fake boos, and womens clothes teaching?

It would then seem that we only object to agp if we know about it.
Solution: don't tell us.

Except, that many of us have campaigned to get the guidance on the EA clarified and made absolutely clear. I remember discussing this while handing out leaflets to get people to get that petition over the line.

How is that not part of 'changing' the EA?

It is not necessarily changing the wording, but it most certainly is making clear that Stonewall's interpretation should not be challenged and rejected.

And since that has not happened, then yes. It is no major conceptual leap to have that clarity hard written into the law.

I don't agree that there has been no discussion about changes to the EA.

This is really tricky though isn't it because we can only know if a man wearing normal rather than overly sexual women's clothes amounts to a fetish if they disclose the fact in some way.

How can we legislate for that distinction when it relies on an admission of the person in question? Otherwise it is just based on assumption. Or we are saying that strict gendered dress codes must be adhered to?

This has definitely happened as a result of overreach of the 2 Acts, but it is hard to see a way of dealing with it without a redefinition of both sex and gender reassignment under the Equality Act 2010. As I said up thread I don't think that gender reassignment was intended to cover cross dressing, and I doubt the legislators thought it would cover the increasing numbers of overt AGPs.

I've missed all this . So I can't be arsed with DH , what does that make me ? An Ultra ? Don't like that . Reminds mw of fitba hoolie stuff 😂

And Dh is a physicist. They're usually quite logical and he's very clever

The logical conclusion of working through all feminist concerns is that 'trans' doesn't exist.

DH was trying to find a middle ground for a long time.

Another transsexual who was giving a lot of active political support to women in Scotland and stated that he didn't access woman's loos has since detransitioned has he couldn't cope with the cognitive dissonance.

DH brings out a book on agp.

@Datun you did. It was me on another thread. I was talking about the points on this thread being raised by others and your resposnes here.

Your points here are intersting and start to, imo, unpack the issue rather than the denying that there is an issue which has gone on with some posters.

I said that the equality act needs to be rewritten. This is an intersting as I don't think I've seen this being argued until now (maybe I'm wrong, but I don't think it's been centre to discussions?) and yet it would have to be done to prevent tranvestivism at work.

How would it be rewritten whihchwould prevent this I wonder? Is the suggestion that GR is just removed as a protected chrasteristic?

HR should tell him not to. If a man working in a school is telling you he's wearing fetish gear to work, you should be able to stop him. Yes you should but how? HR will only do this if they believe the law supports them. What law or argument could HR be promoted to use to get them to do this?
It's no good just saying they should. They need to be told why they should, what laws support that and that they are in danger of prosecution themsleves if they don't.

There are several strands to this. And one of those is to raise awareness of how prevalent AGP is. I kind of agree with this but think we should go back to calling them tranvestites. I'm not sure this new 'medical' type label is useful or necessary. We always knew that men in women's clothes was usually sexual. WE had a word for it. It was a bit shameful, expected to be private, and could be ridiculed as absurd e.g Little Britain. You could also just choose not to emply someone if they were a man dressing as a women.

Social opprobrium cannot be underestimated. I agree with this but fear we're now so far down the 'liberal' route of 'wear what you want' being the culture it's going to be hard to restore this mechanism that previously worked so well on this issue.

And the arguments that I am seeing to defend the normalisation of this paraphilia seem to follow the : the rapist is going to rape anyway, creating laws to uphold safeguarding are not going to be any use, why bother.

The exact same style of argument that we see for toilets and single sex spaces. Can't be done, why bother.

Yes. Datun.

It seems to Stella that just because this particular fetish involves everyday clothes, that it is impossible to police. Indeed, that it should NOT be policed because, well, women wear 'sexy' clothes and this should be treated the same. Actually, if women are wearing sexy lingerie under their clothes (not pretty and normal style of bra and undies if you know what I mean) while teaching children, I would be rather against this too. Just like if a teacher was wearing BDSM gear under their clothes, or their 'baby' fetish gear.

It means that they cannot conceivably be expected to understand the sexual boundaries and the needs of children. It certainly means that while they are at school, they are not fully focused on the needs of the children they teach. It leaves me in doubt that they understand children's sexual boundaries.

As many of us keep saying, this has more layers than the simplistic nature of what some people advocating for this normalisation want us to believe.

Indeed. The problem is, that is that the women here have been interacting with Debbie H for years and years. Then every time he ups his profile in public, we see the past being tweaked.

He goes on to recount that, because of his appearance on two separate occasions, teenagers have approached him about their own gender questioning, and he states, that he followed school safeguarding, referred them to pastoral care

Again, to me, this is a form of forced teaming. But with abstract children, this time. Conveying the commonality between him and them.

Debbie Hayton is not gender questioning, Debbie Hayton has a full throttled adult fetish that has been consuming him for decades.

What you've actually got is him being in a position where minors are talking to him about his fetish, and he's painting it in a positive light! Which also appears to reflect well on him!!!

I interacted with the argument yesterday. I've already had this conversation. I thought it was with you?

I said that the equality act needs to be rewritten. I said that gender reassignment as a PC was a coup for transactactivists. And I said that it's my belief that it has been framed as an ideology, in order to obscure that it's actually driven by sex.

In terms of Hayton, specifically, he's already told people that he's coming to work in fetish gear.

HR should tell him not to. If a man working in a school is telling you he's wearing fetish gear to work, you should be able to stop him!

And if it goes to court, then bring it on.

Pour the sunlight on it, talk about it, make people understand how utterly narcissistic this fetish is, and how it leaves a trail of destruction in its wake.

Give all the microphones, the column inches and the interviews to transwidows and children of transitioners. Let's have the experts

And alongside them, we can have the child safeguarding experts. We can see what they have to say about men enacting their fetish at school and how we've arrived at the point where no one seems to be able to do much about it.

Let's ask them what has to be rewritten.

There are several strands to this. And one of those is to raise awareness of how prevalent AGP is. (And now, it would also seem, that we are having to argue with feminists against its normalisation).

Because, alongside all this, raising awareness will impact public attitudes. Social opprobrium cannot be underestimated.

Thanks @Helleofabore

I cant be arsed reading the whole document but scanned it. His position is now different, i can certainly see why people were pissed of with him.

And yet, Hayton still uses the name Debbie and Hayton's wife calls Hayton her 'wife'.

There is many inconsistencies here.

We also need to remember that Hayton is very heavily invested in the acceptance of this paraphilia as something to consider normalised enough that teachers with this stated paraphilia are not considered to be a risk to the children they teach. Either directly, or indirectly through policies set up for their 'protection', compelled belief, usage of single sex spaces etc.

There are many aspects of life, and safeguarding, that this 'normalisation' impacts. It is certainly not simple. And it should never be underestimated as to where this normalisation could lead.

How many years did France maintain their abusers paradise of lowered age of consent? All because some adults felt that children should be free to express their 'sexuality' and lowered children's sexual boundaries in law. They were considered the liberal and literary elite of France at the time. And it led to many children being preyed on and harmed.

Stella O'Malley's positioning herself as a 'liberal' doesn't make me feel that I am 'illiberal'. It makes me feel that she really doesn't have a grasp on the ramifications of what she is advocating for. And I think hiding this behind the label of 'liberal' is fucked up.

Of course he is not an expert, on searching his book he states that he and no other teacher is. He goes on to recount that, because of his appearance on two separate occasions, teenagers have approached him about their own gender questioning, and he states, that he followed school safeguarding, referred them to pastoral care etc, and did not get involved, any further.

He states in another chapter, that in a meeting he said “hi my name is Debbie, and i am not declaring any pronouns”

He goes on to say “offering pronouns…………can quickly become an expectation and an imposition”“others can use whatever pronouns they like for me”

There is one thing as, a transexual that he is clearly is not understanding or not discussing, and that is the discomfort that others recognising him as a man, can be a very uncomfortable and discombobulating experience, which i say of myself, that can only be resolved by getting to know them.

We need to remember he is not the "expert" here.

Thanks @WarriorN there is a subtle shift from what he says there to what he says now about the concept of trans children and pro nouns