GC Ultra / GC Lite?

Here you go

https://dera.ioe.ac.uk/id/eprint/33503/1/085066bb-c224-40de-b79e2a1358801ee9.pdf

Hayton was a consultant for this guidance I believe. And now refuses to talk about it citing confidentiality.

Hayton was a regular mumsnetter. Many regulars have directly interacted with Hayton before the 'breast size' comment that really showed the misogyny inherent in Hayton's position.

Sorry, not hugely clear. This one has the bottom para taken off, hoping is clearer.

I've just checked the article he wrote for the tes in 2019 and anything on pronouns are absent bar "gender neutral pronouns for eg they/them, may be used as an alternative to sex based pronouns."

However the entire piece has the premise that trans kids exist and we should be calling children by their preferred names. That is said repeatedly. As a teacher reading that without any knowledge of these issues and in the current climate, I'd not see pronouns as an issue. The issues raised are girls single sex spaces.

'She' is used in Hayton's article bio.

Personally I think it's deliberately not clarified. To state that 'we call boys she' will have had a jarring slant against the transgender trend quotes etc

This is the part on safeguarding the child:

@Helleofabore just scanned the book have not found it yet. Will let you know when i do.

I have found one comment on the use of pronouns in school being harmful to children and confusing.

On YouTube i recall him saying he didn't have to worry about pronouns as he now uses his title of doctor (he has a PHD)

I have never seen evidence of him being an Author of trans inclusivity in schools so if you could post a link to that it would help me understand peoples anger towards him as i have never found proof of this on internet.

But what his book is about is his journey and where his thinking is now, and the wrong thinking of his past.

That would only solve the issue for those few like DH who self declare their agp.
Most of them deny it and claim it's a special identity not sexual, so you couldn't challenge them on this basis.

nor would i want a law about what men or women ought to wear.

Yet that is what we have; the GRA grants a certificate creating a lie based on “living in the acquired gender” part of which is clothes.

It can get quite heated and unpleasant on Mumsnet, at times, when somone argues in favour of moderation as a strategy - in pursuit of longer term goals. I've been subject to it myself. People suggest you " put men first" are an " appeaser" and so on. I even name changed because of it. Very unpleasant.

Kathleen Stock and Janice Turner are not just "paid media personas" - they have been very important and influential political actors, and will no doubt continue to be. We rely on people with a media presence to articulate the key areas of concern.

Social media amplifies these divisions and turns everything quite toxic...which is why Kathleen Stock and Andrew Doyle are better off away from it. Twitter wars are not what is going to effect meaningful change.

My worry would be that arguing for this as well as single sex spaces will give fuel to activist who will say we are anti-trans rather than pro-women's rights.

Quite @lifeturnsonadime a decision has to be made.
Are we campaigning for men not to perform their fetish at work? Which would mean a repeal of the EA and would probably not have the instructive public support of campaigns for sports, prison etc.

Or do we pragmatically accept that as long as we don't have to pretend they're men and we maintain our spaces we reluctantly accept they'll be some men in cosplay at work enjoying it?

If we accept that we have to drop the line, no performing fetishes at work, because it won't be true or consistent.

Personally I'd like to return to a culture with more socially enforced dress codes in public. Maybe 10 years ago? But I don't want legislation around dress.

I think maybe I'm for legally liberal with a more conservative culture. But that ship has sailed.

Thank you Karen.

That would be very interesting. Because I am thinking that the school has a trans policy that would not allow it. And I suspect that Hayton was also probably as involved in writing suggested school trans policies on what to call teachers, as Hayton was in specifying toilet usage in the trans policy they were involved in consulting for.

@Helleofabore I am pretty sure he said that though i will have to go back and check. Got other stuff to do but will be back with an answer

Sorry Karen. I must be unclear.

Has Hayton expressly said that Hayton’s students are free to use whatever pronouns they wish for Hayton?

Or have you extrapolated that yourself from what you have seen and read?

@Helleofabore Cross posts, well i can only go on What Hayton says in his book, and on youtube. And that is his position now, but not before he “saw reason”.

Hi @RethinkingLife sorry If you didnt like my use of we. Will stick it i as best i can.

Sorry if I was unclear.

Are you saying that specifically the students Hayton teaches have the freedom to use correct sex pronouns for Hayton?

Because I don’t believe that is the case.

And if they don’t, is this only because of the school, or has Hayton expressly said in the book that they don’t care if the students say ‘Mr Hayton’ or ‘sir’?

@Helleofabore totally yes. Children should not be told to use pro nouns, and schools should be clear about who are male and female.

Helleofabore and obviously when you are a lesbian you're not attracted to men. So the comparison simply doesn't work from that pov.

AGP is a heterosexual disorder

Re dressing up, I'm minded of how children are more confident when dressing as super heroes.

Society has always been very sexist and geared more towards male hero narratives.

I just read it too and I agree with her.
I think if you were to post about AIBU to ask why women wear decadent lingerie (I mean basques, suspender belts, tiny strappy bras etc) you'd get a lot of women saying they do it because it makes them feel sexy. Which is fine! We shouldn't be policing clothing choices.

In my version of GC I also think "gender" is nonsense and therefore people can wear what they like, it doesn't mean they've "changed sex".

Therefore in my version of GC men like DH are fine. What he wears is none of my business.

I do agree with overall dress codes and societally appropriate dressing, so people shouldn't be going out in BDSM gear for example (although it appears Kanye West and his girlfriend are trying to change that).

I personally can't get too het up about AGP. Men get aroused by things women do in public all the time. I got properly frottaged on the tube once, by a totally normal looking guy in a totally unremarkable looking suit. That was personally a lot more harmful than If I were around Debbie Hayton in a skirt.

are you saying that the school allows students to use correct sex pronouns for Hayton?

Agree- spot on

Warrior you have just said what I thought while reading Stella’s substack.

I thought there is a huge fucking difference between feeling a charge because you are feeling confident and this flows to even wearing what you, personally, think will attract you someone’s sexual interest. Vs wearing something that arouses you. Or something that gets you the reaction that you then use for your wank fodder for later when the people giving you that reaction is just them being kind. And they may even be children.

But hey. I must be missing something because Stella sees little or no difference.

Karen - I don't speak for anyone else but I reject being teamed into your "we" and "our". FWIW, I avoid the use of "enemy" in that context, and "exclude" seems odd.

I can follow your argument and agree with you. AGP is singled out because its visible whereas the reality is there are plenty of men out there doing things with a sexual motivation and we just don't know about it.

Just caught up with the discussion. Read Stella O’malley’s article she wrote yesterday. Which sums it up for me.

I think when it comes to transexual expressions in how they dress we do have to accept that. I cannot see that banning men in dresses from certain areas of public life is an achievable aim, nor would i want a law about what men or women ought to wear.

Our focus should be about appropriate behaviour towards others, that can be held in check and should be.

As it happens Hayton does not require that people call him she in school or anywhere else.

Using pro nouns is IMO silly and i don’t go along with it anywhere.

Not every transexual is a TRA. TRA’s are the enemy, if we achieve our key goals which i don’t need to describe here, TRA’s will be done for they can bugger of back to the internet from whence they came

The EQA has served us well in recent wins just needs the sex definition firming up to exclude trans people.

Having a dress code for men that doesn’t include feminine attire would be indirect discrimination on the basis of GR. You can indirectly discriminate against protected characteristics if you have an objective justification for doing so. Not requiring children to take part in a teacher’s sexual fetish would seem to me a good objective justification.

I felt the term sexual charge was very unfortunate. It's just not that.

Everyone finds dressing in certain ways gives them more confidence and certainty a lot of that is based on how they visually look, though also basic things like comfort and practicality are important.

There's always been ideas around power dressing for women, as women's clothing is so much more varied than men's and has controlled us in all sorts of ways.

Agp is different.