Debbie Hayton in the Times

[Igneococcus]

www.thetimes.co.uk/article/women-are-right-to-have-concerns-over-trans-reforms-5kj5k28sd?shareToken=aa090ad90f6f886db629247a0d6ca19b

have been accessing certain female only spaces for years, under a quiet, unassuming 'I'll be unobtrusive and give you no cause for concern' way. People have generally accepted this.

Whenever I see this, I always wonder how do they know it’s been accepted?

How do they know a woman or girl hasn’t walked in and done an about face and walked straight out again?

How do they know someone who had a history of abuse wasn’t terrified in a cubicle?

How do they know their attempts at being unobtrusive weren’t a complete failure?

They don’t know either way because of unfailing politeness and/or fear. Just because they may have been accessing spaces for years without known, physical incident, doesn’t mean it hasn’t caused an incident to someone on one level or another.

I agree with everything Barracker has said in this thread. If a transsexual is arguing that women can have spaces free of some male trans people, but must accept them and other similar individuals, then they are not actually supporting our right to autonomy, privacy, and single sex spaces at all.

If a transsexual is arguing that women can have spaces free of some male trans people, but must accept them and other similar individuals, then they are not actually supporting our right to autonomy, privacy, and single sex spaces at all.

There is a difference between an individual formulating a must and an individual trying to have a dialogue about something, though.

And we could potentially have that dialogue right here, if Debbie is willing to engage. Unless you think that "dialogue" means women not having anything we aren't willing to compromise on.

And we could potentially have that dialogue right here, if Debbie is willing to engage. Unless you think that "dialogue" means women not having anything we aren't willing to compromise on.

Let's see...

dialogue
or di·a·log
[dahy-uh-lawg, -log]
noun

1. conversation between two or more persons.
2. the conversation between characters in a novel, drama, etc.
3. an exchange of ideas or opinions on a particular issue, especially a political or religious issue, with a view to reaching an amicable agreement or settlement.

In the sense of (1.) that is certainly possible here, although probably rather inconsequential. Regarding (3.), which is what Debbie called for in her opinion piece, I very much doubt that any government body will implement an agreement hashed out on Mumsnet. But who knows, I might be wrong.

Out of curiosity, at some point are you yourself intending to engage in the conversation on this thread in a way that isn't simply about picking fights with other commenters?

Projecting much?

Nah

I'm hoping Debbie hasn't gone now a few more women have been braver enough to voice some concerns about the article.

I welcome Debbie's voice as not ranty and bullying like the majority of activists but I don't agree with the article. I wasn't sure what point it was trying to make other than trying to make the public sympathetic to poor misunderstood TW.

Rejecting the henhouse comment without any attempt to understand women's concerns about safety set alarm bells off for me. Very much a NATWALT moment.

Debbie, you say you use women's facilities with their agreement. How do you know you have this agreement? If I joined your place of work am I supposed to loudly announce I'm not comfortable sharing a toilet with you? That seems rather unfair on your new colleague.

Many women have said here that nice as you seem to be they don't want to share facilities with any transwomen but you don't appear to ever respond to that.

Please would you respond and tell us which toilets/changing facilities you use. We've established we can't use the nice TW/Scary TW criteria for policing access to toilets so it has to be on some other basis.

This paragraph in particular concerns me.

It is not for me to judge whether Karen White is a trans woman who transitioned to escape gender dysphoria, or an abusive man who seized an opportunity to prey on women. But who should judge: doctors or White herself?

Let's say for the sake of argument that convicted rapist Karen White did transition because of dysphoria and is therefore classifiable as "genuinely transsexual". Does Debbie think that in that case White belongs in a women's prison? Does Debbie still think that knowing that when placed in a women's prison White raped multiple women?

It's a false dichotomy anyway. Whether White is faking or not, he is in possession of a penis and therefore should be in the male estate. In solitary/a special wing if required. As has been discussed before, prisoners with penises should not be allowed in women's prisons full stop, it's very simple.

I've interacted with Debbie quite a few times outwith this forum and can confirm that Debbie is perfectly happy to be critiqued. I like this about Debbie and I also see no problem with a distinct, pro-transsexual, non-TRA point of view being expressed within the context of this debate. I also think TPTB should pay more attention to this point of view instead of drinking the TRA Kool Aid wholesale, as so many of them are doing.

As to an in-depth debate involving Debbie here: well, that would be nice but transsexual voices are spread thin - Debbie has a full-time job teaching, is a union rep, and is trying to get that transsexual voice amplified, so I doubt there would ever be the time to devote.

Shame, cos I'd like to put the pro-woman view in that debate!

I agree with Pencils about this:

It's not women's job to sort out where everyone goes for a piss or goes to prison or anything inbetween. We should be just able to say what our needs are. It's up to trans people to say what their needs are. It's up to the government to come up with the clever ideas that accommodate everyone's needs, in consultation with everyone.

It boils down to this:

All the men agree that women are not permitted to have female only space.

All the men agree women will be obliged to submit to having some men in their private spaces. Of course, some. No men at all? That's a complete assertion of autonomy from women! Not even a token show of submission to men? Well that's unacceptable. Give us some capitulation, if you expect us to play nice and give you a bit of rein.
Women not capitulating or submitting even a little bit, having absolute autonomy, regardless of men's permission?
Unthinkable.
Equality gone too far.

So, the men, and some women who have already resigned themselves to gratefully taking whatever crumbs the men offer them, are negotiating over which men, exactly, the women must be forced to accept.

There are men who demand all men should have the right to violate women's boundaries
There are men who demand some men should have the right to violate women's boundaries.

Women have absolute boundaries.

'No' is not an opening gambit to a negotiation.

The sad thing is that now people like Debbie are getting caught in the crossfire.

Yes. This was predicted years ago when all this started, and the few transsexual people who stood up and argued like Debbie and Miranda, were clear about this and took a lot of flak for it from the TRAs. They're caught between a rock and a hard place.

Had this loophole of 'a very few men who have been through a lot of gatekeeping and have a very specific condition of dysphoria, are in the massive majority sexually oriented towards men, and in a number of cases SRS use women's facilities' not been exploited, those people would have quietly continued using women's facilities unbothered. Yes, no way to know if women were affected by it, but tiny numbers and never any incidents of harm because of it.

Now that loophole has been crowbarred open to 'any man, at any time, whatever his motive, mostly sexually oriented to women, is a woman if he says so and you can suck his dick/be raped/be murdered if you don't like it so get out of the way bitch' - women unfortunately are starting to realise that a) there is a need for hard lines and no exceptions that can be exploited, because we're given endless proof that we dealing with people who have no respect for others and will exploit the slightest chance they are given, and b) that the whole definition and rights of women have now become at stake because of being a little too kind and co operative. If we even agree to men with total SRS we are still at risk - as has been proven - because it validates that women are men without penises, and some men can still be women.

Women gave an inch, and not just a mile but pretty much damn everything is being taken, with law makers and agencies helping them do it. It's just too dangerous to give ground any more, and I am desperately sorry that TRAs have forced things to this point.

It's another iteration of liberal men and conservative men disagreeing about precisely where to place the boot on women's necks. Or right wing men thinking women are private property and left wing men thinking we're public property.

'No' is not an opening gambit to a negotiation.

I agree. I think prisons should be sex segregated. Full stop. End of.

As someone who has campaigned about prisoner welfare many times, I think the feminist argument about sex segregation is the correct one and also not the end of the story.

Prisons are organised according to risk. So I think it is not right to say that there should be trans wings in male prisons and that's that. A low risk, non violent trans prisoner should not be accommodated with a high risk violent sex offender such as Karen White simply because both have a trans identity. Prisoners - men, women or trans - should not be accommodated in prisons too far for friends and family to visit (this is a massive point regarding recidivism and mental health of prisoners).

So when you have a small population of non-violent trans prisoners, this must be taken into account. It's just that this has nothing to do with women.

LangCleg I appreciate Debbie is busy (as are women btw) so may not be able to respond here but a previous poster was told to address their comments on the article directly to Debbie.

That was me, just pointing out that Debbie had already posted in this thread. And answered one of the two questions I put directly to her, Thankyou Debbie.

Whenever I see this, I always wonderhow do they knowit’s been accepted?

How do they know a woman or girl hasn’t walked in and done an about face and walked straight out again?

With no disrespect meant to Debbie or other decent individuals with severe gender dysphoria, I think until more aggressive TRA's forced our hand, there is something which some women will have felt but never felt it appropriate to voice.

Trans women will always make a proportion of women uncomfortable. Do I inherently think someone with gender dysphoria is necessarily a threat to me? No. I've spent a lifetime thinking they are oppressed and in need of a lot of compassion and support. But everyone grows up knowing about the men who used to be known as transvestites. It is a basic instinct and red flag that some men are dressing up as women either as a fetish or to intimidate women and blur boundaries. That has never been clearer with many of them trying to push into our spaces. Because I cannot necessarily distinguish between a sufferer of gd and someone with quite an aggressive, intimidating kink, I am simply always going to be wary. Not to mention that as soon as someone used the word 'womanface' on here, I couldn't fail on some level to be cross that anyone thinks that being a woman = wearing a skirt, having a softer voice, etc. It is just profoundly insulting. I am not sure how you get away from the above issue. I don't think you can. I still wish individual transwomen well. I don't think I'd ever challenge someone in real life if they were in a female space. But I wouldn't feel comfortable with them being there. If you could magically eradicate AGP then we could talk, but we can't.

The sad thing is that now people like Debbie are getting caught in the crossfire.

I don't understand why women are being made to feel bad about this or why it's a "sad thing". I'm not happy with any male born people in female spaces and never have been. GRC or not. I should have the right to state that. Either we accept all, or we accept none. People with GRCs and/or surgery are still biologically male. The GRC changes nothing materially. I would certainly feel upset to come across a male person in a female toilet/hospital ward etc. How do i know if they've got a GRC anyway? How would anyone EVER know that I considered it an incident or that I was upset by it? I'm not allowed to say I object to it and never have been, because a) women are socialised to be nice at all costs, and b) my personal experiences have taught me that males are a threat. Why would I challenge someone male born if I and they were the only people in the room? That would be a stupid risk to take. I'll scuttle away quietly with my feelings of my personal space having been violated and it may have a significant effect on my mental health depending on when and where. My problem, perhaps. The difference is I have the right to be in a female space.

I'm sad (/angry) the TRAs are simultaneously trying to obliterate women's rights and also negatively impacting people like Debbie, making it impossible to get traction for practical solutions which fully respect women's rights but don't leave transsexuals back with none.

I certainly don't feel bad about it, and nor should anyone who supports women's rights, the situation is not of our making.

The difference I have the right to be in a female place

^This

I would very much like to see anyone born male who purports to know what it feels like to be a woman to show that empathy by giving up their supposed right to be in female spaces whilst this is debated and women's voices are heard.

Hope & Miranda done this, howabout the rest of the TW female allies ?

Your voices are disproportionately heard compared to ours it will have more impact

I try very hard to say what matters to me whilst staying within talk guidelines. And sometimes I have what I feel is a very important point to make, but the guidelines make it almost impossible to state. So I hope MNHQ will extend some leniency here as I try my best.

I don't feel sorry for Debbie.
Not because I'm insensitive or cruel.
But because in my mind, although not on this forum, I actively retranslate feminine names and female pronouns back into their original, accurate male form.

Mumsnet will censor me if I 'deadname' or use 'he' for a specific individual. It makes it impossible to say the truth and have the reality of it heard. So I have to couch my words in hypotheticals, as I cannot use the actual example in front of me.

If this was a hypothetical situation.
'Annie' is a character who I've made up on the spot and Annie's name was originally 'John'.

Look again at a situation as it actually is.

John is hurt that the women are treating him like the other men.
John wants to be allowed in to the female spaces.
John got himself a certificate from some other men who told him that women weren't allowed to reject him.
John used women's spaces.
John ignored women's distress, fear, anger even when they told him explicitly.
John felt he was special and that women's boundaries shouldn't apply to him.
John got worried when his grace period looked like it was coming to an end.
John was hearing increasingly from women that they weren't going to tolerate any man violating their privacy, any longer.
John saw some other men in his shoes begin to accept that a mandate from other men to violate women's autonomy was without moral authority.
John saw those other men listen to women, and revert to giving women back their name, their spaces and their boundaries and he watched them step back over that line into male spaces again.
John refused to do that.
John continued to push women to let him in. He claimed his 'right' to be with them, even as he watched them fighting to keep men out.

Just using male names and pronouns resets my whole perception back to what is truly happening here. No euphemisms, no weasel words, no photoshopped reality.

Female pronouns and feminine names are Rohypnol to the mind, when men demand we use them.
They lower your inhibitions, dull your sense of danger, and alter your perception of reality. And whether you swallow them willingly or they are forced upon you, your informed consent and capacity to say no is diminished and altered.

I'm not sorry for John.

BarrackerBarmer I really hope your post is Not deleted (I can't see why it should be but the rules are not applied evenly) as expressing that truth without the names and pronouns that distort reality Provides a clarity to the discussion

I agree with you Baracker.

I have never been comfortable with males being 'one of the girls' - ie when gay male friends would sit in on a conversation about menstruation or not respectfully leave the room when we'd be changing for a 'women and gay men's night out' or what have you. Some of my female friends would be totally cool with it and sort of enjoy the exhibitionist/subversive element, sharing baths with gay men, etc, and would take the piss out of me for being so rigid in my sexed boundaries.

I just don't feel comfortable. I don't feel comfortable that their gaze is a male gaze even if it is a homosexual male gaze. I don't feel comfortable with the fact that my female body is the exotic other that men, gay or straight, seem to have fixations with that frequently slip into creepy territory.

When males talk about feeling embarrassed, keeping their head down, ashamed, awkward, etc in women's facilities I think "Well so you fucking should. You are not supposed to be there. You are male. You have overstepped a boundary. You should feel embarrassed, should keep your head down, should feel ashamed, should feel awkward. You are not supposed to be there".