Debbie Hayton letter Times 05.10.18

[PollyEthel]

Excellent letter in the Times:

www.thetimes.co.uk/article/b1cda4f4-c7f8-11e8-a4a5-a34bea2c1d04

TRANSGENDER DEBATE
Sir, The compilers of the Book of Proverbs probably had more pressing concerns than gender identity when they characterised the wicked, the foolish and the wise, but the transgender debate today (letters, Oct 3 & 4) involves the same three kinds of people. The wicked will hijack any agenda for their own self-interest, and trans rights provide rich pickings.

By playing the trans card, misogynists can hound women with impunity, paedophiles can find easier access to children and rapists can be transferred to women’s prisons. The foolish see what is happening but cross their fingers and hope for the best. They know the difference between male and female but they hope that by repeating the mantra “trans women are women” loudly enough it will render that difference insignificant.

The rest of society is now finding out what has been going on. Surely, they say, people can’t change their sex to circumvent the sex-based protections of women and girls? But if they can, some abusers will. Lucy Bannerman’s Thunderer was right (“Trans movement has been hijacked by bullies and trolls”, Oct 1). The time has come for our political leaders to show some wisdom before it is too late. 
Debbie Hayton
Transgender activist, Birmingham

Why should people who are completely comfortable with their own bodies be allowed to call themselves the opposite sex and demand access without question?

And why should those who are NOT?!!

Hayton argues that a man's discomfort with himself is a golden ticket into the opposite sex.

Is that what women are? A vacuum of meaning that dissatisfied men can claim ownership of?

I'm an actual full human person. I have no more in common with a dissatisfied man than I do with a satisfied one. If these men actually saw me as an equal human being rather than an empty vessel they could pour themselves into we would not be having this 'debate' at all.

Why should people who are completely comfortable with their own bodies be allowed to call themselves the opposite sex and demand access without question?

And why should those who are NOT?!!

I agree with you Barracker, that no men should be able to identify as women and enter women's spaces, regardless of how they feel about their bodies and what surgery they have had.

I quoted the bit above from heresyandwitchcraft's. post. To put it in a bit more context, here's a slightly longer quote.

The initial justification for letting people into female-only facilities was a medical condition, but now you don't even need to have that! Why should people who are completely comfortable with their own bodies be allowed to call themselves the opposite sex and demand access without question?

I do think that many people - ordinary people as well as politicians, still think that all transgender people are dysphoric and hate their bodies and transwomen with penises are 'pre-op' rather than many (most?) of them are men who love their penises and have no intention of having any sort of 'op' on that part of their anatomy.

Which is why I think we should be asking MPs this question:

Why should people who are completely comfortable with their own bodies be allowed to call themselves the opposite sex and demand access without question?

They need to wake up and see what's really happening, and I think this question nicely encapsulates what is actually going on.

Meanwhile back in the real world we need a workable solution that protects us.

Taking the extreme position leaves us in danger (in my mind at least) of losing everything, because we have the numbers but we don't have any of the power.

I'd rather take small victories and let them accumulate than lose. I agree we need 100% female spaces and that's the goal we should be working for because the line HAS been crossed. But to me I would rather fight the biggest issue (self-ID) first, and I'll take any ally I can to help me get that particular issue resolved.

Once that's no longer a threat we can start to move forward with drawing the boundaries and ensuring they don't get overstepped. But if we lose self-ID we stand to lose everything and then what?

Again, Debbie self ID’s. That’s the problem with supporting their letter.

Discussed just now on politics live.

We have to say no males, no lies.

They want compromise, there is none they are our rights, we get to hold the line.

We are half the population.

We deserve as do future generations to have sex based rights.

No means no.

Hold the line.

Here's an eminently workable solution.

Only females.

Here are some utterly unworkable ones.
females plus men who have no penis (how are you going to tell?)
females plus men with GRCs (how will you tell?)
females plus men in dresses (seriously?)

When a man enters a communal changing room with a female child already in it - what is your workable solution AT THAT POINT? How is a grown woman supposed to challenge that, let alone a child?

Tell me how that 'solution' works for any girl or woman?

And the idea that females demanding proper recognition of our actual sex is an 'extreme position' shows just how far our rights have already been eroded. It's bloody offensive too.

Hayton self IDs.

Barracker yr spot on. You’ve articulated it perfectly.

The thing is, every transwoman arguing on the basis of legit transwomen versus "self ID" believes that they represent a group that deserves access to women's spaces. They may disagree about what the criteria to be considered legit is (for Debbie it seems to be removal of the meat and two veg), but curiously said criteria always seems to be framed in such a way that while they superficially appear to be defending women's right to single sex spaces they themselves are an exception to that rule. The only exceptions I know of are Miranda Yardley and Hope Pink.

I'm never going to be truly comfortable with anyone whose position hedged in that sort of "sure, women only spaces up to a point, but obviously I should be the noble exception" way, and I think at this point women as a group should be looking at pieces written from that perspective with a critical eye in order to determine whether they're really willing to support that, and whether supporting it in the short term (while the house is clearly on fire, metaphorically speaking) will end up meaning that we're stuck with that compromise forever.

Because that (men in womens' spaces) is what is already happening.

Because self-ID without exemptions will mean it can't ever be stopped.

Because if we defeat self-ID then we can move on to draw the boundary lines more clearly.

I don't have a solution. I just think that alienating people who are willing to work with us to stop self-ID at the stage we are at now is not the best way to achieve our long-term goals.

I accept that others disagree, I totally understand their position. I'm just putting my views into the mix for everyone to consider.

I just think that alienating people who are willing to work with us to stop self-ID at the stage we are at now is not the best way to achieve our long-term goals

Not only that, but as Needsmoresleep just said on another thread:

FWIW I think gay men will be crucial if Stonewall is to be reined in. Their stake in Self-ID is much less obvious, so they cannot as easily be written off as haters.

The same thing applies to transsexuals: they cannot easily be written off as haters, and given that the public clearly feels a great deal of sympathy for them, the knowledge that many transsexuals are opposed to self ID should give lots of people pause to think.

This is an area where the perfect is likely to be the enemy of the good, in terms of practical outcomes.

Also, a general principle of negotiation is that you always start by asking for more than you think you can get. If you begin already having conceded to the point where you really weren't willing to concede any more don't be surprised if you end up with far less than you were hoping for.

The only exceptions I know of are Miranda Yardley and Hope Pink.

And Fionne.

I could cry with relief that some one like you exists - I honestly feel such despair about what's going on. Thank you

And I just changed my mind about Hope upon acquiring further information. No, it's not OK to threaten to turn up on the doorstep of women who disagree with us - that's toxic masculinity and I want nothing to do with it.

yambabe and kestrel Debbie is not against self ID. Debbie uses self ID.

You are being misled. Debbie is even telling you to be wise, so be wise.

Gonna keep saying it....Debbie uses women’s spaces as a self-ID transwoman

Stop saying they agree with us on self ID.

Thank you Barracker for raising all your points - I was completely unaware when I started this thread.

My standpoint is that women (human females) are rightfully entitled to our own names, group identity, provision, legal recognition, medical research and programmes to redress inequality, which specifically exclude all males irrespective of any surgical or hormonal intervention, paperwork, belief, name changes or dress they may have.

Males should be raised to be decent people who respect women's boundaries. Males violating women's boundaries should meet with strong social disapproval and disincentive including criminal proceedings.

There was a point at which I thought Debbie Hayton respected women and girls too PollyEthel

It's only recently I became aware that DH self IDs and uses Female spaces, and that DH believes the onus is upon women and young girls to challenge DH and/or every man to ask them to leave.

I've revised my opinion as a result.

My daughter cannot push back against any man so I'm doing it for her.

Debbie is (I think) 'on our side' re self ID becoming legal being a bad thing, because it's carte blanche for abusers. It is partly because of recognition of the dangers to women but also it endangers Debbie's position as someone who has full SRS and dysphoria but who hasn't got a GRC. I don't know Debbie's reasons for that, was it maybe related to not being able to stay married prior to same sex marriage? (I may have imagined that but that would be an understandable reason)

I don't think Debbie's personal reasons for not having a GRC are relevant to be honest. I don't know what her reasons are for not supporting the GRA to be amended to allow self-ID.

I just know that if that amendment goes ahead we can't keep any males out of female spaces.

If it doesn't, we can then lobby to draw up the boundary lines properly and if that means Debbie can't use the ladies then so be it.

So right now, whatever her motivation, Debbie is speaking out against self-ID and amendment of the GRA. She is able to get recognition because of who she is, and she is standing WITH women, on this issue at least. I can't see any way that that isn't a good thing.

I'm sure that every self id male transperson will have their own personal reasons why they are entitled to be in females spaces.

The same person who is warning that self id is open to abuse is telling us to trust that their reasons for self id are valid and true.

Women and girls need and want female only spaces. Why does Debbie get to remove them?

She doesn't.

For decades trans women have used some womens' spaces based on the "honour" system. There are currently no laws that stop men (any men, trans or not) from using many womens' spaces (especially toilets), just custom and challenge by women if they do.

If the GRA is amended to allow self-ID, not only will there be no law to stop them it will actually be against the law to challenge them.

If the GRA stays as it is, or is repealed, or the requirements for a GRC are made more rigourous, then women have more options to move forward and ban all males from our spaces.

That's my take on it anyway.