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

I don’t feel I have anything to ‘thank’ Debbie for and I’m unsure why others feel the need to do so,

FTR I don't 'feel the need' to thank |Debbie in particular - in fact it hadn't really registered with me who Debbie was until Barraker's post (I blame the painkillers) I just liked the letter and the sentiment of the letter. I offer thanks to anyone speaking out on this including every single woman on FWR.

As someone above said the line for me is what women feel comfortable with and while women feel uncomfortable with any man in their space for any number of reasons then the only answer can be no men at all, no exceptions.

I still liked the letter and its sentiments but self ID is not acceptable in any form.

Debbie uses women’s facilities based on her own ‘self-ID’. But then campaigns against that being actually legally allowed 🤔

Debbie does not support us.

Debbie's cognitive dissonance is not my problem to solve.

Who is "us"?

Debbie does not support the GRA being amended to allow a GRC to be obtained by self-ID. She's a visible trans face against it in fact. So I am happy to thank her for her support in that matter, and applaud the content of this letter.

Us is all of us campaigning against self ID & the ‘TWAW’ mantra.

"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".

fully agree with this
The ludicrousness of allowing transwomen without GRCs into female spaces must not detract from the ludicrousness of allowing transwomen WITH a certificate into such spaces!! Feels like a bit of a trojan horse. Why isn't "no" enough?!

This cannot be resolved at an individual level. Regardless of how decent a given individual is.

Yambabe

Three men enter a swimming pool changing room with girls and women naked inside.

One has a GRC, and a penis.
One has no penis, and no GRC.
One has a penis and no GRC.

One of the three men believes the GRC is important, and his penis is not.
One of the men believes his operation is important, and the GRC is not.
One of them believes neither matters.
Two of them tell the women and girls that they should not have the right to female sex only spaces.
The other says he opposes self ID. That he knows he is male, biologically and legally. That he respects women. And he stays there, with the naked women and girls.

The women and girls see only three men, arguing amongst themselves about who is the best woman, what the man made rules should be about access to females, and which of them deserves to be in with the females the most.

Tell me how self-ID is the problem, and that stopping it changes anything. This is the situation BEFORE self ID is law.

What does self ID change? Explain how this dismal situation is going to improve for women and girls?

Raise the bar. We deserve better.

I do not consent to being naked or sharing intimate space with the opposite sex. And my daughter CANNOT consent, because she is a child.

And if I ever come across an 'ally' who has breached my personal boundaries and my daughter's consent because he thinks I should care less about his intrusion than any other man's, then I'll take my chances challenging him. And he will in NO WAY be any kind of an ally to me or any other woman.

This feels like abuse.
"just let me do it, I'm ok. I won't let the others hurt you, if you make me the exception. I'm on your side"

Great letter.

I don't quite understand the argument here. So Debbie has been using female spaces over years when from what I know there was no noticeable objection. Things have changed now with the TRA madness and women reassess what they want.

I can well believe Debbie would like to maintain what she had. But, idk, does anyone believe that if women formulate their demands and want to go the 'third space' route that Miranda Yardley proposes... does anyone believe Debbie would refuse to go along with that and turn into another TRA demanding that she maintains access? I don't see it.

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?

Barracker I love your posts on this thread, you have expressed so clearly what I would have wanted to articulate.

The empty vessel or vacuum of meaning ideas particularly reinforced the same ideas I was listening to earlier from Jane Clare Jones who described the patriarchal view of womanhood as an empty field in which the male can plant his seed.

Hayton already knows DH crosses the boundaries of many women and girls when DH uses their spaces.

DH now continues to do this in full awareness that DH breaches their consent.

I don't know what else to say. How else would we describe a man who carries on when a woman has said 'don't'?

What are ALL the lessons around consent and rape? Is "she didn't say no at the time" good enough? Is the absence of a no as good as a yes?

For every woman like me who will tell a man no, there are many who want to and can't. Or think they are not allowed to. And not one child can consent. We are teaching girls they MUST NOT say no to some men.

[Post edited by MNHQ]

Fucking hell am I speaking another language here? I'm not talking about specific cases and places.

I don't want men in women's spaces.

At the moment the EA exemptions keep them out of most. Custom keeps them out of toilets.

The GRA is a horrendously worded legal fiction which allows a person with a GRC to be treated as if they are the opposite sex "for all purposes" and potentially conflicts with the EA.

Allowing a GRC under self-id means many more men, particularly those with bad intent, to legally be in those spaces unchallenged.

I'm not talking what-ifs here, this is my understanding of where we are at now.

The firefight is to prevent self-id becoming law. What happens after that is up for discussion and I would hope would lead to strengthening the EA and NOT allowing males into our spaces however they identify.

But if we lose on self-id, the stepping stone, the first step, how do we recover? How can we ever get to the next stage if the law is against us from the outset?

So for me Debbie is an ally at the moment because she is willing to speak out against self-id and help us on that particular front. I don't know why she does, just that she does.

Afterwards, who knows. But now? She stands with me and people are listening to her because she is trans. That has to be a good thing.

Thanks Debbie. I disagree with you on a lot of things to do with this trans stuff, however I can still appreciate when you speak up. I know you get shit from transactivists as much as feminists do.

yambabe I really want to understand you, as we obviously agree on a ton of stuff.

I don't understand how any woman can view any man who says "I disagree with self ID whilst self-IDing in a woman's space or "I know I'm a male, not a female" whilst condemning other men who apparently know the same, or who claims to respect women's consent whilst ignoring it is any kind of an ally?

It's like watching a thief declare "I'm totally against thievery, me" even as you watch him pocketing your wristwatch in front of your eyes, and other women applaud him and declare we really need more chaps just like him. I'm pointing out he's just stolen from me an the other women are saying, ah yes, but he's against stealing, don't you see - he said so! Thanks for helping us in our fight to reduce theft, chappie, and do ignore that awkward woman over there with the bare wrist, she doesn't know an ally when she sees one. Tea?

I'm saying when you catch a person in an outright lie and they confirm that to you there's no grey area left!

Not only does such a person lose ALL credibility, being caught in a lie, but they prove themselves to be actually working to undermine your rights whilst declaring the opposite.

I feel like I'm the one speaking another language.

Any man who overrides women's consent is not an ally.

You can't be against self ID whilst admitting you do it and will continue to do it and don't care how many women tell you not to do it.

I have to stop because I'm going to slip up and use an inadvertent he or something and get a strike.

I do not consent. The end.

barracker I think your posts are really clear and I get them but it’s taken months for me to get it. The language and female names and pronouns and every other post going on about someone’s lovely transgender friends or family members makes it really hard. Female socialisation makes it really hard. It’s crystal clear but it’s hidden under layer after layer of obfuscation. Thank you.

The ludicrousness of allowing transwomen without GRCs into female spaces must not detract from the ludicrousness of allowing transwomen WITH a certificate into such spaces!! Feels like a bit of a trojan horse. Why isn't "no" enough?!

I agree. 'Agreeing' to boundary violation X because boundary violation Y seems more pressing is utterly stupid. What is this desperate need to paint it as the only option? Why do we have to accept any violation of our boundaries?

As AAK points out above, that is not how a negotiation works. The answer is NO.

NO, NO, NO. Not whatever those seeking to violate our boundaries present as 'workable' or 'reasonable'. And if you're one of the people adding pressure to women to concede ground, for whatever reason, you DON'T speak for me and you're not working to protect my rights - you're simply negotiating the rate of their removal. And to that I say no thanks, if you're not up to the task then step aside for someone else who sees women as entitled to say NO.

Thanks GW.

It's not easy to take this position even for me. I struggle to say no as much as the next woman does sometimes.

But the release from being able to tell the actual truth is immense. Even here, where I can't call a man he, or even a man, if he tells mumsnet I mustn't.

Barracker

It’s not the position I wish to take either. But it’s the only position to take.

Yes thank you Barracker for your powerful posts.

I was going to post this earlier for the Debbie thankers, but didn't..

So lets put it this way... Debbie doesn't want to force their way into women's spaces legally with a GRC, or for themselves or any male to do this legally with Self ID,

but Debbie is happy to unlegally force their way into women's spaces, relying on psycholgical pressure alone and putting the onus on women and girls to confront them.

Does that sound any better? Not to me.

I honestly don't know what wisdom Debbie wants people to find.

I'm with NO.

Barracker - I do love you. You post with passion but always with exceptional clarity. Never stop.

I know we diverge slightly on the value (or not!) of Debbie's contributions but I'm with you all the way on sex segregation, no exceptions.

Barracker I'm another huge fan of your writing. It makes it so clear, particularly when you talk about your 11 yeae old daughter. I have an 8 year old. She sometimes has trouble saying hi to her friends when they're with other people she doesn't know, yet apparently she's supposed to challenge men or boys in single sex spaces? Not going to happen, she will self exclude and / or suffer trauma. She's sensitive enough already, I'm dreading having to tell her how little her needs count in modern day UK.

Completely with Barracker on this. In fact, it was DH on MN that drove to finally thinking NO. No males in women’s spaces EVER, for ANY reason. The arrogance was breathtaking.

Barracker me too, you really made me think today, I've been knocking around MN for 4 months reading FWR nearly every day ( and posting sometimes) and that just got really crystal clear for me. getting stuff down to bare bones facts is it.

I still am glad the letter went in and the politicians are a disgrace.

Thanks for the nice words.
I was reaching the end of my tether but you've talked me back just in time!
Also the news about Helen Webberley has cheered me up no end.

I don't hate Debbie Hayton, and I wish no harm to anyone. I am pretty cross though and until my boundaries and those of every woman are respected by every man I'll continue to be unrelenting on this.

Of course, If Debbie decides to respect women's autonomy the way Miranda does we'll be able to revisit terms perhaps.