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

But I would always have felt uncomfortable and angry with males in female spaces but I would never have voiced it.

This is a very good point. There is this assumption that women were happy to share their spaces with male transsexuals until the tra came along, expanded the definition of trans and spoilt everything.

But I think what actually is happening is that the internet has given women the opportunity to say what they think and what they have always thought.

The internet has also given transpeople a voice too, and now we can see that it isn't just transsexuals in our spaces, but transvestite too, and it always has been.

No women or girls consented, because we were never asked. One group of blokes lobbied another group of blokes to grant them access to women's spaces, and the latter group of blokes said "yes, in this specific set of circumstances". The fact that another group of blokes later came along, decided that they found the set of circumstances decided on earlier inconvenient, and demanded that the circumstances required to grant a legal right to enter those spaces be amended to "because I say so" is the immediate reason for a lot of women getting really angry and deciding that they've had just about enough of this shit, but that is a separate (though related) issue to the fact that we were never consulted or asked for our consent in the first place. And apparently old school transsexuals didn't think that mattered. Now that women are starting to realize that whatever previous sympathy some of us may have had for that specific group is fading rapidly for many.

You should always have asked us first. You didn't. We're allowed to be angry about that.

AngryAttackKittens I had never even thought of the earlier changes being by men, for men. How very clear it is now.

Once you get the mental image of a group of men angrily arguing over which of them is most entitled to be a woman it kinda sticks.
The dickless gang Vs the certificated gang Vs the FeelingsAreEnough gang all duking it out over which are the best women.

Meanwhile, the females are over here, with our ovaries and chromosomes and uteruses and actual lives, suddenly realising that none of them actually see us as full humans at all.

Message to the males who ever set foot in women's single sex spaces:

You've got some fucking nerve doing that.

A man without a penis is not a woman. No males in female spaces thank you. Not interested in discussing my boundaries over a beer. There's no compromise to be had.

Unfortunately the day has come, and I knew it was coming, when I have to say, no. No males, no lies, no fucking compromise. And I have to say no, even though I like you.

This. Exactly this.

Once you get the mental image of a group of men angrily arguing over which of them is most entitled to be a woman it kinda sticks.
The dickless gang Vs the certificated gang Vs the FeelingsAreEnough gang all duking it out over which are the best women

^ this is it. This. Fuck it’s insanely insulting. Debbie, sorry to hear of the threats, I hope you have support. But no, you should not be using Woman’s facilities. They’re female only.

Oh, no I was never consulted earlier either and I never gave my consent for any male to use our spaces.

Been reading the boards with interest for some time even though I've never been a member of Mumsnet - I just don't feel like I have time to devote to forums and other stuff online.
However, I just wanted to say that one thing I've never understood is all the "thank you Debbie" stuff that I keep reading. This person doesn't have a certificate and yet they say they're campaigning to protect women's spaces while using them themselves. How hypocritical is that? As others have said, Debbie personifies self-ID. Also although I see plenty of posts from them about finding solutions and being willing to talk I haven't actually seen one suggested solution. Perhaps for once they'd like to get to the point and say what they think should happen. Plenty of people here have so why can't they put their cards on the table? Sorry to rant but reading the fawning over someone who seems to be taking the piss (sorry ) in a big way has been getting up my nose for some time.

The fact I have no GRC has been cited by several people. Would it make any difference if I got one?

How can you campaign against self-ID when that is exactly what you do?
Also what's your solution? You talk a lot about helping to find one so you must have some ideas in your head. What are they? I'm fed up with reading about how you can help. As I said before others have put their cards on the table so where are your's?

I actually think Debbie is in the unique position of being a hypocrite to both sides of the argument. We would say how can you complain about self-ID while self-IDing and using our spaces and I'd assume plenty on the trans side will be questioning why someone who personifies what they are demanding is campaigning against them.

Hi Debbie I believe the GRA should be repealed because it is legal deceit/suppression of truth, as well as enshrining in law male entitlement to igore women's boundaries. So to me it makes no difference. The fewer GRCs issued the better, but I can't speak for all.

However, I do think you are quite sexist, from what I've seen. You do have a massive blindspot regarding women's lived experience and why we need respite from males. I don't think you want to upset or hurt people, but that blind spot is upsetting to me. It is a stark reminder of how much more social power males wield than those born into my sex class.

Still forcing women so still very wrong, but would be less hypocritical and disingenuous.

Your writing against self iD would (and has) lead many people to think that you don't self iD but instead have gone down the medical assessment route which they (naively) assume means you have been "proved not a danger".

While most of us here know that a man with GD can be a danger to women and girls (and boys) The evidence is locked up in prison.

Honestly, I think your writing is self servingly obtuse and manipulative, I think your mentality and beliefs are the same.

I also don't know how many times Debbie can read explicit comments from women saying "I don't consent" before finally acknowledging them, and saying 'OK'.

Every ignored opportunity where DH reads a woman's words denying consent to a man invading female only space, and refuses to respond, is another nail in the coffin for me.

Every time we explicitly tell you that you are overriding our autonomy and yet you ignore us and crassly tell us you're too busy to debate whether you should or shouldn't respect our hard lines, is an example of who you are.

No means no. It is patently obvious to every reader that you are persistently determined to ignore women's 'NO'.

Sadly, this thread has been an eye-opener for me. I wish I had never read it.

I believe I am correct in saying that, when challenged by other parents, Debbie confirmed she was her children's father rather than mother. I was very impressed by this statement and wrongly assumed that Debbie warmly embraced her actual maleness, despite wishing to dress and act (in her mind) as a female.

I have read of transwomen in the US who insist on being recognised on Mother's Day as a mother, obviously at the expense of the children's actual mother. I was pleased that it appeared Debbie did not want to encroach on female territory, albeit she wished to be seen on a day to day basis as a woman. A transwoman.

I had wrongly assumed that Debbie would not wish to force women to kowtow to her vision of herself. It has been a shock to me that Debbie has been entering women only spaces without any regard for the feelings of women themselves. Just because she has not been challenged by women is no indication that they did not feel uncomfortable. We women have been programmed from an early age to defer to men, particularly if there is a chance of violence or confrontation.

I still admire Debbie in so many ways as a human being, but for her to consider she presents as a natal woman is laughable. Debbie is a fantastic example of a transwoman, but sex is sex, and you are a man. A transwoman primarily, yes, but still a man.

It is a process, Barracker is quite right. Once you see a whole bunch of men deciding which of them has the most right to define women's boundaries and the meaning of the word women, suddenly the game is off.

And I mean actually see them. Not just in your minds eye. Watching Hudson say it was all about at what point they identified as a woman, Willoughby saying it's about surgery, and having a hard time, or Philip Bunce saying it's about dresses, or Hayton saying it's about either surgery, or a certificate, whichever one they can force us to accept.

I completely understand the feeling that having a transgender person advocate for women, makes some kind 'marketing' sense.

But firstly Hayton is not advocating for women, Hayton is advocating for themself. Secondly, on the other thread, it came with a distinct shock that Debbie Hayton suddenly had to go away and think about what women were saying. That it had given them food for thought.

Utterly shocking what women have been saying to them for years has not been heard. At all.

Whether women were happy with the honour system, or not, is moot. Although I suspect not. Why on earth would they be?

DebbieInBirmingham

I think there are women who feel differently about sharing spaces a with transwoman or transsexual with a GRC, but clearly many do not. For me, the answer is a simple and firm no to males regardless of anything else. I don’t know how we could possibly know who has one and who hasn’t but the simple fact is, you are still Male.

I do see that people like you are in a difficult position and I don’t think you’ve ever been given what you need to feel comfortable and safe. I would join you to ensure that happens, but would always insist female spaces are kept for women only.

What is your view of the most ideal solution?

One other thing I don't get, which I guess this sort of thread highlights for me, is this.

If presenting as a woman alleviates the symptoms of gender dysphoria, how does that work when you self announce to every single person that you're actually a man?

Is it an acknowledgement that what makes you dysphoric is nothing to do with the way you think, and everything to do with your appearance? So all Debbie has to do is change their appearance to alleviate the symptoms.

Because that is yet another acknowledgement of how sexist gender, and therefore gender dysphoria, is.

I'm not saying gender dysphoria isn't awful, nor that it's deliberate, obviously.

Yes, it would make a difference to me. A GRC and post op is something I could accept. I would still know you as a man but I could live with the gatekeeping those two things together would offer.

However, that is my minimum met.

The last women to consent has to hold the casting vote in this, not one moment before. No has to beat yes, every time.

The last women to consent has to hold the casting vote in this, not one moment before.

This. And for all the children, the girls who cannot freely consent to a grown adult man, because they are children, there will never be consent.

There can never be consent.
It's time for acceptance of that. It's long past time.