Times today: JK Rowling fell foul of transgender thought police

[Lamahaha]

by Debbie Hayton

www.thetimes.co.uk/article/e83cf2ea-a50c-11ea-a585-dcb14d2bcd47?shareToken=eafc66b4f31b2536a5202ea3d0555a9c

I believe Hayton has had some significant changes in thinking over the last few years.

Interview by Dennis Relojo-Howell February 2020

(transcription extract)
Dr Hayton “I've been teaching in secondary schools now for 25 years. I transitioned eight years ago from male to female in post and really after I transitioned I remained in obscurity for a long time until about three years ago and I was becoming increasingly concerned with what I saw as a form of transgender activism that wasn't helping me live my life in the workplace and I was rather concerned that it may it may start a having a negative impact. So I started opening my mouth when people made arguments I disagreed with and over the course of really three years or just over three years now I've become increasingly vocal in this debate because I I think it's important for different people to have a say and also I think it's important to be able to say what they think rather than what they think they ought to think which can sometimes be the case.” (continues)

Youtube
"Dr Debbie Hayton Transwomen Are Men"

It's not that I disagree with what Hayton has written.

I object to the idea that a whole bunch of men are disagreeing with each other over what criteria women should be forced to accept to allow them access.

Because it keeps changing. India Willoughby will tell you it's because they look exactly like a woman and have had the surgery. Tara Hudson will say that their 'seven inch surprise' is irrelevant and they will be assaulted in men's spaces. Others will say it's longevity, about how long ago they transitioned. Still more claim it's got to be down to the certificate that people like Stephanie Hayden and Amy Challinor possess. Or those who've had part surgery, or full surgery, or can pass, or transitioned young, etc.

Debbie is saying that they agree they're not a woman, and that women have rights, but have stated publicly that their own transition is sexually motivated and they are AGP. If Debbie is claiming that it's them being male that should exclude them, then I've not heard that. All I've heard is the reason why Debbie should not be considered the same as others.

I'd be absolutely delighted to be proved wrong.

Can you imagine a whole bunch of women on Good Morning Britain, deciding the criteria which should give them access to, say, the Freemasons?

And the one who sounds the most reasonable is the one who said I know I'm not a man, I'll never be a man, but it turns me on??

Well said, Datun

It's not that I disagree with what Hayton has written.
Nor, as far as I can see, does anyone else and this is my problem.
I cannot see any any suggestion in this thread that the article itself is unhelpful to women, no objections to what the writer has said, only to who the writer is.
Please yourselves but that's not a road I want to go down.

If someone is saying one thing while actively supporting the opposite, I think it's normal to have questions about that.

I object to this bit:

caught up in a dispute between feminists and trans activists at Speakers’ Corner

Because it's a sneaky misrepresentation of what happened that day, and implies both sides were misbehaving and MM happened to get caught up in the middle of it. Times readers aren't likely to go digging out the footage to check for themselves, are they?

DH is painting that incident as a battle in an ongoing war between two extremist groups, and thus feeding into the "feminists are being unreasonable haterz and so deserve everything they get" narrative.

I also object to DH failing to mention prior personal involvement in the "quasi-religious transgender police".

I also note that DH makes it clear that DH's own interest in this issue is entirely self-serving. I trust the Times' readers will also spot this.

The words "hiding in plain sight" spring to mind.

I also note that DH makes it clear that DH's own interest in this issue is entirely self-serving. I trust the Times' readers will also spot this.

I have noticed that most people will do what is in their own interest. So even if they say they are helping you, it will be because it suits their agenda. Which is why you need to look carefully at what your own needs are and not rely on others to do that for you.

This excellent article by Dr Em I'm forced teaming is relevant here:

go.mumsnet.com/?xs=1&id=470X1554755&url=uncommongroundmedia.com/forced-teaming-feminism-lgb-and-trans-rights

What are you basing that on goose? I haven't seen anything, that Hayton has written about it, but that's not to say there isn't anything.

There was a thread here a while ago where it came up. I don't know that there is any sort of article written to the effect of "I have changed my mind on this" but looking at various things Hayton had written made it pretty clear that certain positions had changed over time, and I think Hayton commented on the thread that in fact that was so. They were some pretty significant changes IIRC, including which toilets should be used and the origins of dysphoria.

I can't help feeling that most people reading that article who are not overly familiar with the whole issue will give up half way through. It swings from one scenario to another and swerves back again, rarely making it clear who is male and who is female, and lacking context, so the uninformed reader is left utterly confused.

While Hayton has, in my view, helped the cause overall, there are much, much better women writers who don't get a look in.

I don't doubt that Hayton has their own agenda. I'm still mostly concerned with whether the content of that particular article in that particular publication is helpful to women.

As for the reference to MM, it specifically describes what happened as an 'assault' and explains that Wolf was convicted.

This still feels like objecting to a piece of writing because of who the writer is, and I see little difference between that and refusing to open an article about violence against women because it's a Daily Mail link.

While Hayton has, in my view, helped the cause overall, there are much, much better women writers who don't get a look in.

It is a dull read TBH.

I also note that DH makes it clear that DH's own interest in this issue is entirely self-serving. I trust the Times' readers will also spot this.

I think you can read that different ways. Many people only begin to notice an issue when it starts to impact them in their lives. Lots of women here have had the very same sort of experience about trans issues. Many men become concerned when they realise there could be real impacts on their mums or wives or daughters.

I don't really see people telling them off for starting from self-interest.

Hayton's forced teaming exploits Jo Rowling's celebrity for self promotion the same way Prick News targeting her for self promotion does.
Nothing Hayton does matches what they say. Nothing.
Then you might see the video with his wife and suddenly you realize what you are seeing and feel sick.

I won't pay them to read what he has to say, though I did read some of the excerpts that have been posted.

Many people only begin to notice an issue when it starts to impact them in their lives.

Mm, but I remain unconvinced by how much of the issue DH has actually noticed yet.

For example, I've yet to see acknowledgement from DH that their own transition is rooted in the sexism and misogyny endemic to our society, and is an emergent feature of a rigidly controlled sexist system that speaks to the transitioner having internalised a metric fuckton of misogyny.

To me the internalisation of misogyny is a very major component of this issue, whereas DH's idea of what constitutes the issue appears to be the fact that the kids have come up with a new ruleset that's fucking up the revoltingly misogynistic game DH likes to play.

Why should Hayton have to acknowledge that? Lots of people don't believe that, including man who have serious concerns about gender ideology.

There isn't some kind of list of things to be believed that people need to check every box in order to be ok. I'd be pretty pissed off if random people thought that about my views and no one else should have to submit to that either.

@Goosefoot

Why should Hayton have to acknowledge that? Lots of people don't believe that, including man who have serious concerns about gender ideology.

There isn't some kind of list of things to be believed that people need to check every box in order to be ok. I'd be pretty pissed off if random people thought that about my views and no one else should have to submit to that either.

Can't understand what you are addressing with this statement and question.

It was an example; my point is that the issue DH has noticed clearly isn't quite the same as the issues women have noticed.

DH is a self-confessed AGP, remember. AGP is definitely one of the issues we have noticed; DH has not (to my knowledge) acknowledged anything problematic about AGP. If you can't see the inherent misogyny of it, some research may be in order.

The fact that lots of men are in denial about the implications of the pornification of woman in the west is besides the point, really.

Many men become concerned when they realise there could be real impacts on their mums or wives or daughters.

I don't really see people telling them off for starting from self-interest.

The opposite to telling them off I think, many people encourage men to take an interest in the issue using that as the motivator.

I think it is a valid question to ask why the Times would chose an AGP male to mansplain on the matter of the harassment of women by men.

Not chose, choose.

I got into this out of self interest too. I'd be surprised if there are many people who didn't.

I am tired of purity tests. Whatever Hayton's agenda, I think the content of that particular article was helpful to women and that's the only test I'm interested in.

It’s a bit naive to equate the self interest of an ambitious man to the self interest of preserving the rights of women.