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

@Floisme

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 has also peak-transed several men as evidenced in the comments as well as people who are coming to this for the first time. That's what interests me.

My issue is that DH’s message is contradictory. Yes he states TWAM but the union guidelines he helped create state compelled speech and single sex facilities based on gender. Exactly what I am
against.

@ThinEndoftheWedge

My issue is that DH’s message is contradictory. Yes he states TWAM but the union guidelines he helped create state compelled speech and single sex facilities based on gender. Exactly what I am against.

Most people who read the article and were introduced to the problems for the first time do not know this. I certainly didn't. If they get deeper into the subject, they can pick apart DH's past and present life and what he has done and said in the past. For now, I'm just glad they have been introduced.

^^ I should add, I certainly didn't, and I've been around these parts of almost two years.
We can't expect newbies to immediately know everything and be aware of all the nuances. For a start, it's just important that they know what is going on.

I'm another who dislikes the purity test. Has DH had a road to Damascus conversion? Probably not. Is it annoying that The Times hired a TW instead of a female writer? Definitely.

But this article covers the issues we are concerned about, brings them to new audiences for the first time and, as much as we hate to admit it, being written by a TW probably makes men more likely to consider it.

I agree DH has been helpful about vocalising differences in thought within the transgender community and comes across well in the media. However criticising clear hypocrisy over advocating compelled pronouns/gender based single sex facilities at work (which is discussed greatly on this forum) is not about the purity test - it’s about being clear where we protect the rights of women and girls.

I don't think I'm naive but I'm pragmatic and I want to win this. I also dislike authoritarianism and purity, no matter what direction it comes from.

I don't expect everyone who speaks out to have the same agenda or to be a friend. But if they write something that's helpful - and I've still only seen one criticism of the content of that article - then I appreciate it.

I don't think not wanting DH to constantly be handed national media platforms is a "purity test". He is a profiteer of women surrendering our rights. FGS he has desires to run Stonewall. His inclusion in this debate is to secure his position as a transexual and some attachment to women's rights because, as Long puts it, he's had a meaningful transition.

Also it's the very fact that time and time again these men are seeking to be centred and elevated as leaders in their debate. Same old man thing, innit?

*in this debate

That is exactly what I mean about purity tests. Nothing that Hayton is or does changes the content of that article.

That is exactly what I mean about purity tests. Nothing that Hayton is or does changes the content of that article.

Agreed. However if there is simultaneous advocating of compelled speech and access to single sex facilities based on gender, this does change the context of DH.

E.g if I am a vocal vegan advocate - it’s not a purity test to say you then can’t promote bacon sandwiches.

If DH has updated opinions on this - I would be very happy to hear. Many of us have been on a journey with this.

However if there is simultaneous advocating of compelled speech and access to single sex facilities based on gender, this does change the context of DH.
I can't see anything in the article about that. The only objections I can see to the article itself is that the writer isn't the right kind of writer.
It's going for the player when we should be watching the ball.

Anyway I'm getting bored of hearing myself so I'm off.

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

Except that for most of us the self interest is for our group, for women, even those we consider too militant. Whereas for DH the self interest is for DH himself.

He says so quite clearly. He presents himself completely disingenuously. His narrative is along the lines of: I know I'm male, I like it when people use feminine pronouns for me but I'm not bothered if they use sex-accurate pronouns, 'cos see I'm so nice and reasonable that women will let me in, but those nasty extremist TRAs are spoiling it for me.

So, while I'm glad he speaks up and peaks others, I don't think he is in any way an advocate for women's rights.

Everyone is entitled to express their views. It is helpful that there are a range of views within the trans movement and that it is not all TWAW.

It is irking that a TW gets Times column inches when articulate women don't, but better to have these views published. It is not acceptable to give greater weight to views expressed by a man than by a woman.

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.

Agreed. I particularly object to a person who openly admits that they have AGP being presented as the voice of reason in the debate about what rights women need and should be allowed to maintain when other males with AGP don't want us to.

Nothing that Hayton is or does changes the content of that article.

Hypocrisy, when brought to light, can undermine the good a person says. Can cause people to reject every piece of advice and revert to doing what benefits them personally.

You could test that with a recent scenario of similar public gross hypocrisy. Where an architect of a national policy told the nation what we must all do, and why. And we complied, for the greater good. Putting what was right for others, above ourselves as an individual. Then the hypocrite was discovered to have made himself a special exception to the rules, placing others at immense risk. Not just those immediately impacted by his personal actions. But on a larger scale, because all those who observed his hypocrisy and then copied him, chose to abandon rules designed to protect other people. Placed their own convenience above risk to others.

I shrug mostly, when people I disagree with gain a platform in the national press, and I assume that many readers merely glance over the article, ignoring the name of the writer. Perhaps the article changes minds for the good. Maybe it's still net progress. I can accept that.

But I won't judge women in a feminist forum for critiquing a man writing about what rights we ought or ought not to have and whether those rights should or should not extend to us being allowed to refuse to comply with his expectations.

Perhaps he's had a change of heart from when he was on here arguing his right to be in a changing room with my naked daughter superceded her right to space away from him.
If he has, he's never popped back to apologise for making women fight him on this, and for forcing them to loudly and angrily defend their daughters' right to privacy from him.

Ultimately, he's just yet another man invited to wax lyrical on women's rights in place of a woman who should have done so instead.

*No 'misgendering' in this post. Hayton has long since granted women permission to use male pronouns for him, and has declared "TW are Men" so this post breaks no guidelines.

The only objections I can see to the article itself is that the writer isn't the right kind of writer.

I think you must have missed my initial objection then!

The article itself, viewed separately from its author? Pretty useful for bringing a bit of sunlight to new audiences; damages women by casting feminists - the group agitating for decent safeguarding and the respect of sexual boundaries - as extremists.

It's a subtle effect of DH's word choices; whether it was deliberate or not, I view it as unhelpful misrepresentation.

Doesn't help that DH then casts DHself as the voice of reason in this debate. DH is not the voice of reason; DH is and always was part of the problem.

Disingenuous writer throwing a bit of shade at us, in other words.

The language used to describe the dickheads who've been going after JKR doesn't help us either. It takes an almost comic tone. Where is the seriousness? The language of the article does little to convey the severity of the abuse and harassment women face over this issue; in fact it minimises it by its use of jokey hyperbolic language.

That article does not take women's issues seriously. It takes DH's issue (the kiddies' squabbling interfering with the hobby) seriously.

I haven't watched all that clip, but much as I sympathise with DH struggles with mental health, it's still no reason why DH should be in a changing room with naked girls or women. And it's not a reason why any other transwoman should be either.

Why should women and girls give up their privacy to a accommodate males' mental health issues? Why is this seen as reasonable?

Shall we simply accept that females have no agency at all in modern society? Because that is what we are being asked to do.

Women do not exist to provide balm to the wounded male psyche. If Debbie has changed Debbie's mind about that then Debbie should be putting it front and center in every article, rather than angling for a "well some of us are different and should be allowed in" conclusion to the debate.

Sorry, I should have found words to post alongisde the link.

If you continue watching you'll see Debbie's wife being interviewed.

I've said it once and I'll say it again, how can anyone watch Hayton's wife on that clip and not see how traumatised and abused she is. Every time he's promoted we send the message to trans widows, and children of these narcs, that we don't care one iota about their suffering. I refuse to be on the opposite side to those women, I will not do it. I will always speak out against this shitty women hating narrative.

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

Really? That's depressing.

I got into it when I was still a kid, back in the nineties, out of compassion for my fellow humans. I'm still not clear on how anyone can be aware of the existence of HSTS people without being blown away by the staggering societal homophobia their condition is testament to.

DH has been a useful voice I guess but I too find the interview when his wife is present uncomfortable
He has stated that AGP is the reason for transition but then that raises issues for me that he is happily including children in his fetishtic parody of woman