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

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.

TinselAngel wrote an incredibly powerful piece about that. uncommongroundmedia.com/which-side-are-you-on-girls-trans-widows/

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

He has indeed stated that.

Try reading R0wantrees post, yesterday at 11.00, in the context of a male teacher with AGP 'playing a key role' in the formulation of the schools' guidance.

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.

You realise that people don't choose to have these kinds of fetishes? It's rather bad luck to get stuck with one in fact.

I don't know that I think they are inherently misogynistic either, though the way people are being encouraged to interpret them is. Does that disqualify me from having a view? Writing an article? One of the things that I think is interesting about DH has been to see an increasing understanding of AGP as the source of dysphoria, from a personal perspective. I'm not sure if there is any other well known personality who has talked about that publicly at all.

DH isn't writing on behalf of women, but rather trans people, particularly transwomen. The Times may give too much voice to transwomen I suppose though I haven't noticed that to be particularly the case, and I read it every day. I don't think it's reasonable to say they should have no voice, especially in a newspaper that regularly talks about the issue. There are lots of articles by women saying that this is a problem in that publication.

If a transwoman wrote an article in the Times saying, women are stupid about complaining about all this and need to be quiet, everyone here would complain. It is not a bad thing when a transwoman says no, actually I think women have a point, and by the way this isn't good for us trans people either. In fact it's not uncommon for people here to say that more need to stand up and say these things.

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 believe Hayton has changed views on toilets etc. Which is allowed. So have many people.

I also would say there are very large numbers of women who are on the side of women's rights who have a variety of views about pronoun usage. I'm not sure why that's considered a purity test either.

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

The literature on AGP doesn't say that people who have it transition so they can be involved in a sexual fetish at all times.

This idea seems to be expressed a lot here and I think it's a misunderstanding of what Blanchard described. Which is that persons with AGP begin to experience dysphoria in everyday life as a result of the AGP, and the transition is meant to help resolve the dysphoria. Not be a constant fetishistic sexual activity.

I believe Hayton has changed views on toilets etc. Which is allowed. So have many people.

I wasn't aware of that. Can you link to it?

I believe Hayton has changed views on toilets etc. Which is allowed. So have many people.

Good. Agreed everyone is allowed to change their minds. Most of us have been on a journey.

I also would say there are very large numbers of women who are on the side of women's rights who have a variety of views about pronoun usage.

Agree on this too. Everyone should have freedom of choice of speech. However pronoun guidance and forced apologies - as detailed in the NASUWT guidance - equates to compelled speech in the workplace, and is unacceptable.

I wasn't aware of that. Can you link to it?

I'm not aware of that either.

I'm usually involved in these threads but found it quite cathartic to write 1700 words on the subject. I haven't got much to add to that at the moment.

uncommongroundmedia.com/which-side-are-you-on-girls-trans-widows/

You realise that people don't choose to have these kinds of fetishes

Um, I take it you missed those threads where we analysed the sociocultural origins of the fetish? I was heavily involved and making the case that these fetishes are an emergent feature of the sociocultural context, that individuals can't be blamed for having absorbed the revolting messages championed by society, and that I do not judge AGPs for having acquired the fetish but rather for refusing to accept that the maintenance of this fetish is actively harmful to women.

I'm still on excellent terms with the AGP ex because he actually changed his mind when the underlying misogyny of reducing women to sexual objects to be inhabited was explained to him. That's the bit DH hasn't done.

As for Blanchard, while he talks a lot of sense, it's important to account for his cognitive bias. He didn't see any harm in allowing men to parody womanhood for sexual kicks either, because he is a product of his society and so it didn't occur to him to consider it from anything other than the dominant male-supremacist angle. I do not blame him for this; but again, I hold him to account for not acknowledging the harms to women when they're pointed out repeatedly.

You are of course not disqualified from having a view, but I'm aware that our views don't necessarily align on the subject of how the mechanisms of women's oppression are maintained and propagated, so I wouldn't expect us to agree.

My analysis of AGP isn't a "gender critical" one. It's a radical feminist one, informed both by the available literature and by personal experience. You don't actually have to subscribe to radical feminist analysis to express an opinion here, you know?

One of the things that I think is interesting about DH has been to see an increasing understanding of AGP as the source of dysphoria, from a personal perspective

Dr Hayton acknowledged his autogynephilia some time ago however the potential impact on others & discussion appears to have been minimised/ controlled /limited.
I'm unsure why someone male who claims to acknowledge the reality of their sex travels on a passport which states female sex.

Quilette February 2, 2020
'I May Have Gender Dysphoria. But I Still Prefer to Base My Life on Biology, Not Fantasy'
written by Debbie Hayton
(extract)
"Autogynephilia drove my own transsexualism. And I can attest that there is huge mental dissonance built up in the brain of a male who somehow is heterosexually attracted to their own body. This paradox can have a devastating effect on one’s mental health. I also can attest that the process of gender reassignment can help alleviate that dissonance. My critique of gender ideology should in no way be interpreted as an argument to deny such therapies to males such as myself.

Rather than protect the emotional fragility of people who don’t want to investigate the nature of their autogynephilia, a better strategy would be to simply demystify and destigmatize autogynephilia itself (much as we have demystified and destigmatized any number of victimless paraphilias), while also ensuring that therapies are available for trans adults who understand the attendant medical ramifications. We should not need to pretend that we are women (to ourselves or anyone else) in order to find relief from gender dysphoria.

Cross-dressing—or transvestism as it once was called—is more common than some imagine: A 2005 study in the Journal of Sex and Marital Therapy found that almost three percent of Swedish men reported at least one episode of transvestic fetishism. Of course, this is not the same as being transgender. But since autogynephilia is associated with both the need to dress in women’s clothes and feminize one’s body, we can never fully demarcate the two. (Thus, an old joke in the community about transitioners who start out as occasional cross-dressers: “What’s the difference between a transvestite and a transsexual? About five years.”) (continues)

quillette.com/2020/02/02/i-may-have-gender-dysphoria-but-i-still-prefer-to-base-my-life-on-biology-not-fantasy/

thread:
www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/3812773-Impressive-new-article-by-Debbie-Hayton

a better strategy would be to simply demystify and destigmatize autogynephilia itself (much as we have demystified and destigmatized any number of victimless paraphilias)

It's not victimless. And he must know that. Just take a look at the transwidows threads. It's far from victimless.

Forcing people to collude in your fetish is making every single one of those people a victim of it.

My critique of gender ideology should in no way be interpreted as an argument to deny such therapies to males such as myself.

I think we act against our own interests when we forget that this is DH's stated position.

a better strategy would be to simply demystify and destigmatize autogynephilia itself

While I agree with the need to demystify, I fear DH is not going to like the result. Because when you destigmatise it and we all start having an open and honest conversation about it, it rapidly becomes apparent that male transsexuals are no different to other males when it comes to acknowledging that their construction of reality is deeply sexist.

I dare say it would benefit DH if stigma were reduced amongst men, but women tend to be horrified when we realise just what a warped idea of womanhood they've managed to acquire.

It's not victimless. And he must know that. Just take a look at the transwidows threads. It's far from victimless.

Forcing people to collude in your fetish is making every single one of those people a victim of it.

This is the heart of the matter.

Also I suspect the thing that DH would like to destigmatise is the label AGP, because the fact we're all aware of it is detrimental to DH's quiet enjoyment of DH's sexually-titillating hobby.

If we started routinely referring to DH&co as fetishistic crossdressers I fear we'd meet rather a lot of resistance.

Frankly I feel like a victim of Hayton's fetish and I've never even met Hayton IRL.

Also I suspect the thing that DH would like to destigmatise is the label AGP, because the fact we're all aware of it is detrimental to DH's quiet enjoyment of DH's sexually-titillating hobby.

There's a word for what's happening there, but we're apparently not allowed to say it without being deleted. Starts with "g".

Most of the larger problem of AGP for others comes out of this idea that somehow, it is possible to actually become a woman, and that others, including spouses, ought to believe that and live happily with it and that it should have legal force.

Were we not in a weird alternate reality about this, much of the harm would be reduced. I suspect that marriages still would often not survive, but marriage breakdown is often an outcome of significant mental illnesses or problems that necessitate a whole-scale change in living conditions. The bigger harm is in having to say, this is just fine, there is no problem here. And actually I think it harms the patient as well, to be told that they are effecting something real, rather than a coping device with real social consequences for themselves and others.

I'm not generally very convinced about theoretical breakdowns of the origins of fetishes. I think the mechanism for their development is mainly biological or physiological, and I don't think we know much about why one guy sees a rubber wet suit hanging on a line one day and fixates on it, or why the most common fetishes are foot related. I suspect AGP might relate to voyeristic/exhibitionist fetishes, but that's just my own intuition. A radical analysis has to be rooted in the material and there isn't enough information about this for a strong theory.

I agree Blanchard is blinkered about the larger effects of gender transition on women, I suspect it's because his focus is clinical and the patient. I don't think that says anything about his description of dysphoria as arising from AGP rather than the direct exaction of a fetish.

In any case - most of the posts objecting here seem to be objecting to Hayton speaking for women, but I don't see how that's the conclusion. Hayton is speaking as Hayton, or maybe as a transwoman. It doesn't make any sense to say, you can't have a male with AGP speak for transwomen's experience or POV.

I wasn't aware of that. Can you link to it?

It was something in a thread about a month ago, maybe two?

I'll have a look, I'm not great as searching this forum though.

Thanks, Goosefoot. Would be good to see it.

In any case - most of the posts objecting here seem to be objecting to Hayton speaking for women, but I don't see how that's the conclusion. Hayton is speaking as Hayton, or maybe as a transwoman. It doesn't make any sense to say, you can't have a male with AGP speak for transwomen's experience or POV.

It shouldn't be much of a surprise in a feminism & women's rights space to find women objecting to men using women's actions to gain a platform for themselves or using women's work for their own benefit.

It's not victimless. And he must know that. Just take a look at the transwidows threads. It's far from victimless.

The overlap with abuse dynamics/ coercive control patterns is very significant. It is the women & children who are frequently the primary victims to a men's paraphilia so rooted in narcissism.

From Trans Widows' Voices website,

'Philomena's Story: There and Back Again.'
(extract)
"He did not help at all with the kids but he did not interfere with my slightly off-the-beaten path parenting. I took his passive disdain for support and thought it was balance enough. Looking back I was so very lonely and exhausted. I've often longed to retroactively shake some sense into the sad stupor of that young mother.

After my third child, he sank into a deep depression and was in bed for months. He began to dress as a woman almost every evening. Or, I should say, what he considered to be a woman. It was not my idea of womanhood. In fact, his version offended me. It was degrading and violent. He clearly thought being a woman meant wanting to be raped and tortured. I told him wearing strap-ons was very sore on my c-section scar, my "turn" being tied up frightened and hurt me, I expressed my preference for gentle, nurturing sex. He told me complaining was very manipulative and selfish and that I was trying to stifle his womanhood. He said I couldn't handle him being a woman because I was jealous, that it wasn't his fault that he wasn't fat and I was ,that I was barely a woman at all but more like a wizened balloon. I tried to avoid it all after that and focus on the children." (continues)
www.transwidowsvoices.org/post/philomena-s-story-there-and-back-again

I'm still on excellent terms with the AGP ex because he actually changed his mind when the underlying misogyny of reducing women to sexual objects to be inhabited was explained to him. That's the bit DH hasn't done.

Uncommon Ground Media
Deconstructing the “Good Transwomen”
May 6, 2020
by Jennifer Bilek

(extract)
"Autogynephilia is a male sexual fetish of precisely desiring to see oneself as a woman. What makes it a fetish, beyond it being aside the realm of “normal” or “average” sexual desire toward another, is its obsessive quality, which Hayton acknowledges, and its focus on objectification. A fetish entails a fixation on a particular object for sexual gratification. Men who develop a fetish of “signaling sex as women” must first objectify women and womanhood. To embody – as a fetish – the opposite sex, one must first dissociate from their own body. This is what sexism does and this is what transgenderism does. It dissociates. It disembodies and objectifies women.

In their interview, Boyce and Hayton discuss the social shame in this particular sexual proclivity and how it contrasts with the LGBT pride marches and events. They both, absentmindedly, conflate transgenderism with same-sex attraction/relations – or at least discuss them as if they were closely related. But same-sex desire/relations are not an obsession, they do not indicate dissociation or encourage it, they are not a fetish and do not inherently objectify anyone. Transgenderism on the other hand, is brilliantly deconstructed at its roots, by Dr. Em, in a recent article, as a social construct whose evolutionary roots are in sexism – objectification. Hayton seems to understand this – or at least he gets close. He says his “identity” as “trans” at this point is a compromise with society. He is not sure how to navigate his desire for objectifying women or “passing” because if he “passes,” even if it makes him feel good, he wonders if he’s lying to society. He is. He also understands, at least now, that transgenderism, is palliative. Speaking with Boyce, he weighs the cost to himself and his family over the course of his life and wonders if it’s worth it.

What Hayton does not consider is the cost to society. These men, “identifying as women,” “passing as women,” surgery or no surgery, with an understanding of their situation or not, are still objectifying women. It is astonishing that they can get so close to grasping it, how destructive it is in society, eloquently describe it to others, and still be unwilling to part with it. They still call themselves “transwomen.” They don’t just like lipstick and skirts. We’re not talking Boy George or Prince here. They want to “signal sex as women signal sex.” They want to hold onto their obsession with this objectification of women no matter the cost to women in the real world, which is precisely how so many men behave." (continues)
uncommongroundmedia.com/deconstructing-the-good-transwomen/

Articles by Dr Em referred to above:

'Sexist History at the Heart of the ‘Science’ on Transsexualism, Part I: Benjamin, Ihlenfeld, Money & Ehrhardt'
uncommongroundmedia.com/sexist-science-transsexualism-part-i-benjamin-ihlenfeld-money-ehrhardt/

'Sexist History at the Heart of the ‘Science’ on Transsexualism, Part II: Robert Stoller, True Trans'
uncommongroundmedia.com/robert-stoller-true-trans/

30 Jan 2020
Benjamin Boyce interview with Dr Hayton referenced:

In any case - most of the posts objecting here seem to be objecting to Hayton speaking for women, but I don't see how that's the conclusion.

Hayton doesn't align himself with transactivists. He alights himself with the women opposing transactivism. In order to separate himself from the activists who he, quite openly, says are ruining things for him.

He's not speaking for women, no. He is speaking to women. And he appears to be leveraging their analysis of the trans ideology and their campaigning for their own rights, as a means to make a distinction between himself and other transactivists.

Thanks for throwing those links in, R0.

Bilek's article, I didn't read it and have a lightbulb moment. I read it and thought "Well thank fuck someone else actually gets this, because I intuitively grasped this when I was still a child and it has been bloody lonely waiting for everyone else to catch on." I'd love to share a pint and a rant with her one day!

I can't remember offhand whether it was on this thread or a different one, but someone was suggesting we should be exploring where fetish comes from and what the biological roots are instead of castigating AGPs.

The thing is, a fetish is an obsessional sexual interest in an object.

The AGP reduces women - who are people, ffs - to objects. The chief difference between this and your average porn-addled straight bloke is that the latter wants to dominate the object whereas the AGP wants to become the object.

This is really not on a par with eg shagging bicycles.

Has anybody found evidence that Dr Hayton no longer stands by that NASUWT guidance yet?