Debbie and Stephanie Hayton interview transcript

[Clymene]

I thought the women of FWR might be interested in the interview that Debbie and Stephanie did with the Straight Spouse Network podcast this week.

It explains quite a lot about Stephanie's demeanour in their interview with Stella O'Malley for her documentary.

* [edited by MNHQ - broken link removed] * **

My request to be housed in the female estate would be based on my sex characteristics

This is a very muddled sentence, Debbie.

Particularly when juxtaposed with this

feelings are a poor reason for breaking that policy

It may well be that you feel that you have female sex characteristics, and I’ve no doubt this is a deeply and sincerely held belief, but that doesn’t make it a fact.

It was an astonishingly poorly judged tweet, but it’s not that that worries me- it’s the fact that it speaks to the underlying thought process. The logical outcome of letting some male bodies into women’s spaces because of their beliefs about themselves, can only ever end with letting all male bodies into those spaces, because of the impossibility of an external arbitration of how sincerely held those beliefs are. It’s logically consistent, and it’s why women are so concerned about this. Mixed sex everything; prisons, sports, groups.

I had previously surmised that your interest in drawing a line was to draw it behind yourself such that you could continue to access such spaces and considerations as you were used to, but this statement calls that into doubt, with its utter disregard of what women may want.

Take the penis off a male, inject some synthetic hormones and they still display typical male behaviors and entitlement.

Debbie is proof of that. Males -no matter what body modifications they have done to themselves- must not be allowed in female spaces, especially where vulnerable females may be trapped, like prisons.
Shocking that this has to be said.

This.

My request to be housed in the female estate would be based on my sex characteristics.

Males modifying their sex characteristics doesn't give them female sex characteristics.

This is just women not being considered actual human beings again.

We are real you know. Female sex characteristics have evolved to do a specific job. Modifying male characteristics has got nothing to do with that.

We're not just props, for goodness sake. Something to emulate to legitimise an inner feeling.

We're real humans. With the same status and legitimacy as male humans.

Brava, Datun. Well said.

“Female” is another of those words that is in the process of being severed from its actual meaning.

Who does that benefit?

feelings are a poor reason for breaking that policy

I thought feelings were a valid reason for creating law that benefited the wants of men when it suits them even if this goes against material reality.

Silly me, its just women who aren't allowed valid feelings but then given the above mentioned interview this attitude isn't anything new, and just highlights the underlying privilege and view of women being less important.

Very revealing that comment.

My request to be housed in the female estate would be based on my sex characteristics. Flesh and blood is more important than feelings – or even legal paperwork – when housing prisoners.

DNA is contained in flesh and blood. Why are we being told here that you can a) change sex physically (you can't) especially when saying in the next breath that the legal paperwork doesn't matter (and its a legal fiction anyway b) this is actively gaslighting us because your blood and flesh remains firmly either XX or XY and this is your sex.

Your sex characteristics are not determined by artificial hormone nor plastic surgery.

Suggesting otherwise is nonsense.

Prison doctors have refused to allow post-op MTF to be admitted into male prisons because of safety concerns long before the 2016 policy. But I wonder if that approach is still tenable?

The 'approach' is indefensible by anyone who is genuinely concerned for women's dignity, safety and human rights.
The responsibility to manage vulnerable male prisoners should have always remained with the male prison estate. Male prisons have vulnerable wings specifically for the purpose of housing prisoners who are assessed as being at risk of harm for whatever reason. Many male prisoners have vulnerabilities.
The emerging evidence of abuse of women by male prisoners who have a GRC and/or have had cosmetic surgeries demonstrates the failure of Duty of Care by the Ministry of Justice towards female prisoners.
Kate Coleman from campaign group 'Keep Prisons Single Sex' in a recent interview with Graham Linehan provided an excellent summary of the issues,

Website: www.keep-prisons-single-sex.org.uk/these-are-not-our-crimes

As an aside, I am concerned that a secondary school science teacher would claim (erroneously) that their male body altered by cosmetic surgery and/or medication had 'female sex characteristics'. Female sexual characteristics are the vagina, uterus, fallopian tubes, clitoris, cervix, and the ability to bear children, breasts, ability to nurse children, a menstrual cycle, and increased body fat composition. These are sex specific for the purpose of reproduction.
Human development and reproduction being important parts of the science as well as PSHE curriculum.

She does not strike me as narcissist, just in the powerful grip of a paraphilia.

You say that as if it is somehow better Al77

When someone shows you who they are, believe them.

Again: there are other ways to support TW in prisons without having to remove female only facilities from females. It doesn't have to be a zero sum game.

The aim really of talking about the hardships of a TW facing either a specialist unit a long way from home - agreed, a very significant issue for any prisoner - or 'taking their chances among the men' (which would obviously be in a wing for vulnerable prisoners because that's what the wings are for; DH is not going to find themselves dropped in a category A corridor) has one purpose. Which is to raise enough sympathy to force women to say oh go on then, we'll put female needs and issues aside and make it better for you.

As Datun says, as every mail always says Debbie, despite the fact that you are always able to explain civilly, kindly, without threats or violence, it's still always about females as an entire group being lesser and primarily there to meet your needs. There is never respect for them as equals.

There do need to be better, proper ways of supporting the 'widening bandwidth' of male people. No arguments there, I fully support it. (Actually I support it for female prisoners too, not that anyone ever mentions them.) But the mention of expecting a choice of provisions available to male prisoners shows a great deal - it is still choice. It's still the male preference involved right there, with the voice and the feelings of the male being expected to be considered. The male has options. What choice is being envisaged as offered to the females in this situation if a male prisoner chooses the option of their facilities?

You have publicly disclosed that the motive for your transition is a sexual paraphilia that objectifies and dehumanises women. You have publicly disclosed an extended period during which you were a perpetrator of domestic abuse. You have also professed a respect for biological reality and yet you refer to silicone chest implants and cosmetic penile inversion as female secondary sex characteristics. In what world do you think you would be suitable for a women's prison, were you to commit a custodial offence? This is a shocking post. Any feminist organisation still giving you the time of day should hang its head in shame.

Thanks to everyone who has contacted me about the recent posts about prisons on this thread.

We saw Dr Hayton's tweets about mixed sex prisons and tweeted our response at the time. We disagree with Dr Hayton's decision to simply delete the tweets as we think there are better ways to express that, upon reflection, you have moved to a different position that expresses the change in thinking that has taken place.

Dr Hayton's modified position is only reasonable if the female prison estate is seen as a resource that the male estate can legitimately draw upon as and when required. As others have said here, this goes hand in hand with the belief that the very reality of 'woman' is something that males are legitimately entitled to draw upon as a resource as and when required. That this is something that males can inhabit (according to criteria established by those males).

No. Just no. The female prison estate exists as something wholly separate. For women. To meet their needs. Not the needs of men. Men have their own prison estate. The prison service can draw upon those resources to ensure that ALL male prisoners are kept safe and secure.

Whenever anyone suggests housing ANY type of male in the female prison estate, always ask yourself the question: in whose interests is this?

The answer will NEVER be that it is in the interests of any of the 3,800 female offenders currently in prison.

If a policy fundamentally changing the nature of the female prison estate does not improve the conditions of the women held there, we need to ask why it is proposed.

If a policy fundamentally changing the nature of the female prison estate is actually AGAINST the interests of female offenders, it should be rejected.

"No is a word that must never be negotiated, because the person who chooses not to hear it is trying to control you." - Gavin DeBecker, The Gift of Fear.

Whenever anyone suggests housing ANY type of male in the female prison estate, always ask yourself the question: in whose interests is this?

The answer will NEVER be that it is in the interests of any of the 3,800 female offenders currently in prison.

If a policy fundamentally changing the nature of the female prison estate does not improve the conditions of the women held there, we need to ask why it is proposed.

If a policy fundamentally changing the nature of the female prison estate is actually AGAINST the interests of female offenders, it should be rejected.

This. Great response, and thank you for all your work on this important issue

I second the recommendation to watch the interview with Graham Linehan where Kate Coleman lays everything out very clearly.

Where do these people think transmen should be housed, is the thing that gets me. They're obviously at risk in the male estate. They're obviously entitled to being housed in the female estate due to being female. So if transmen belong with women, why do transwomen belong with women also? Is it a man / non-man binary now? proper human beings and then the rest?

'. . . never, ever relent on the issue of "no," because it sets the stage for more efforts to control. If you let someone talk you out of the word "no," you might as well wear a sign that reads "You are in charge."'

'Forced teaming is an effective way to establish premature trust because a we're-in-the-same-boat attitude is hard to rebuff without feeling rude. The simple defense for forced teaming, which is to make a clear refusal to accept the concept of partnership: "I did not ask for your help and I do not want it." Like many of the best defenses, this one has the cost of appearing rude.'

'When people are telling the truth, they don't feel doubted, so they don't feel the need for additional support in the form of details. When people lie, however, even if what they say sounds credible to you, it doesn't sound credible to them, so they keep talking.'

'The predatory criminal generously offers assistance but is always calculating the debt. The defense is to bring two rarely remembered facts into consciousness: He approached me, and I didn't ask for any help.'

• The Gift of Fear.

No is not the beginning of a negotiation, DH. No means no.

Women who post on FWR are no doubt very aware that the majority of women in prison have been subjected to male violence, abuse and/or coercive control prior to their sentence. This trauma, in many cases, will contribute to their vulnerabilities.
That heterosexual men with paraphillias who may have perpetrated abuse and/or coercive control against their wives/partners and children prior to their sentence could be housed within the female estate should be unthinkable to anyone concerned with Safeguarding.

'Keep Prisons Single Sex' website
(extract)
"There are strong links between women’s acquisitive crime, for example theft and benefit fraud, and their need to provide for their children. These links are considerably less likely in the case of male acquisitive crime. Coercion is also an important factor in female crime: almost 50% of women committed their offence to support the drug use of someone else, usually their male partner. This compares to under a quarter of men.

As a group, women in prison are very different from men in prison. Women are more vulnerable, they are more likely to have experienced violence and abuse, often since childhood. They are more likely to have mental health problems and more likely to self-harm and commit suicide. For example:
• Over 30% of female prisoners report a history of sexual abuse, compared with 10% of male prisoners.

• Almost 60% of women reported experiencing domestic violence.

• There is a high prevalence of traumatic brain injury amongst female prisoners (65%). The majority of these injuries were caused by a male partner.

• Almost 50% of female prisoners have mental health problems compared with under 20% of male prisoners.

• Whilst women make up 5% of the prison population, around 25% of self-harm incidences occur in the female estate. The rate of self-harm incidents per individual is also higher for women (6.4 incidents per self-harming individual) than for men (3.0 incidents per self-harming individual)." (continues)
www.keep-prisons-single-sex.org.uk/women-in-prison

Prison doctors have refused to allow post-op MTF to be admitted into male prisons because of safety concerns long before the 2016 policy. But I wonder if that approach is still tenable?

Where? Which prison doctors?
You say it's safety concerns - it can't be, given the utter disregard these Drs have for women's safety and dignity and the fact that surgery is not a criterion. "Post/pre-op" doesn't come into it (and there are many, many vulnerable male prisoners. It's frankly immoral to push this idea that undergoing some form of surgery should/could get you special treatment!!)

www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/3531873-Searching-for-expert-statement-re-male-prisoners-seeking-transition

R0wantrees wrote:

"It was also James Barrett who was the key expert supporting Karen Jones, the male prisoner who successfully appealed against the Home Office's refusal to transfer to female estate prior to both obtaining GRC and surgery.
This set an important precedent

2009
No apparent dicussion or assessment of impact on female prisoners except the following evidence from an expert in gender dysphoria, Dr James Barrett of the Gender Identity Clinic, Charing Cross Hospital, who had also known the Claimant for many years, explained why living in role in female accommodation was required:

"it will become clear that she is so widely accepted as female in that unit that location in the main prison will follow. I think that such acceptance will pretty generally apply in the main prison, also, although there will probably always be a small number of prisoners who will choose to make an issue of the matter because they are the sort of women who enjoy conflict. If this patient is able to cope with protracted close proximity women of that sort I would judge her able to cope with the less prolonged, more avoidable, travails of the civilian world."

www.bailii.org/cgi-bin/format.cgi?doc=/ew/cases/EWHC/Admin/2009/2220.html

@TinselAngel

She does not strike me as narcissist, just in the powerful grip of a paraphilia.

You say that as if it is somehow better Al77

Men with paraphilia are not women. Dr Hayton says that he is a male with AGP and doesn't mind male pronouns. I really don't understand why some feminists insist otherwise on his behalf(?)

As far as we are aware, neither the MoJ nor HMPPS has ever conducted an impact assessment on the effect on female prisoners of housing males with them.

Of course, the MoJ and HMPPS has made conducting any meaningful assessment of the impact of housing males in the female estate pretty much impossible because all males with a GRC stating that they have obtained legal recognition of acquired gender are recorded as women and only as women.

This means that this group of males is effectively hidden in the female estate. The MoJ is fully aware that the numbers of transgender prisoners they report does not reflect the true number.

This means that any negative impact on women is also hidden.

Again: whose interests does this policy serve?

Answer: not those of women in prison.

I think that such acceptance will pretty generally apply in the main prison, also, although there will probably always be a small number of prisoners who will choose to make an issue of the matter because they are the sort of women who enjoy conflict. If this patient is able to cope with protracted close proximity women of that sort I would judge her able to cope with the less prolonged, more avoidable, travails of the civilian world."

This comment by Dr James Barrett speaks volumes to the core atitudes toward women of many men (whether clinicians or patients) involved. That it was not challenged by either the judge or opposing counsel still shocks me.

Dr James Barrett is the Lead Clinician at Charing Cross GIC.

from GIC website:
(extracts)
The Gender Identity Clinic (GIC) is the largest and oldest gender clinic in the UK, dating back to 1966.

"Dr James Barrett is the Director the Gender Identity Clinic and also an Honorary Clinical Senior Lecturer at the Imperial College of Science and Medicine. He is the Editor and main psychiatric author of the standard United Kingdom textbook in this area and was the first, elected, President of the British Association of Gender Identity Specialists. Dr Barrett qualified with an Honours M.B.,B.S. Medical degree from the University of London and has an intercalated Bachelor’s degree in Pharmacology from the same institution. He trained at the Bethlem Royal and Maudsley Hospitals and obtained a Masters’ degree in Psychiatry from the Institute of Psychiatry (University of London). He was elected a Fellow of the Royal College of Psychiatrists in 2009. Although originally trained as a psychiatrist, Dr Barrett considers himself now to be best described as a Consultant in Adult Gender Dysphoria Medicine."

gic.nhs.uk/about-us/the-team/dr-james-barrett/

Yes.

Because they are the sort of women who enjoy conflict....

No woman would ever object to the presence of a biological man in a single sex facility unless they were the sort of woman who enjoys conflict ...

KeepPrisonsSingleSex - thank you for your tireless efforts to protect the most vulnerable women in society