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] * **

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

Such a disgusting comment. All that chance at learning and he still can't see past his rank misogyny.

I can’t get over that comment, either.

Fucking hell. Who would say such a thing?

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.

Beautifully and clearly explained. Yes. Exactly. With the presumption that this resource primarily belongs to males who will allow females the use of the bits of it they don't currently require.

Like the careful examining of the safety and needs of TW entering the female estate but the zero impact assessment on the females being used for this purpose, the inequality, the dehumanisation and the overwhelming sexism is there in plain sight. And it's at the heart of this agenda, which makes me ever more determined. Females are a group in their own right, not a resource or a subordinate group, and this is the line that must be respected. Male needs should be met by male estates.

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.

It is shocking. There's a persistent idea that Dr Barrett and other gender identity specialists are gatekeepers who can and will protect women. In the Jones case Barrett's only concern was the patient's commitment to cross-dressing and their ability to tolerate 'difficult women'. Never mind the fact that Jones was a convicted murderer and attempted rapist.

KeepPrisonsSingleSex

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.

This. We're just a utility. And it's so ingrained to treat us thus, the people doing it don't even notice.

The idea that women in prison make a fuss because they thrive on conflict is written by someone who has no idea about how women survive in high risk situations that they can't control and can't leave.

It makes me think they also wouldn't understand survival sex, or coercion.

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."

What does this even mean?

That if Jones can stop himself from attacking 'uncivilised' expendable women, in prison, then it might confidently demonstrate that he could refrain from attacking women outside prison?

Are they really treating female inmates as some kind of horrific experiment, where if they emerge unscathed from exposure to a violent sex offender, he gets a treat?

For anyone who is unaware of Jones' crimes, you can read about them here: http://transcrimeuk.com/2017/10/30/karen-lawson/

Jones claimed that they punched a woman in the face, shoved a lemon into her mouth and raped her as a way of getting back into prison to have gender reassignment. Jones was 21 at the time and just been released after killing their partner.

The only women who would ever object to sharing space with Jones are those who enjoy conflict.

And I'm not sure why there was that snarky face in my last post KPSS! My apologies. I am incapable of using emojis. I accidentally sent my plumber a ❤️ recently

It strikes me that with this ideology, there must be a distinction between the sexes so that one can become the other.

At the same time, there must no distinction between the sexes so that one can become the other.

Prisons illustrate this contradiction rather well.

Yes.

Women of that sort...

The male centric language there is boggling.

If Jones is able to cope with proximity -

What the female people can 'cope' with appears to be of no interest to anyone, nor what their abilities might be after Jones has finished demonstrating his inability to cope with their enforced proximity to Jones by attacking them.

*Jones' inability to cope, obvs.

Apologies, jumping language constantly through hoops is extremely hard to do.

Are they really treating female inmates as some kind of horrific experiment, where if they emerge unscathed from exposure to a violent sex offender, he gets a treat?

On release Jones was invited to the House of Lords.

27th February 2018 Daily Mail
"EXCLUSIVE: Transgender activist jailed for killing her boyfriend and trying to rape shop assistant five days after being released from prison is invited to speak at HOUSE OF LORDS
Karen Jones is a transgender activist who was born as a man called Mark Jones
Ms Jones, 34, from Leeds, was convicted of manslaughter after strangling her partner
Five days after being released in 2002, Jones brutally assaulted a female shop assistant after gagging her mouth with a lemon and trying to rape her
She was invited to launch a review on transgender people in the criminal justice system in the House of Lords" (continues)
(image from article)
www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-5440153/Trans-convict-invited-speak-House-Lords.html

previous threads:
www.mumsnet.com/Talk/am_i_being_unreasonable/3180059-To-think-if-youve-killed-raped-women-we-dont-give-a-flying-fuck-what-you-think-on-any-given-matter

www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/3192486-Lord-Patel-Karen-Jones-thread-anyone-want-to-go-to-House-of-Lords-to-talk-to-Lord-Patel

I’m still chewing over James Barrett’s lofty proclamations.

We’re often accused of “nutpicking”, meaning that we supposedly pick the outliers from this movement to illustrate the points we’re trying to make, and roundly admonished for so doing because they’re “not typical” or “not representative” or whatever. But Barratt is speaking here as a professional, a clinician, someone who we are to presume has expertise in the field, and he’s talking about women as disposable, slightly objectionable props to be utilised in a rapists quest for self actualisation, with no thought for what is best for them.

Blimey. It explains a lot.

There's a persistent idea that Dr Barrett and other gender identity specialists are gatekeepers who can and will protect women

The male doctors who are described as gatekeepers of the desired surgeries and/or hormones tasked their male patients with using female spaces whilst performing sexist stereotypes & provided them with permission letters in case of challenge.

These (mostly) male doctors actually assumed the role of gatekeepers to female single sex spaces & proceeded to open them up to their male patients, some of whom were known to be driven by paraphillias.

These (mostly) male doctors actually assumed the role of gatekeepers to female single sex spaces & proceeded to open them up to their male patients, some of whom were known to be driven by paraphillias.

I can’t imagine any circumstances at all where it’s ok for women to be locked up with autogynephiles.

I can’t imagine any circumstances at all where it’s ok for women to be locked up with autogynephiles.

I suppose if one views this paraphilia as being the sum total that 'woman' actually is, then it is not a problem. And neither is anything else.

@KeepPrisonsSingleSex

I can’t imagine any circumstances at all where it’s ok for women to be locked up with autogynephiles.

I suppose if one views this paraphilia as being the sum total that 'woman' actually is, then it is not a problem. And neither is anything else.

It does make the question of whether someone genuinely believes themselves to be trans or is just pretending somewhat irrelevant.

I suppose if one views this paraphilia as being the sum total that 'woman' actually is, then it is not a problem. And neither is anything else.

Article by Genevieve Gluck published yesterday by Graham Linehan,
'Sissy porn, the gender movement's dirty secret
Pornography’s Influence on Transgenderism and The Proliferation of Sissy Hypno on Social Media'
(ends)

"Recent studies have shown that pornography can hijack the brain’s dopamine reward center. As pornography results in sharp bursts of dopamine, the brain develops tolerance to the content, requiring more shocking media to elicit the same thrill. As a result, pornography can lead to sexual dysfunctions and depression. In addition, there is some research to suggest that consuming pornography can lead to body dysmorphic disorder (BDD), and in particular, penis dysmorphia among men. Given that gender dysphoria is a type of BDD that is characterized by unease with primary and secondary sexual characteristics, it follows that pornography can distort self-perception and reasonably be assumed to induce gender dysphoria, rather than simply drawing out a pre-existing condition.

It used to be taken as undisputed fact that the media we consume can shape our minds and behavior. Yet, as our lives become ever more media-saturated, our ability to think critically about its impact on identity and selfhood have been constrained and often reduced to individual, rather than societal, observations. We must therefore consider the recent extreme popularity of claiming a transgender identity as connected to the tremendous rise in online streaming pornography and its accessibility. The phenomenon and trend is too great to ignore."
grahamlinehan.substack.com/p/sissy-porn-the-gender-movements-dirty

@RozWatching

YY Oxyiz it's a bit "I piss on your boundaries", isn't it.

That article . Offensive on so many levels. Who decided that this person is an ally to women? Why? I don't get it.

I haven't read the full thread but thought it opportune to remind people we already spoke about this in this thread.

Glad to see many more catching on

www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/3605090-Boundaries-and-Allies

But mainly I think It's just not strategic (and it is unkind...which is not a good strategy either). Fully accepting with open arms post op transexuals, is a virtually cost free concession in the "land grab" which is well underway (and not just in theory).

I disagree. Treating men who have surgeries as women is neither kind nor progressive. Women and 'eunuchs' - really?!

A177 - that's not a position that we would support as being in the best interests of women in prison, based on the large body of evidence concerning their needs.

It is also not a position that is supported in law. The EA single-sex exceptions permit ALL MALES, including those with protected characteristic gender reassignment, to be excluded from single-sex spaces for women.

Here I note that the EA defines 'woman' in terms of sex. I also note that the GRA provides legal mechanisms to enable individuals to obtain legal recognition of acquired gender. There is no assumption that individuals have thereby changed sex and provisions within the GRA that permit individuals to be treated as members of the sex that they remain, notwithstanding legal recognition of acquired gender, makes that clear.

I think you’re thinking of Mary Whitehouse there, Al, not Barbara Woodhouse.

Unless you’re not making a point about women here being pearl clutching prudes, and are actually making a rather more obscure one around assertive dog training.