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] * **

@AnotherLass - plenty of abusers regret their abuse. It doesn't meant they're not abusers.

" I think over the years, because Debbie and I have been discussing these issues that actually I know there are some areas where Debbie is actually thought, 'Oh, yes, okay. I've been thinking this and now Stephanie is saying something different, maybe I need to consider Stephanie's point of view as well.'"

This is not a marriage of equals. Occasionally, now, after many years, Debbie may concede Stephanie has a valid viewpoint. May

Gosh that was a tough read.

DH is a clear voice on some of the current issues but the reality of Stephanie's situation is gut wrenching. I'd like to hear more of her voice tbh.

Debbie is calling themself a transsexual, having made a distinction between transvestite and transsexual. But Debbie is a fully paid up, self confessed AGP. That's transvestism, not transsexualism.

I confess I only read Stephanie's bits - does DH make the distinction in this interview? Vaguely curious about how on earth they're defining transsexualism, given that what's usually understood by the term doesn't preclude the presence of AGP.

@TyroBurningDownTheCloset

Debbie is calling themself a transsexual, having made a distinction between transvestite and transsexual. But Debbie is a fully paid up, self confessed AGP. That's transvestism, not transsexualism.

I confess I only read Stephanie's bits - does DH make the distinction in this interview? Vaguely curious about how on earth they're defining transsexualism, given that what's usually understood by the term doesn't preclude the presence of AGP.

This Tyro:

There were transsexuals and transvestites, and they came across as two different groups. The former were pitied really were transsexuals, that something dreadful had clearly happened to these people. Whereas the transvestites at a time were objects of ridicule.

What's your take?

[quote Clymene]@AnotherLass - plenty of abusers regret their abuse. It doesn't meant they're not abusers.

" I think over the years, because Debbie and I have been discussing these issues that actually I know there are some areas where Debbie is actually thought, 'Oh, yes, okay. I've been thinking this and now Stephanie is saying something different, maybe I need to consider Stephanie's point of view as well.'"

This is not a marriage of equals. Occasionally, now, after many years, Debbie may concede Stephanie has a valid viewpoint. May [/quote]
This.

"I do remember back in - I'm some trying to remember now - in about 2010 just thinking that life was really, really good. I was very, very happy with my family life, I was very happy in my marriage. I enjoyed the work that I was doing and almost life couldn't get any better."

And then bam, and "you don't get any say in this AND I refuse to leave".
And then the gaslighting and suggestions that your sexuality might have changed because your husband is going through something. Adam's rib, eh?
What a headfuck. I think the way society now treats these women is sick, actually.

Stephanie

That was a harder read than expected.

I read Stephanie's words first and then DH's as I have heard the latter's accounts many times in different ways, so I wanted to hear another view.

The dynamic is unfortunately the same as I have read from other accounts of this.

It is always the same. It is how the whole movement works. Those who have experienced it keep pointing it out.

@RozWatching

"I do remember back in - I'm some trying to remember now - in about 2010 just thinking that life was really, really good. I was very, very happy with my family life, I was very happy in my marriage. I enjoyed the work that I was doing and almost life couldn't get any better."

And then bam, and "you don't get any say in this AND I refuse to leave".
And then the gaslighting and suggestions that your sexuality might have changed because your husband is going through something. Adam's rib, eh?
What a headfuck. I think the way society now treats these women is sick, actually.

Stephanie

It is. These women are mostly victims of negatively unequal relationships at best, and awful abuse at worst.

Which currently seems to have been given some kind of sheen, which obscures who the victim is.

The sexual aspect, which is pivotal, never seems to be mentioned.

Debbie, certainly, has managed to never mention it, despite being a self-confessed autogynephile.

Gosh, what a lot of work S did in all this, taking care of the children, telling their teachers, thinking through the effects on circles of family and friends... could anything be more gendered?

Datun I see a rough equivalence with Blanchard's description of hsts and agp - the former got the 'born this way' sympathy whereas the latter were viewed as choosing to be sexual deviants. Either would qualify for the descriptor 'transsexual' if they were presenting as the opposite sex full time; transvestism is more equivalent to Buncean fluidity. It's part-time, not full-time.

DH is a heterosexual-transsexual who admits being sexually motivated. I think we like to kid ourselves that homosexual-transsexuals aren't sexually motivated at all, which doesn't hold up to the slightest scrutiny: the traditional hsts wants to have m/f sex with themselves taking the f role. The heterosexual-transsexual wants f/f sex (usually) again with themselves taking an f role.

The common factor between the two is not wanting to have sex with their own (male) body. Which is the sort of mindset that doesn't develop without the aid of some shitty experiences that do warrant a bit of sympathy.

But the main reason transsexuals and transvestites were viewed so differently is because people intuitively understood that full-time cross-dressing and declarations of not being male were indicators of a whacking great dollop of internalised homophobia in a same-sex-attracted male, whereas transvestites are usually straight and happy about it.

DH is being disingenuous trying to occupy the same conceptual space as old-school homosexual-transsexuals. It's an attempt to garner sympathy, nothing more. It might work on many women, but it doesn't work on those of us who've always been troubled by the practice of inverting the invert (as it were).

Tangentially related, just thinking about the kiddliwinks - has the phrase 'internalised heterophobia' been coined yet? Because I'd lay money that that's a factor among the cohort of young females identifying as gay men; and my ex's agp is very much rooted in his fear of becoming and need to neutralise the thing that hurt him (his father's typically male expression of heterosexual behaviour).

@TyroBurningDownTheCloset

Datun I see a rough equivalence with Blanchard's description of hsts and agp - the former got the 'born this way' sympathy whereas the latter were viewed as choosing to be sexual deviants. Either would qualify for the descriptor 'transsexual' if they were presenting as the opposite sex full time; transvestism is more equivalent to Buncean fluidity. It's part-time, not full-time.

DH is a heterosexual-transsexual who admits being sexually motivated. I think we like to kid ourselves that homosexual-transsexuals aren't sexually motivated at all, which doesn't hold up to the slightest scrutiny: the traditional hsts wants to have m/f sex with themselves taking the f role. The heterosexual-transsexual wants f/f sex (usually) again with themselves taking an f role.

The common factor between the two is not wanting to have sex with their own (male) body. Which is the sort of mindset that doesn't develop without the aid of some shitty experiences that do warrant a bit of sympathy.

But the main reason transsexuals and transvestites were viewed so differently is because people intuitively understood that full-time cross-dressing and declarations of not being male were indicators of a whacking great dollop of internalised homophobia in a same-sex-attracted male, whereas transvestites are usually straight and happy about it.

DH is being disingenuous trying to occupy the same conceptual space as old-school homosexual-transsexuals. It's an attempt to garner sympathy, nothing more. It might work on many women, but it doesn't work on those of us who've always been troubled by the practice of inverting the invert (as it were).

Tangentially related, just thinking about the kiddliwinks - has the phrase 'internalised heterophobia' been coined yet? Because I'd lay money that that's a factor among the cohort of young females identifying as gay men; and my ex's agp is very much rooted in his fear of becoming and need to neutralise the thing that hurt him (his father's typically male expression of heterosexual behaviour).

Yeah, and I think even Blanchard said it's all sexually motivated.

However, I do think many people have a sort of two tier system. And one is more acceptable than the other.

Which sometimes makes it a little more difficult when the empathy factor is employed.

Personally, I see Debbie as admitting it's a sexual motivation, but then trying to sanitise it for the sake of their, I don't know, career? Reputation? Internal sense of pride maybe.

Not a two-tier system, Datun, but a system with two axes, I think.

There's the 'mental distress' factor - the obviously euphoric got a lot less traction than those who are obviously in a lot of mental distress. By stripping this as a requirement for trans status we're left just with the sexual threat factor.

This is mostly about orientation. If we read the individual as gay-adjacent that taps into existing sympathy for an oppressed group and at the same time lowers our defenses. We are not, could never be, the recipient of a homosexual male's sexual interest, yet we know in our bones that heterosexual males always present a degree of risk; we're always on the alert for problematic sexual expression from them in a way we often aren't around males we perceive as gay.

I find it interesting, too, that we see the opposite reaction among men. They shrug at the behaviour of males they perceive to be female-attracted; they're far more perturbed by the behaviour of those they read as male-attracted. It's a lot easier to feel sympathy for someone we perceive as presenting negligible sexual threat.

Dysphoric heterosexual-transsexuals might have had some traumatic experiences, but they still represent a potential sexual threat because they're female-attracted. And euphoric heterosexual-transsexuals are the most threatening, because they have both the means and the motive. DH doesn't draw repeated attention to the sexual motivation because to do so would allow women to see him clearly for what he is: a highly sexually motivated heterosexual male who pisses all over women's boundaries, and thus a high threat.

I really feel for Stephanie. I know I can never know for sure what I would do in someone else's shoes but I found myself reading that and wondering what I would do and I'm 99% sure I would ask DH to leave if he announced he was transitioning.

Debbie is pretty damn honest

Did you read what I read? Did you see the words of the woman whom Hayton lied to, whom Hayton told would leave if she asked and then refused? Did you read a transcript of an interview where Hayton sat in the same room while she was finally given the smallest of platforms for her voice, and where Hayton got another opportunity to regale rapt listeners with Haytonself, and be 'the first transgender guest'?

Hayton is pretty damn 'honest', sure. Anyone paying the slightest attention will see Hayton for exactly who Hayton is.

Solidarity, Stephanie. You've done very brave and hard things to keep your family together. But you are worth so much more than where you are. I really, really hope you get there.

that was very hard to listen to. Stephanie has no privacy to make any decisions (partly because DH has been so public). The interview itself is a coercive situation. She can refer to the terrible treatment she has had but she is required to accept it (by fear obligation guilt) and to make a declaration that that 'friendship' with DH is more important than all those hurts and damages and compromises. Terrible

@AnotherLass

"That is a woman in an abusive relationship."

God I really hate some of what is on this board.

Debbie has said that she regrets the selfish way she acted when she was transitioning. Loads of people behave badly when they're going through a bad time. It doesn't mean that they are evil people.

Debbie is pretty damn honest about what she is, and if Stephanie thinks that Debbie is her best friend then maybe she knows more about her situation than you do, who have read one interview?

I agree entirely. The projection going on here is appalling.

There was a difficult period in their relationship and they got through it. Stephanie comes across as a strong and thoughtful person. Both she and Debbie had/have safe well paid careers so it's not as if Stephanie was tied financially to Debbie- she could have walked away if she wanted.

You (general you) don't want the reputation of being transphobic- well have a look at yourselves. And that is aside from the patronising assumptions that you (general you) know far more about what is best for Stephanie than Stephanie does.

For any women who are still labouring under the delusion that DH is a friend to women: He promised his wife he would leave if she asked. She asked him to leave and he refused. If he won’t leave, even after promising his wife, his best friend, that he would, what makes you think he would leave a female only space if asked?

I really would like an answer to that question.

@WhereAreWeNow

I really feel for Stephanie. I know I can never know for sure what I would do in someone else's shoes but I found myself reading that and wondering what I would do and I'm 99% sure I would ask DH to leave if he announced he was transitioning.

Yes. She did though dudn't she? And he said no

One thing I have learned from listening to transwidows is how their voices are drowned out by those of their husbands.

I listened to this interview to hear Stephanie's voice. I was struck how Stephanie (and the children) are very much bit players in the Debbie story. Stephanie's wants, needs and desires were of no interest to Debbie then and they aren't of much interest moe.

It is not transphobic to have concern for the women and children whose lives have been thrown into complete chaos when their husband and father finds their authentic self. When Debbie is such a loud voice in gender critical feminism, I think we have a duty to listen to the woman whose voice is seldom heard.

I came to my conclusion by listening to this interview. I wonder whether either you @DidoLamenting or @AnotherLass actually read/ listened to the interview?

Nah, don't need to "look at myself" thanks. I've spent enough of my life dealing with narcissistic and mentally ill people. They drain and they drain and they drain. Its not transphobic to see Stephanie being exhausted and drained by the whole dynamic, and to hear the misery in her words.

Imagine the husband had become anorexic or something suddenly and it became his whole life, altering everything and making their whole lives revolve around it - you wouldn't think it was anorexphobic to say "Christ, what a miserable life for his partner".

She could have thrown Debbie out. She could have left with the kids. It's quite obvious that Stephanie is a strong woman who holds her own in life. She has chosen to stay with Debbie despite debbie's mental illness for the show of her family. It's a valid choice and it appears to have worked out well for them. They seem good together

*sake not show

@Clymene

One thing I have learned from listening to transwidows is how their voices are drowned out by those of their husbands.

I listened to this interview to hear Stephanie's voice. I was struck how Stephanie (and the children) are very much bit players in the Debbie story. Stephanie's wants, needs and desires were of no interest to Debbie then and they aren't of much interest moe.

It is not transphobic to have concern for the women and children whose lives have been thrown into complete chaos when their husband and father finds their authentic self. When Debbie is such a loud voice in gender critical feminism, I think we have a duty to listen to the woman whose voice is seldom heard.

I came to my conclusion by listening to this interview. I wonder whether either you @DidoLamenting or @AnotherLass actually read/ listened to the interview?

I read the whole interview. Stephanie has given her side of it. There seems to me to be a lot of projection going on here rather than listening to what Stephanie is saying.

I feel for SH, she hasn't had space to think how she feels about it all. She's put supporting her children first and foremost.

In terms of DH, I found this bit shocking.

once you were referred into the system, that all took place very, very quickly. Within 4 months, I'd decided that I was you know, I was going to transition, and I had to transition. And dates were set and they kept coming forwards, and I remember one consultation with a specialist psychiatrist saying that I was going to transition at Christmas, and I'd never been out the house in female role and she looked at me very quizzically and said, 'Well, you know, you've got some work to do here' and it really starting from a standing start.

I can't work out what the specialists are thinking. DH had a date set for "transition" yet had never been out of the house in "the female role".

How does that work? How can anyone become sure they need to transition if they have never tried it at all?

Then later on DH comes to understand that they aren't a woman trapped in a male body, so I wonder what the whole thing was about.

@JKRowlingforever

She could have thrown Debbie out. She could have left with the kids. It's quite obvious that Stephanie is a strong woman who holds her own in life. She has chosen to stay with Debbie despite debbie's mental illness for the show of her family. It's a valid choice and it appears to have worked out well for them. They seem good together

I agree. I think there is infantilisation going on here of Stephanie which is not warranted.