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] * **

AnyOldPrion The timing struck me as well. I've noticed that in a number of interviews about transition. All the mothers I know have been pretty focussed on ensuring stability and support to children doing exams and the fathers significantly less so.

Is it possible for some the husband feel they are getting insufficient attention? And it's a massive 'look at me, me, me'

Is it possible for some that they know their wives will accept a lot to ensure continued stability of the family for the sake of their children?

• Is it possible for some the husband feel they are getting insufficient attention? And it's a massive 'look at me, me, me'

Is it possible for some that they know their wives will accept a lot to ensure continued stability of the family for the sake of their children?*

Yes, and yes.

@AnyOldPrion

Things that struck me:

Firstly the timing. This is not the first time I’ve heard of a man deciding the right time to transition is just as their children were about to start important exams. Can’t speak for all women, but there’s no way I would be so selfish as to hide something for forty years AND THEN DECIDE TO ANNOUNCE IT WHEN MY CHILDREN WERE ENTERING ONE OF THE MOST IMPORTANT THINGS THEY WILL DO IN SHAPING THEIR LIVES.

Second: How many times did he pretend he was thinking about his wife, but then demonstrate that he’d lied?

“I won’t do it because you’re more important“
... waits for Stephanie to say, “oh no dear, you must!”
...that reaction is not forthcoming “I’m going to anyway.”

“I’ll leave if that’s what you want,”
“I’d like you to leave now.”
“Not going to.”

This part of the relationship was unequivocally abusive. Both parties recognise that. And it may have returned to some kind of stability for now, but the issues that caused it are not resolved.

Having been in a long-term abusive marriage, I know very well that there can be long periods of relief. You know somewhere deep inside that it isn’t properly equal and your husband doesn’t really have the respect for you that you deserve, but it’s not actively negative at the time, and so you stay.

But it’s never genuine happiness. You’re living with compromise. Never completely yourself. There were long periods when I felt my ex was my best friend. But eventually it reared its head and he did more damage to my children and my relationship with my children.

And they express regret for the abuse, but do they ever really address it? I hoped my ex would get psychological help because he knew his actions were abusive... but he never has. Because for all he says he recognises that abusiveness, he doesn’t really believe he needs to change. He makes all the right noises too. Abusers are masters of deceit.

I hope Stephanie finds the strength to take some time, put herself first, and work out what’s best for her, now she no longer feels the need to protect her children.

Great post

@TinselAngel

I know it's bad form to say that I told you so, but I don't care.

I hope this makes some women listen more to trans widows.

Keep saying it. I'm guilty of thinking DH speaking out was a benefit to when I first starting hearing about the conflicting between women's rights and tw demands. It didn't occur to me DH had a wife. The Stella O'Malley interview was a shock, (although I'd reaching the point of being pissed off that DH happily took up space to speak about women's rights instead of letting women speak long before that interview.)

Cognitive dissonance is a real thing. DH may well know exactly what the problem is, while also being unable to step out of those patterns personally.

Is it possible for some that they know their wives will accept a lot to ensure continued stability of the family for the sake of their children

Interesting. Makes me think of the research on how domestic abuse often escalates during and towards the end of pregnancy, and one of the dynamics thought to be at play is awareness, conscious or not, that the female partner is much more likely to maintain the family stability at all costs. A responsible parent would be doing everything they could to maintain stability through the child's vulnerable time; if only one parent is behaving responsibly and trying to compensate for the other one then it seems very likely that it would make them even less likely to withdraw their presence, support, separate the households, regardless of what is dropped on them.

Oxyiz

Cognitive dissonance is a real thing. DH may well know exactly what the problem is, while also being unable to step out of those patterns personally.

It’s not a case of DH recognising the behaviours but being unable to stop them, it’s a case of him recognising the behaviours that are of benefit to him and choosing to actively continue them. He admits himself that he was a shit, but he also admits that he wanted his cake and to eat it, wanted his transition and his home and family life as well. He acted in the way that he did because it was what he wanted, and he knew that he could keep pushing his wife’s boundaries without consequence. He said himself that when he met opposition he would push harder. Where else would we see women told that it wasn’t abuse for a man to ignore a no and to push harder? His wife’s first and most important priority was to keep the family together and make sure the DC were ok and he knew that, and instead of making it easier on his family he actively and consciously chose to push harder and harder, and now the only time we hear from his wife is with him by her side, where he can direct the narrative and manipulate it to make it look as if he is the victim and she is the unfortunate wife caught in the crossfire.

None of this was accidental on DH’s part. You can’t destroy your marriage, your wife’s life and plunge your family into that amount of turmoil without realising it. If DH had actually given even the tiniest of fucks how his wife and DC felt he wouldn’t have done the things that he now openly admits to, and he wouldn’t be openly admitting to them unless yet again, he could see some benefit to his doing so.

There is a big difference between being unwittingly cruel then realising your mistake and trying to atone for it, and actively being cruel and continuing even when you know the cost to other people. DH could still choose to leave if he wanted. he knows his wife misses being in a relationship with a man and that it’s a great grief to her yet he still chooses to stay. he knows the DC have all flown the nest now so staying together for the DC is no longer necessary yet he still chooses to stay. In short, he knows his presence is depriving his wife of something that she grieves for the loss of but he still chooses not to relieve her of the responsibility he has placed on her. That is not unwitting cruelty, that is conscious and calculated abuse.

Cognitive dissonance is a real thing. DH may well know exactly what the problem is, while also being unable to step out of those patterns personally.

But someone who genuinely acknowledges what they have done, and is genuinely contrite, would take whatever action was necessary to work out how to stop. That might obviously involve getting outside help with any psychological problems from your childhood that you are harbouring.

How many of these men actually go and ask for help unless they are forced into it? Lundy Bancroft suggests that he only sees men who were required to get help, either because they were given an ultimatum by their partner, or by the courts.

Bancroft also mentions how such men often give many reasons as to why they behave in these ways that harm their partners and families: they're often very good at it, it's misdirected rage left over from a troubled childhood, she represents his mother, he has anger issues.... Bancroft notes that when unpicked, this is never the bottom line. The man is usually perfectly capable of managing their anger and behaviour when it suits them to do so, for example when to display it would put their job at risk. He states that males treat their partners in this way for two reasons: they feel entitled to do so, and they successfully get away with it. The behaviour works very nicely for them.

Thanks Michelle. I had to stop what I was writing to deal with something, but I absolutely agree. My point was that these men don’t have any genuine interest in changing. They may say they do, just as they create plausible lies about other things, but they don’t.

One of the things I was really struck by was both Stephanie and Debbie talking quite a lot about Debbie's poor mental health when transitioning, while Stephanie was waking up in the morning thinking, "Can I make it to 11am?" for quite some time but neither seem to really name the impact that Debbie's transitioning had/has on Stephanie's mental health.

It's interesting that Stephanie has chosen now to do a longer interview in public (she was very moving in the Stella Mc documentary). Her youngest child has just gone to university and maybe this gives her some time and space to process her own experience, rather than help her husband and children process theirs.

In short, he knows his presence is depriving his wife of something that she grieves for the loss of but he still chooses not to relieve her of the responsibility he has placed on her. That is not unwitting cruelty, that is conscious and calculated abuse.

Brutal, but accurate summary.

@Whatisthisfuckery

Oxyiz

Cognitive dissonance is a real thing. DH may well know exactly what the problem is, while also being unable to step out of those patterns personally.

It’s not a case of DH recognising the behaviours but being unable to stop them, it’s a case of him recognising the behaviours that are of benefit to him and choosing to actively continue them. He admits himself that he was a shit, but he also admits that he wanted his cake and to eat it, wanted his transition and his home and family life as well. He acted in the way that he did because it was what he wanted, and he knew that he could keep pushing his wife’s boundaries without consequence. He said himself that when he met opposition he would push harder. Where else would we see women told that it wasn’t abuse for a man to ignore a no and to push harder? His wife’s first and most important priority was to keep the family together and make sure the DC were ok and he knew that, and instead of making it easier on his family he actively and consciously chose to push harder and harder, and now the only time we hear from his wife is with him by her side, where he can direct the narrative and manipulate it to make it look as if he is the victim and she is the unfortunate wife caught in the crossfire.

None of this was accidental on DH’s part. You can’t destroy your marriage, your wife’s life and plunge your family into that amount of turmoil without realising it. If DH had actually given even the tiniest of fucks how his wife and DC felt he wouldn’t have done the things that he now openly admits to, and he wouldn’t be openly admitting to them unless yet again, he could see some benefit to his doing so.

There is a big difference between being unwittingly cruel then realising your mistake and trying to atone for it, and actively being cruel and continuing even when you know the cost to other people. DH could still choose to leave if he wanted. he knows his wife misses being in a relationship with a man and that it’s a great grief to her yet he still chooses to stay. he knows the DC have all flown the nest now so staying together for the DC is no longer necessary yet he still chooses to stay. In short, he knows his presence is depriving his wife of something that she grieves for the loss of but he still chooses not to relieve her of the responsibility he has placed on her. That is not unwitting cruelty, that is conscious and calculated abuse.

This is such a good post.

I’d add that all of this is not just what DH is doing to Stephanie; DH is also telling all gender criticals all of this. All these small admissions bring made.

Add to that the admission made a while back of being an autogynophile.

DH is grooming all of us.
This cannot be emphasised enough.

Second: How many times did he pretend he was thinking about his wife, but then demonstrate that he’d lied?

“I won’t do it because you’re more important“
... waits for Stephanie to say, “oh no dear, you must!”
...that reaction is not forthcoming “I’m going to anyway.”

“I’ll leave if that’s what you want,”
“I’d like you to leave now.”
“Not going to.”

This part of the relationship was unequivocally abusive.

This interview, to my mind, is very revealing. Maybe a lot more than Debbie meant it to be.

My question is still that whilst writing columns, being interviewed, and quoted as campaigning for women to be recognised as a sex in their own right, and to have protection in their own spaces, is Debbie still determined to have their cake and eat it, by accessing those spaces himself for some reason?

Because, according to this interview, respecting boundaries doesn't seem to be something that Debbie has done, to date.

Stephanie was waking up in the morning thinking, "Can I make it to 11am?" for quite some time

I thought that part of the interview was particularly upsetting. 6 weeks to 2 months just trying to keep going. The impact on Stephanie of this was huge, and in the end she gets to be friends with the person who put her through it.

@Datun

Second: How many times did he pretend he was thinking about his wife, but then demonstrate that he’d lied?

“I won’t do it because you’re more important“
... waits for Stephanie to say, “oh no dear, you must!”
...that reaction is not forthcoming “I’m going to anyway.”

“I’ll leave if that’s what you want,”
“I’d like you to leave now.”
“Not going to.”

This part of the relationship was unequivocally abusive.

This interview, to my mind, is very revealing. Maybe a lot more than Debbie meant it to be.

My question is still that whilst writing columns, being interviewed, and quoted as campaigning for women to be recognised as a sex in their own right, and to have protection in their own spaces, is Debbie still determined to have their cake and eat it, by accessing those spaces himself for some reason?

Because, according to this interview, respecting boundaries doesn't seem to be something that Debbie has done, to date.

Concern for women's rights and respect for women's boundaries begins at home, surely?

Yes Datun we all know that the biggest indicator of a person’s future behaviour is their past behaviour, so if we take into consideration Dh’s treatment of his wife and family, plus his ongoing avoidance in addressing the NASUWT guidance he helped to write, I think the question above is pretty comprehensively answered.

I’ve only really known about Debbie from twitter basically. And in the context of disagreeing with the TRAs.. this has opened my eyes up to them a lot and really, he’s not any different to the rest is he? I’m thankful that there is a prominent trans voice against the craziness but it seems he’s a bit of a twat too really. It disgusts me that he didn’t leave when asked to and when he said he would of asked, twice. I feel for Stephanie and she’s a grown woman and able to make her own choices but I feel like she has given up her entire life for one mans mental health issues. And it seems he still isn’t taking on some of that strain for her, even though he knows she’s struggling. I feel a bit sick if I’m honest.

Debbie Hayton has always just been out to bat for Debbie Hayton. Even speaking out for women in the trans debate isn't actually for women. Hayton is protecting Hayton, not least from the backlash if it comes.

Until recently I would have only used the polite adjectives "stunning and brave" in respect of Debbie Hayton and Kellie Maloney. Now I also apply them to Phillip Schofield. Behind every male with a tortured identity lies a very strong woman. This interview has increased my admiration for Stephanie - her children are very lucky to have such a tremendous mother.

I felt really sorry for Stephanie and also for Debbie.

The thing that struck me was wondering how much staying together was a default or a choice.

The interviewer asks "And so you guys obviously you decided to stay married and I wonder, and I want to address this question to Stephanie first. Was this kind of like a default choice or was this an active choice on your part where you're like, 'I want to keep the family together'. Did you get to a place where you were like, 'Okay, I'm good with the marriage again, despite those rocky years during transition where I was kind of the glue holding it together'. How did you come down on staying together?"

Stephanie replied "I've been thinking about this quite a bit over the last few days since knowing this was coming up. If I'm honest, it was a default position, but it was a default position that I actively chose, that I did want, if I could hold the family together then I wanted to do that. Obviously now, we're in a situation where all three children will have left home in a couple of days’ time. And so it just raises the question again, 'Well, is that still the default position?' and for me it is yes. It has been a rocky road, but there is an awful lot of shared history now, which is important to me, and we're looking ahead longer now one point. As I said, at one point, I said, 'Can I get through the next three hours?' whereas now we're looking ahead and saying, well five years’ time, 10 years’ time, 20 years’ time, what will it be like? So we can see ahead further into the future."

I just don't really understand how much was a default and how much was a choice but I really wish Stephanie all the very best. And I guess, by default, that must mean I wish Debbie all the very best too. (Actually, I do).

I don't think any woman (or man) ever needs to stay in an unhappy marriage but I can see why Stephanie stayed initially. I guess I just hope she continues to stay only if it really is right for her.

thirdfiddle "Two things that struck me strongly.

I found it quite chilling listening to Stephanie talking about the early stages of her marriage and referring to her then husband as Debbie. That felt like someone having been totally gaslighted (gaslit?)."

I honestly think when you start to talk about someone with a new name it is kind of second nature to use that name even going backwards and speaking about them in the past when that name didn't apply.

So I agree, yes, "Maybe it just comes naturally when you are still close to someone under a different name."

Relevant thread:

www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/3452784-Coercive-Control-a-need-for-better-awareness

I don't think any woman (or man) ever needs to stay in an unhappy marriage but I can see why Stephanie stayed initially. I guess I just hope she continues to stay only if it really is right for her

I so totally agree.

Stephanie is well-blessed with grace. I wish her the strength to do what is right for her. I also wish her peace with her decision.