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] * **

From a Christian perspective, I can see why staying together might seem the default position. I don't know anything about what denomination they're from, or how long she's been a Christian but I was brought up to place a huge importance on the sanctity of marriage & working passed any issues or mistakes if at all possible. I can see how someone might accept the initial revelation & hope it can be resolved quietly & then, having said they accept that, feel obliged to continue being supportive of a further small step, & another... until they've gone so far along the path that it seems more difficult to announce "actually, I'm not ok with this", so they stay because nothing "worse" has happened to pin it on. I can also see how someone might see it as part of the "in sickness & in health" part of the vows.

I'm not saying I agree with that. Personally, I have less tolerance for "making it work" than some people I know! I'm just saying, I can see how that might be someone's default position if they're approaching it from a Christian perspective.

I concur, Biology. Personally I think the issue of coercive abuse within Christian marriage is something to be highlighted and pushed back against, and I am full of respect for the Christisn women I know who do just that.

BiologyNotBigotry "From a Christian perspective, I can see why staying together might seem the default position. I don't know anything about what denomination they're from, or how long she's been a Christian but I was brought up to place a huge importance on the sanctity of marriage & working passed any issues or mistakes if at all possible."

She mentions being on the PCC ("A parochial church council (PCC) is the executive committee of a Church of England parish and consists of clergy and churchwardens of the parish, together with representatives of the laity.") This says she is part of an Anglican church and presumably quite involved to be on the PCC.

Anglicans can have quite varying views on marriage. Some almost like your traditional Roman Catholic view that it is for life, and others much more liberal. I am not a liberal Anglican but I am an Anglican and have a more liberal view on marriage.

I don't know but I wonder if the overriding factor was the fact that Debbie was suicidal.

"I can see how someone might accept the initial revelation & hope it can be resolved quietly & then, having said they accept that, feel obliged to continue being supportive of a further small step, & another... until they've gone so far along the path that it seems more difficult to announce "actually, I'm not ok with this", so they stay because nothing "worse" has happened to pin it on. I can also see how someone might see it as part of the "in sickness & in health" part of the vows.

For me the key things were not her being part of a church but more a desire to protect the children, I presume from the mental health issues of Debbie, and to protect Debbie from suicide - and to protect the children from that prospect.

Having a suicidal person in the family if terrifying. It is awful to worry that person will be successful and awful to worry about what impact that could have on the rest of the family.

I've drawn these conclusions from what Stephanie, and also Debbie, said about the situation.

Debbie: "It's hard to remember, it was sudden in me that it became overwhelming, but I can't remember a single specific issue in me. I remember telling Stephanie at one point that there was a big struggle inside me, but again at the time I don't think I realized just how profound it actually was. And then when I started talking, the more I talked about it, the more the compulsion grew. Grew exponentially the more I was talking about it and that increased the feedback on me. So it was it was just becoming totally out of hand couldn't cope."

Stephanie: "My priority was 'Let's keep the family together. Let's keep the children safe."

Stephanie: "I didn't really understand what was going on, but it was going on very fast. So there was confusion. That was some anger, but I responded by very strongly trying to hold it together. And I think you know with that with hindsight maybe I didn't process my own emotions as well as I could have done at the time, but we got through it. And it was holding it together and particularly when Debbie was going through this really quite bad mental health and actually there was a possibility that in a month's time, Debbie might have committed suicide. So I'm living with all of that at the time as well. And it was just, 'Well, let's keep it going for the children, let's hold it together, we're okay for now."

I could be wrong, it's just a hunch. The church does do a lot of potentially hurtful things but here I saw the church and school as a source of support.

Sorry BiologyNotBigotry I meant to answer your other point with my view! Not that my view is worth a whole lot but as a Christian I can see how church can sometimes encourage people to stay together. I have seen it but not done it to others.

"I can see how someone might accept the initial revelation & hope it can be resolved quietly & then, having said they accept that, feel obliged to continue being supportive of a further small step, & another... until they've gone so far along the path that it seems more difficult to announce "actually, I'm not ok with this", so they stay because nothing "worse" has happened to pin it on. I can also see how someone might see it as part of the "in sickness & in health" part of the vows."

I can 100% see this and totally agree. I think having supported a partner initially I would want the spouse to be able to say, actually I said this was OK so far but I didn't really feel it was OK, I just felt I had no choice! Or it was OK in the past but not now.

So I do totally agree with you.

Agree Italian and Biology. People are often terrified to leave partners threatening suicide or experiencing mental illness, and stay for fear of consequences or the judgement of others. Throw in having school age kids, the church, and the judgement of others backed by media messages on transphobia and the happy.rainbow family life you can have if you 'love enough' and you can see why she stayed. It always interests me that trans activists are keen to tell the world that gender dysphoria is NOT mental illness, does NOT require psychiatric diagnosis or treatment, and all distress will be relieved by allowing rapid transition. Yet the same people then highlight the mental illness aspect, even post transition and in Haytons case, acceptance and a successful life as that desired authentic true self. It rarely adds up. And of course keeps partners tied in. Stephanie Hayton has many pressures to stay. I feel sorry for her just as I would feel sorry for someone staying with an unrecovered addict or repeat cheater. That's not infantalizing: it's seeing the multiple pressures and feeling sorry that she has been treated so badly and put in this position. She has made major compromises for (it seems primarily) her family. The other Hayton has, as so often with late transitioners, made precisely, err, none

socialworker222 yes, I mostly agree although I feel Debbie has had her own pressures and stresses not necessarily of her own making. No one chooses mental illness..

It makes me very angry that people try and say gender dysphoria is not a mental illness. I am not a trans widow but have seen gender dysphoria up close.

I've also heard of churches who pressurised people to 'disassociate' (for want of s better word) from the ttans person.

But there are churches who are supportive and I don't think it's always one picture.

My friend is married to an alcoholic and is working out if she stays or goes. I hope she goes but it needs to be her choice. Another friend has s trans woman husband and, for now, seems to be staying.

Her choice, and probably for her (for many reasons) for the best. But she is finding her own form of dissociation. No young kids involved, so, so.much easier.

So many relationships are so hard.

If I had been in Stephanie's position at the time she was and without the information provided here by TinselAngel and other trans widows on the trans widows threads I would have almost certainly made the same decisions she did.

Thanks to this site if I ever found myself in the same position, despite loving my husband, I would file for divorce immediately. But this would be with the benefit of greater knowledge and with having had the experience of dealing with an alcoholic family member.

I think there is a strong culture of maintaining a marriage through adversity. It is hard to end a relationship even when it has been changed if it can fall back into some sort of equilibrium.

Someone I know had the terms of her marriage changed when her husband presented his case for an open relationship, where they remained married but he would have relationships outside that marriage. She loved this person very much, and believed he was going through a mental health crisis as he was behaving so much out of character. So she continued to support him as best she could, and he continued to breach her boundaries, bit by bit.

In the end she had to divorce him, not because she wanted to give up on the relationship, but because he was spending so much money that she had to do this to makes sure she kept the roof over their heads for the sake of the children.

Extract from the transcript:

Dr Hayton makes explicit the motivations for campaigning, "It seems to be the most polarized and toxic political debate I've ever known, but it's something which is personal to me. It was four years ago, the government in the UK decided that they wanted to change the law so that we'd move from a system where people can change their sex, their legal sex, that's the sex marked on your birth certificate, from needing a doctor's diagnosis and medical reports to basically being a free-for-all. At the time, I thought that was a bad idea because the credibility in the system came from those checks and balances.

So I started campaigning. I felt that this change would make trans people less secure in society, it would damage our position in society and basically make people trust us less I felt, so I didn't think it was a good idea. So I started campaigning on it and over the next year or so, I formed alliances with different people"

Dr Hayton then explains that he identified women's groups & those concerned with Safeguarding children as those he would make alliances with.

Relevant threads & articles:

Discussion of 'NASUWT Trans Equality in Schools and Colleges
Advice and Guidance for Teachers and Leaders' published 2017
At the front & end is acknowledgement,

"The NASUWT is very grateful to Dr Debbie Hayton (Teacher) for assisting in the development of this guidance."

www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/3938537-NASUWT-Trans-Equality-in-Schools

November 2018
Latter half of thread concerns apparent impact on Stephanie Hayton in interview with Stella O'Malley
www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/3430608-Stella-OMalley-Trans-Kids-Its-Time-To-Talk

June 2019 OP DancingRaven wrote:
"I came across a post on Twitter which included what appears as a screenshot from a WhatsApp conversation with a gender critical ally. The image is attached for reference.

It is so disappointing to see this, are women's boundaries just amusing to everyone? How can we work together when our sex based rights are just 'politics'?"
www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/3605090-Boundaries-and-Allies

February 2020 Quillette article by Dr Hayton:
'I May Have Gender Dysphoria. But I Still Prefer to Base My Life on Biology, Not Fantasy'
(extract)
"Autogynephilia drove my own transsexualism." (continues)

thread with link & discussion of article:
www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/3812773-Impressive-new-article-by-Debbie-Hayton

May 2020 Uncommon Ground article by Dr Em
'Forced Teaming, Feminism, LGB and ‘Trans Rights’
(extract)
"Neither feminism nor LGB rights are comfortable bed fellows with the men’s rights activism which emerged in the late sixties and early seventies in the form of transgenderism/transsexualism. This deliberate coupling of opposing ideologies is an example of wide-scale forced teaming.

Forced teaming is a term employed by those who work on abuse, grooming and predation. It was originally coined by Gavin De Becker in his work The Gift of Fear and is also used as a concept regarding criminal activity such as con-artists and romantic scamming. The predator will create the idea that there is a shared goal, or an attitude of we are all in this together, we are allies, in order to disarm, gain trust and manipulate his target. The social contract that most people have been educated or raised in – that we should try not to offend others, be polite, be accommodating – makes forced teaming incredibly difficult to resist. In general, we don’t want to be rude and say ‘actually, your problems or goals are different to mine and so no, we should not work together’ or ‘no, I don’t feel comfortable with this’ (continues)

uncommongroundmedia.com/forced-teaming-feminism-lgb-and-trans-rights/

Hadn't seen that post by DH before but that's pretty eye opening about a general attitude.

So Hayton says they know what the issue is, indeed, are fully behind women, leading them in some respects, but as far Hayton themself is concerned, shucks?

@Datun

So Hayton says they know what the issue is, indeed, are fully behind women, leading them in some respects, but as far Hayton themself is concerned, shucks?

At feminist meetings, of all places. When the toilets policy has been read out.

Thinking about this situation in terms of the spousal exit clause, I note that Hayton does not have a GRC.

Trans Rights Activists have done what even I have to grudgingly admit is a masterful piece of DARVO about the exit clause, claiming it can trap trans people in marriages (it can't).

Here it looks like the opposite could be true. It's interesting that this may be a situation where the transitioning partner refuses to apply for a GRC because it would allow the (religious) non transitioning partner to obtain an annulment, and thus end the marriage without recourse to a divorce.

If this were the case I think it would be further evidence of coercive control?

This is speculation of course but it's an interesting illustration of how reality is often the exact opposite to the prevailing narrative.

And thanks for linking those previous threads R0. They are very informative.

That's a really interesting point Tinsel.

Here it looks like the opposite could be true. It's interesting that this may be a situation where the transitioning partner refuses to apply for a GRC because it would allow the (religious) non transitioning partner to obtain an annulment, and thus end the marriage without recourse to a divorce.

If a husband has no intention of ever seeking a GRC then in what sense are they 'transitioning' or requiring of protections associated with the 'reassigning' their gender /sex ?

At feminist meetings, of all places
When the toilets policy has been read out.

Indeed. It's mind-boggling isn't it? How often do you hear a toilet policy actually being read out? I would say almost never. And how often would you have a toilet policy read out, in a room full of women who have been specifically campaigning to keep them sex segregated?

Maybe once, twice?

A toilet policy, being read out, specifically addressing the person who then violates it.

"... I am a little bit contrary and when people tell me, when people start objecting I then think well, okay, let's you know, let's push a bit harder and see what happens".

I've never heard a toilet policy being read out. Is it a thing? Or is it just a made up "hilarious" anecdote, possibly as a boundary tester?

Stephanie seems clued in on womens/lesbians rights issues. Did he enter gender critical politics because Stephanie was becoming interested in it, which stopped her from being able to attend meetings or post in places like here for support without him seeing it.

I really feel for Stephanie and her children. And the children in his physics classes. This is the man who wrote an infuriating article about girls avoiding studying physics that entirely revolved around him and concluded "But does having a female teacher in years 10 and 11 help girls decide whether to take A-level physics? After four years the answer seems to be “probably not”. Changing my gender role seems to have had no more effect than other strategies that I have employed over the years." physicsworld.com/a/gender-balance-one-woman-at-a-time/.

Abusers can be charming on the surface at first, especially to those without experience, so we have to judge men on their proven actions and his actions and recorded statements are shocking.

@TinselAngel

I've never heard a toilet policy being read out. Is it a thing? Or is it just a made up "hilarious" anecdote, possibly as a boundary tester?

At the 'A woman's place' meeting I attended there was a brief statement at the start the jist of which was 'we expect males to use male toilets'. If that's what DH was referring to, saying the 'Toilet Policy' was read out feels like the sort of exaggeration abusers do to undermine a valid statement

Dr Hayton, "it's something which is personal to me. It was four years ago, the government in the UK decided that they wanted to change the law so that we'd move from a system where people can change their sex, their legal sex, that's the sex marked on your birth certificate, from needing a doctor's diagnosis and medical reports to basically being a free-for-all. At the time, I thought that was a bad idea because the credibility in the system came from those checks and balances.

So I started campaigning. I felt that this change would make trans people less secure in society, it would damage our position in society and basically make people trust us less"

Dr Hayton has said in the past that he does not want/need a GRC as it does not give him any additional 'rights'.

The motivations for campaigning and seeking 'alliances' with women & concerned parents groups are made explicit in the statement above.

But does having a female teacher in years 10 and 11 help girls decide whether to take A-level physics? After four years the answer seems to be “probably not”. Changing my gender role seems to have had no more effect than other strategies that I have employed over the years.

As someone who was inspired to study physics by my brilliant female physics teachers I can't express how angry this statement makes me.

If you look at DH's Twitter, the pinned tweet is a biography thread. The interview this comes from is in the first tweet. The thread was pinned in June. So DH still thinks that offensive interview is the best way to introduce himself.

I don't know why this has just occurred to me, but "disrespecting toilet policies" is literally pissing on someone's territory isn't it.

No wonder so many are keen to do it.