Dr Debbie Hayton interview

[ChristinaXYZ]

In case you haven't seen it.

“I worry that trans people are being used in a political campaign to compromise women’s spaces”

When she’s out in the countryside, she happily gets out of her wheelchair and goes hiking. It is only in the company of others that she feels compelled to be seen as disabled.

Furthermore, she claims to want surgery to transect her spinal cord, so that she can really be a paraplegic. She calls it “Ability Reassignment Surgery”.

If some cosmetic surgeries are euphemistically called 'sex change' or 'gender reassignment/ confirmation surgery then there is at least a logic in Jennings-White's language use.

HCP's however have a responsibility to use clear, unambiguous and accessible language with their patients. This is an important part of patient-care and Safeguarding.

And mixing up trans and safeguarding is just the same non-sequitur that we heard 20 years ago when homophobes told us that being gay and teaching were incompatible.

Jane Clare Jones has some thoughtful essays that address tired tropes and misrepresentations.

The way that the accusation of ‘transphobia’ is being used to control and close down the debate around trans rights is also inherent in what we might call the ‘overreach’ of the definition of transphobia being put to work here. As I’ve said, ‘homophobia’ identifies, correctly I think, the fact that the discrimination against homosexuals, and especially gay men, was coming from moral disgust, and specifically, moral disgust about people’s sexual practices.[2] If ‘transphobia’ is an analogue of ‘homophobia’ – and to ground the claim that it’s an illegitimate basis for political argument is needs to be – then it should, also, refer to a form of moral disgust, and moreover, as in the case of violence against gay people, there should be an obvious causal link between that moral disgust, the discrimination you’re trying to combat, and the arguments people are using against you.
…
The discourse of ‘homophobia’ fundamentally relies on the idea that gay-people are discriminated against on the basis of moral disgust. And inside that are two more interwoven ideas. One, that moral disgust is not a legitimate basis for telling people what not to do. (Correct) Especially not when your disgust-feels are causing serious harm to other people. (Also correct)…Two, that because discrimination against homosexuality was entirely mediated by moral disgust, there was, in fact, no legitimate basis for that discrimination…
…
The use of the concept of ‘homophobia’ to dismiss objections to gay rights carried a ton of weight because the basis for a legitimate moral or political objection would be that something causes a harm, and in the case of gay rights there is a complete dearth of convincing arguments as to why homosexuality is a harm. It doesn’t harm homosexuals (whereas repressing it evidently does), and it doesn’t harm anyone else.[1] But this is precisely where the ‘homophobia-transphobia’ parallel falls completely apart. Because in the case of the trans rights agenda there is actually a load of potential harms we might reasonably be worried about.
… Provides and discusses list of potential harms and wider consequences.

janeclarejones.com/2018/09/09/gay-rights-and-trans-rights-a-compare-and-contrast/

And mixing up trans and safeguarding is just the same non-sequitur that we heard 20 years ago when homophobes told us that being gay and teaching were incompatible.

All teachers are subject to safeguarding protocols & standards, with no exceptions. That doesn't indicate that women (who make up the vast majority of teaching positions) are a danger to children in particular, or are inherently 'incompatible' to teaching. I'm a woman, who was subjected to DBS checks to be allowed to volunteer with 3 schools, and I didn't for one second think that there was any suggestion that asking me to pass DBS checks indicated that it was automatically assumed I was unsuitable to volunteer. I didn't try and argue that as I wasn't male & couldn't be seen as a risk because female abuse of children is such a small % of the stats, I was exempt from their safeguarding checks & protocols. Even when the % of males who are a risk to children, is a small % of the wider group of males who are perfectly safe & not abusers, it would be absurd to suggest that males should be able to just get on with teaching & not be subjected to safeguarding checks & protocols.

I absolutely accept that children's safety & well-being is of the utmost importance & complied with all safeguarding requirements. It would never occur to me that I should get a free pass because I know I'm a trustworthy person who the schools had no reason to be concerned about.

Seeing safeguarding as somehow discriminatory makes zero sense to me. Describing that in terms of being a non-sequitur & somehow targeting or discriminating against those who identify as trans, makes no sense either.

Safeguarding isn't something that's made up & used by people with nefarious intentions. It's been the sad & sobering realisation of where failings happen when children have been seriously or fatally harmed. From recommendations following case reviews, inquests, public enquiries, safeguarding has been developed & established to prevent the same thing from happening again.

When I was told I couldn't be left alone with a group of children without a qualified member of staff, I didn't take offence, I didn't think there was any suggestion that I was a danger or would cause harm. I recognised why this was necessary & I accepted & complied with that safeguarding measure.

Why on earth would any group of people be exempt from the same necessary safeguarding protocols that everyone else who works with children in any capacity are subjected to?

Why on earth would any group of people be exempt from the same necessary safeguarding protocols that everyone else who works with children in any capacity are subjected to?

No-one who understood and/or respected Safeguarding and Child Protection protocols and principles would collude with exemptions or creation of loopholes.
Exemptions and loopholes in Safeguarding frameworks will always be exploited by those with harmful intentions.

Agree 100%. No responsible, sensible adult objects to safeguarding guidelines, because they understand their necessity.

By the way, I have it from the Kitten's mouth that she is not newyearnewname123 and in fact hasn't been on MN in over a year.

There were some swears at the end of her message but I have chosen not to reproduce them here.

No responsible, sensible adult objects to safeguarding guidelines, because they understand their necessity.

Now that sports activities and coaching are starting back up later this month, there are several friends and family who've spent the last few weeks renewing their First Aid, Enhanced DBS, and modules on Safeguarding etc. - even though the cost of most of these falls on the volunteer coaches. It's part and parcel of what keeps children and vulnerable groups safe.

And mixing up trans and safeguarding is just the same non-sequitur that we heard 20 years ago when homophobes told us that being gay and teaching were incompatible.

A) Safeguarding isn't negative discrimination. And in the NASUWT guidance one could argue that it is any male who isn't trans who is being discriminated against.

And B) how does using the terms homophobes and gay to describe historical prejudice work, when the hypothetical gay man in your scenario could be a female, married to a male, in the language of current gender ideology.

How come words like lesbian can be used accurately when someone wants a baby, or gay when someone wants to talk of homophobia, but suddenly change to mean the opposite, when it suits?

Thanks tinsel, I just thought that trying to work out who I was previously was a bit "not in the spirit", but best ignored. Apologies for not clearing Kittens' name.

@IloveJKRowling

Well Robin explain to me why the NASUWT breaches the personal and professional rules of conduct for teachers that r0 linked to?

Why should children be coerced into lying in schools if a teacher who is trans demands it when no other teacher is able to require this?

Surely, you don't want children to be unsafe in schools and would like the NASUWT guidelines retracted so it is clear there is no such 'sacred caste' treatment going on?

That is a question for Debbie Hayton. The NASUWT document is not one with which I have had any involvement.

There were some swears at the end of her message but I have chosen not to reproduce them here.

Also wanted to say how great it is to see R0 and her awesome archiving/linking back.

And mixing up trans and safeguarding is just the same non-sequitur that we heard 20 years ago when homophobes told us that being gay and teaching were incompatible.

By that logic, Robin, there should be no concern about politically engaged young trans women, who have been found to not understand safeguarding, working with children.

Safeguarding is taken seriously by reasonable people regardless of their gender identity.

[quote EmbarrassingAdmissions]And mixing up trans and safeguarding is just the same non-sequitur that we heard 20 years ago when homophobes told us that being gay and teaching were incompatible.

Jane Clare Jones has some thoughtful essays that address tired tropes and misrepresentations.

The way that the accusation of ‘transphobia’ is being used to control and close down the debate around trans rights is also inherent in what we might call the ‘overreach’ of the definition of transphobia being put to work here. As I’ve said, ‘homophobia’ identifies, correctly I think, the fact that the discrimination against homosexuals, and especially gay men, was coming from moral disgust, and specifically, moral disgust about people’s sexual practices.[2] If ‘transphobia’ is an analogue of ‘homophobia’ – and to ground the claim that it’s an illegitimate basis for political argument is needs to be – then it should, also, refer to a form of moral disgust, and moreover, as in the case of violence against gay people, there should be an obvious causal link between that moral disgust, the discrimination you’re trying to combat, and the arguments people are using against you.
…
The discourse of ‘homophobia’ fundamentally relies on the idea that gay-people are discriminated against on the basis of moral disgust. And inside that are two more interwoven ideas. One, that moral disgust is not a legitimate basis for telling people what not to do. (Correct) Especially not when your disgust-feels are causing serious harm to other people. (Also correct)…Two, that because discrimination against homosexuality was entirely mediated by moral disgust, there was, in fact, no legitimate basis for that discrimination…
…
The use of the concept of ‘homophobia’ to dismiss objections to gay rights carried a ton of weight because the basis for a legitimate moral or political objection would be that something causes a harm, and in the case of gay rights there is a complete dearth of convincing arguments as to why homosexuality is a harm. It doesn’t harm homosexuals (whereas repressing it evidently does), and it doesn’t harm anyone else.[1] But this is precisely where the ‘homophobia-transphobia’ parallel falls completely apart. Because in the case of the trans rights agenda there is actually a load of potential harms we might reasonably be worried about.
… Provides and discusses list of potential harms and wider consequences.

janeclarejones.com/2018/09/09/gay-rights-and-trans-rights-a-compare-and-contrast/[/quote]
Yep, I have read her stuff. Its just as much nonsense as the anti-gay 'thoughtful' pieces 25 years ago.

And mixing up trans and safeguarding is just the same non-sequitur that we heard 20 years ago when homophobes told us that being gay and teaching were incompatible.

No it is not. Making such false accusations against lesbians and other women who have a sound understanding of Children's Safeguarding in schools is uncivil and not conducive to respectful discussion.

@R0wantrees

Why on earth would any group of people be exempt from the same necessary safeguarding protocols that everyone else who works with children in any capacity are subjected to?

No-one who understood and/or respected Safeguarding and Child Protection protocols and principles would collude with exemptions or creation of loopholes.
Exemptions and loopholes in Safeguarding frameworks will always be exploited by those with harmful intentions.

Absolutely.

It is concerning that some people appear to be advising schools on matters relating to safeguarding with no apparent understanding of safeguarding.

It is also concerning that some people seem to think it is ok to override the single sex exceptions by deciding that they should be allowed to access female single sex facilities even though they were not born female, regardless of their outer clothing. It occurs to me that if a non-female person had any concerns of their personal safety when out and about, they could do like women have to do and dress in order to minimise risk.

In some cases, that could involve dressing in a way that would not attract unwanted attention for a male born person in the men's toilets. Women have had to dress to avoid unwanted attention and in fact, if they don't, they often get blamed for their own attacks if they are deemed to be dressed 'suggestively'.

I would always challenge someone in the ladies toilets who was not born female - post-covid it sounds like there may be more of that occurring.

“ And mixing up trans and safeguarding is just the same non-sequitur that we heard 20 years ago when homophobes told us that being gay and teaching were incompatible.”

In 2001?! You’ll have to tell us who these homophobes were and where they said it because I remember nothing about that.
40/50 years ago, you might have a point. However, that was around the time that PIE and paedophiles were trying to piggyback the Gay Rights movement.

I would suggest that it was the deliberate mixing up of Gay Rights and paedophilia by PIE that raises safeguarding concerns.

I would suggest that it was the deliberate mixing up of Gay Rights and paedophilia by PIE that raises safeguarding concerns.

'How did the pro-paedophile group PIE exist openly for 10 years?'
By Tom de Castella & Tom Heyden
BBC News Magazine

27 February 2014

(extract)
"The Paedophile Information Exchange was affiliated to the National Council for Civil Liberties - now Liberty - in the late 1970s and early 1980s. But how did pro-paedophile campaigners operate so openly?

A gay rights conference backs a motion in favour of paedophilia. The story is written up by a national newspaper as "Child-lovers win fight for role in Gay Lib".

It sounds like a nightmarish plotline from dystopian fiction. But this happened in the UK. The conference took place in Sheffield and the newspaper was the Guardian. The year was 1975.

It's part of the story of how paedophiles tried to go mainstream in the 1970s. The group behind the attempt - the Paedophile Information Exchange - is back in the news because of a series of stories run by the Daily Mail about Labour deputy leader Harriet Harman. (continues)

Journalist Christian Wolmar remembers their tactics. "They didn't emphasise that this was 50-year-old men wanting to have sex with five-year-olds. They presented it as the sexual liberation of children, that children should have the right to sex," he says.

It's an ideology that seems chilling now. But PIE managed to gain support from some professional bodies and progressive groups. It received invitations from student unions, won sympathetic media coverage and found academics willing to push its message. (continues)

One of PIE's key tactics was to try to conflate its cause with gay rights. On at least two occasions the Campaign for Homosexual Equality conference passed motions in PIE's favour.

Most gay people were horrified by any conflation of homosexuality and a sexual interest in children, says Parris. But PIE used the idea of sexual liberation to win over more radical elements. "If there was anything with the word 'liberation' in the name you were automatically in favour of it if you were young and cool in the 1970s. It seemed like PIE had slipped through the net."

Some have suggested that the nature of the debate was different then. "In this free-for-all anything and everything was open for discussion," said Canon Angela Tilby on Radio 4's Thought for the Day. "There were those who claimed that sexual relationships between adults and children could be harmless." Homosexuality had only been decriminalised in 1967. There was still prejudice and inequality. The age of consent was 16 for heterosexuals but 21 for homosexual men." (continues)
www.bbc.com/news/magazine-26352378

And mixing up trans and safeguarding is just the same non-sequitur that we heard 20 years ago when homophobes told us that being gay and teaching were incompatible.

I really don't understand the argument trying to equate homophobia with transphobia. Speaking for myself, I have never had any issue with lesbian or gay people. We had a number of brilliant lesbian teachers at my school, and possibly some gay teachers - I don't really remember but it was not an issue at all.

I have no interest in the sexual orientation of any woman who uses the same female single sex facilities as me. It doesn't bother me and is also within the law, presumably because it bothers so few other women.

However, I do have an issue with sharing female single sex facilities with male born people. That is not me being transphobic, I would not and have never wanted to share with any male person, I don't feel comfortable in mixed sex facilities because of the greater risk of sexual assault. Being trans doesn't affect how I think about anyone, I treat them the same as I would anyone else of their sex. I would obviously use everyone's name that they prefer and treat them politely.

Enough women have experienced a problem with this that the law supports our requirement for single sex spaces. That is not trans exclusionary, that is male exclusionary. There are no groups of male people that I would find acceptable using the women's facilities (and obviously the fact that people can't change sex is now backed by the official statement of the Endocrine Society).

Some transwomen may know that they are not a threat to women's safety and that is great. The trouble is, women don't know which male people are a threat to their safety so need to exclude all.

Yep, I have read her stuff. Its just as much nonsense as the anti-gay 'thoughtful' pieces 25 years ago.

Really? You think this is 'nonsense'?

The key thing to understand about trans rights activism is that, unlike gay rights activism, it is not just a movement seeking to ensure that trans people are not discriminated against. It is, rather, a movement committed to a fundamental reconceptualization of the very idea of what makes someone a man or a woman. In theory, this equally affects both men and women, but in practice, almost all the social pressure is coming from trans women towards the idea of ‘woman’ and the rights of women. And that’s because, when it comes down to it, this whole thing is being driven by male people who want something female people have, and that something, is, in fact, our very existence.

The central thought of the present form of trans rights activism is that whether someone is a man or a woman has nothing to do with human sexual dimorphism – the patent existence of which they try, endlessly, to undermine – and is determined instead by someone’s ‘gender identity,’ some kind of internal gender essence of subjective sense of one’s own gender that many of us simply don’t recognise as a description of our own being as men or women. This ideological manoeuvre is embedded inside the phrase ‘trans women are women,’ which looks, on the face of it, like a reasonable plea for trans women to be given the respect most people want to give them, but is actually used in political argument to deny all distinction between the existence and interests of male born people living as women and the existence and interests of female people. It is under the rubric of ‘trans women are women’ that Karen White ended up in a female jail, because there’s no possible difference between Karen White and any other woman right?

Earlier in this thread you said: "I had a strong sense of my female self since before my teenage years"

This seems to be exactly what Jane Clare Jones describes. Can you explain why you dismiss her interpretation as 'nonsense' and why you think she is wrong?

Journalist Christian Wolmar remembers their tactics. "They didn't emphasise that this was 50-year-old men wanting to have sex with five-year-olds. They presented it as the sexual liberation of children, that children should have the right to sex," he says.

Recent thread OP gardenbird48 wrote:

'Unite Unions and Many Other LGBT Organisations Lobby Government to Lower the Age of Consent
A large number of organisations led by IGLA World (International Lesbian Gay Bisexual Trans and Intersex Organisation) are promoting what they call a ‘Feminist Declaration’

According to Legal Feminist there are provisions (fairly well buried) urging governments to ‘eliminate... laws limiting legal capacity of adolescents... to provide consent to sex.’

While the Women’s Human Rights Campaign (in Australia nb this is being lobbied in the UK as well) does not want teenagers labelled sex offenders for consensual non-abusive sexual activity with their peers ... there is concern that these demands would remove the ability to protect children from exploitation by adults and older adolescents.

Stonewall and Mermaids (plus Proud Trust etc) are signatories to this. I haven’t read the whole document but I trust Legal Feminist and they are livid about this.

We need to be reinforcing safeguards not removing them - who will benefit from this? It won’t be the girls.

Did we see the recent case of the young girl abused by firefighters in France was undermined by their low (or lack of?) age of consent."

feministlegal.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/03/Media-Release-on-CSW-and-ILGA-_28-Mar-2021-1.pdf

www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/4205956-Unite-Unions-and-Many-Other-LGBT-Organisations-Lobby-Government-to-Lower-the-Age-of-Consent

@R0wantrees

And mixing up trans and safeguarding is just the same non-sequitur that we heard 20 years ago when homophobes told us that being gay and teaching were incompatible.

No it is not. Making such false accusations against lesbians and other women who have a sound understanding of Children's Safeguarding in schools is uncivil and not conducive to respectful discussion.

I've noticed that there seems to be a differing level of tolerance of "false accusations against lesbians and other women" where some contributions that are "uncivil and not conducive to respectful discussion" get a pass from MNHQ.

It's as though women are being held to different standards here.

Women's Human Rights Campaign (Press Release)

Monday 29 March 2021
"Feminism has been co-opted to support an agenda to lower the age of consent ILGA World – the International Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Trans and Intersex Association – is actively promoting a “Feminist Declaration” which it describes as an alternative to the political declaration made annually by the United Nation’s Commission on the Status of Women (“CSW”) that outlines the steps necessary to achieve gender equality.

However, deep within this detailed 16 page Declaration are provisions urging governments to “eliminate . . . laws limiting legal capacity of adolescents . . . to provide consent to sex”
(see 14a.)

The document also calls for governments to “End the criminalization and stigmatization of adolescents’ sexuality” (see 14g.) (continues)

ILGA is a worldwide federation that claims to represent more than 1,600 organisations from over 150 countries and territories. Originally a male gay rights organisation established in 1978, according to the history recorded on its own website, until 10 years ago it was still excluded from United Nation’s ECOSOC status because of its earlier association with groups actively promoting paedophilia. However, ILGA is now exerting a powerful influence on women’s human rights,
promoting an agenda which includes legal recognition of sex on the basis of self-declaration and decriminalisation of prostitution. ILGA is also reported to be a major recipient of funding from US billionaires working to advance the trans movement." (continues)

feministlegal.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/03/Media-Release-on-CSW-and-ILGA-_28-Mar-2021-1.pdf

@newyearnewname123

Thanks tinsel, I just thought that trying to work out who I was previously was a bit "not in the spirit", but best ignored. Apologies for not clearing Kittens' name.

No worries

Wishful thinking, I would respectfully suggest.Debbie embarked on a journey and has found the destination unsatisfactory. Debbie will have to decide whether to stay where she is or retrace the path.I, on the other hand, like the overwhelming majority of trans folk I know, am happy with where I am now after transition and am no longer on any form of journey

If someone is now happy with where they are, why would they need to continue to push for others to further comply with their desires? If one is happy in one's own skin and has reached journey's end - the job's done isn't it?