Thank you: Debbie Hayton in the Mail

[Needmoresleep]

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-13011839/I-went-agonising-operation-thought-woman-finally-make-happy-devastating-revelation.html

People have heard of fetishistic cross dressing, transvestitism, etc.

There's even a joke. What's the difference between a transvestite and an autogynephile? - about two years.

They may not have heard of autogynephilia specifically, but the general concept is fairly commonplace.

But the issue is they're still very unlikely to hear about the realities of it from Hayton. In terms of the Overton window. In fact, it's my opinion that Hayton is wanting to shift the Overton window in the opposite direction.

Mumsnet has something like 10 or 12 million unique uses per month. Many of the politically motivated cg women's groups either started on mumsnet or many of their members were or are members here too.

And it's monitored by journalists all the time.

There's absolutely no doubt that as a website, the women here have been responsible for disseminating information about AGP. And that mostly originates with the transwidows.

I'm just trying to think of all the groups who either started here, or whose members are or were mumsnetters.

Fairplay for women
Let women speak (Posie Parker)
Sex Matters
Man Friday
Safe Schools alliance
Children of transitioners

I'm sure there are loads more.

Every single one of those women knows exactly what AGP is, what it means, and how they and trans widows are trying to combat its effects, including talking to law makers.

None of them don't get it. (Yes I know there are far too many negatives in that, but it expresses what I want to say!)

The vast majority of people are not reading MN. And of those who do many are not reading on that particular subject. Go out in the street and ask 100 people what it means, using either the acronym or word. Not many will know what you are talking about.

Older people will have known about fetishistic cross-dressing, but often have not connected it to gender ideology. Which seems odd, but it is startling how much many adults "forget" when a new thing comes along. And many younger people do not know about it.

I don't expect people to learn all the "realities" from DH or anyone else, why would I? No account from individuals, whatever their relation to the discussion, can offer that.

Anyone who wants to understand any psychological phenomena will need to look at it from different perspectives, including the ones of the people affected. That doesn't mean assuming their insight is clear nor necessarily that they are being honest.

There are useful accounts from all kinds of people who are addicts, abusers, and psychopaths, for example. Others that are less useful, but I am not sure why you think fetishism would fall entirely on one side of that.

Just came across this on Twitter/X.

Very apposite.

Very difficult reading.

https://twitter.com/hatpinwoman/status/1752066291630735476

TempestTost

My comment wasn't general. It was specific in response to the idea that it is Debbie who has shifted the Overton window in understanding AGP.

Which I disagree with. Because I don't believe that's his intention. You can tell from the btl comments. none of them are any nearer to understanding what it really is. Just that he's selfish towards his wife and family.

If anyone has promoted understanding of what AGP actually is it's women's groups.

There isn't anyone else out there doing it.

For instance, since Musk lifted the censorship on Twitter, there is barely a commenter about it, who isn't au fait with its impact.

Transwidows have had to talk to politicians about the spousal veto, etc, all of it. This is why we had Scottish politicians talking about 'erotic cross dressers'.

I agree most of the general population won't know about it, though. my point was, they won't be learning it from Debbie Hayton.

That does make for very upsetting reading but the information is useful. One thing the men all have in common is trapping a woman in the relationship before confronting them with non-negotiable cross dressing. And if the women object, the men employ coercive control until they get their way. Also, women’s boundaries (those of their wives and of women at large) are trampled over by these men with triumphant glee. My heart breaks for the women and children having to deal with these men in their families.

Thanks for that. Referencing that and @Datun who mentioned "mirroring"

Did any of you notice Stephanie's shoes?

It's a question rising across several threads this morning, on various topics, somewhat like 'if a tree falls in the woods and no one is there, does it make a noise'.

Is it the case that a transition can happen without breaking other people's boundaries? And would it be a sufficiently satisfying and need meeting experience if it did not involve breaking other people's boundaries?

Because the sticking point is always this. Not to have freedoms to do things themselves - use third spaces, leave a family and transition privately having permitted the ex partner an escape through annulment, be honest with sexual partners about physical reality - but the freedom to break other people's boundaries and have those other people told, they cannot escape, they are subordinate to the transitioning person's wishes and interests, in ways often rather similar to coercive control. Which makes it look like it's almost as if not only that other people's feelings have to be labelled as less important and subordinated, but that other people's inevitable emotional responses to this are part of the necessary experience.

It might, but how are schools going to explain to pupils and parents that a teacher will now have a female name because he has a sexual fetish and that pupils must play along?

It still amazes me that people say they don't believe men can become women so will use sex based pronouns. But when a man says he gets a sexual thrill out of people thinking he's a woman, the same people say they will call him 'she' as he's being honest!
The same man who created guidelines for schools allowing men and boys to invade women and girl's spaces, who later says he realises that's wrong, but has never done anything to remove the guidelines and still uses women's spaces!
A man who says he regrets transitioning but again continues to wear inappropriate outfits and still expects students to refer to him as 'Miss'!

Abusive men can only be abusive by showing everyone a reasonable side!

I can’t think off the top of my head, but is this the only sexually driven behaviour, which is allowed at schools?

With the idea of ‘whole self to work’ - are there other things? I know that a guy felt entitled to wear fetish rubber under his work clothes, and although he was driven to do it for the same reason as cross-dressers, he still hid the rubber under his work clothes, so he wasn’t entirely overt. There are probably a number of transvestite men who wear women’s underwear under their work clothes too, but I don’t this open and overt thing of wearing the gear openly, being addressed by the name associated with their kink persona, etc, is really done in the workplace is it? Especially in schools.

Tinsel and others have done a huge amount. That is not what I was saying.

However we still have the "T". The "T", the progress flag, etc are everywhere. "Transphobia".

It is valuable to have AGP out in the open, and the Mail is absolutely main stream media.

Because the T on its own is meaningless. It may be young girls or victims of abuse, perhaps denying their puberty, it may be gay people constrained within their cultures, it may be people who are mentally ill who see changing gender as a one stop cure, it may be social contagion, or for a way for those with ill-intent to enter women's spaces. There will be some with lasting gender dysphoria, and in Debbie's case it seems to be a route to sexual gratification.

There is a parallel thread on the T flags at London Bridge. Loads of them, but I don't see an AGP flag.

Isn't it time to be out and proud. Take your whole self to work etc. As Debbie says, Debbie is not a woman. If men want to wear dresses, why not. (Though dress for teachers, the office etc should be suitable.) And perhaps, as Grayson Perry seems to suggest, take away the gas lighting, and you take away the thrill.

It may fall under one of those things that are so obvious nobody mentions them.

Like the fact humans have two sexes and sex is immutable. We had to get that written into law as a protected belief!

I would imagine teachers are forbidden from sexual behaviour and acting out fetishes at work.

Really agree with this

The insistence on full compliance and ideology forced many feminists to push back to the detriment of many transsexuals who were just getting along in peace.

I think the non binary crowd are now doing even further damage with their utter rubbish about using them/they and making a whole belief system out of just wanting to be special. It’s so painful and just causes disagreement and irritation.

There are useful accounts from all kinds of people who are addicts, abusers, and psychopaths, for example.

But it's mostly one side that has the public coverage that is largely sympathetic to them. And through dramas, books, and popular understanding, we're largely acclimated to the idea that they are in the grip of a disease (certainly true for addiction) and cannot be responsible for their actions.

That's a useful idea for the them all. Psychopaths are retained at work despite their impact on people's careers. Look at how difficult it is for victims of abusers to speak up, far less leave their abusers (all the desperate threads on MN protesting, "But I love him…) and the chaos that addictions bring to family (the more chaos, the more egregious the behaviour, the more it proves how serious the addiction is).

We don't hear enough from families and victims. All the decades of research, and we still don't have an evidence-base that would guide families on assessing the course of action that would work best for them or the likelihood of recovery for the abuser/addict and just how long it might take and the implications for other people's life chances and resources.

Public understanding and sympathy is largely skewed to one side, shaping a narrative that harms others and even normalises substance over-use, abusive behaviour etc.

I think it is a myth that ‘transsexuals’ have been rubbing along just fine with women all this time. Jan Morris, for example, is held up as an exemplar of this just-fine-ness, and it turned out that the rubbing along was painful, abrasive and unwelcome with the women in his life.

I would say it was a case of ‘too polite to say anything’ or ‘not wanting to be rude’ not ‘rubbing along just fine’.

It highlights, among other things, just how very, very sad it is that activism has undermined the wonderful informal compromise that allowed most of us to just rub along with treating trans people as if they were their preferred sex.

Wonderful informal compromise?

The doctors who gave men a piece of paper saying they were legit in thinking they were the opposite sex, never asked women if they minded men pretending they were women and going into their spaces.

They took women not objecting as a 'wonderful informal compromise' when in reality, the women were more than likely petrified of saying anything as they didn't want to be thumped or beaten up.

Wonderful for men
Informal in that people didn't want to be beaten up
Compromise, for the women and girls.

And in many cases, women being coerced, controlled and abused into silence.

The article in The Mail makes me feel uneasy and I am struggling to put my finger on what it is.

I think it reads in a certain way, appearing to be self-reflective and conscious of the impact on others, that you expect it to end with ‘and that is why I have decided to ‘detransition and have my marriage annulled to allow my wife and children to process it all and decide how they want our relationships to progress in the future’, but it didn’t end like that.

It ends with words to the effect of ‘I’ve had it all my own way all this time and I am actually happy with things like this, so it’s more convenient, less confusing for other people if I continue with having it all my own way’.

I’m sure I’ve known other people do this, acting like they are listening and taking on board what I am saying, but then summarising (wrongly) that what suits them is actually what’s best for me. It’s manipulative and profoundly self-centred.

Reading what hayton has to say is just like reading any trans ideology in that there are lots of suggested reasons and excuses, no real personal responsibility and nothing that stands up to any scrutiny. He uses policy, the heath services, tra when it suits him, and then blames it all when convenient.

He's had surgery, female id, used TRA to force school children to be a part of it, makes no attempt to detransition, yet implies hes a victim. He wasnt forced to do any of that he activity sort it out.

And despite claiming not to believe he is a women, just prefers to dress as one, says its really not possible to refer to him as anything other than a woman now. Hes basically saying, i know its a con, but whats done is done, and read a book about me.

Isn't it time to be out and proud. Take your whole self to work etc. As Debbie says, Debbie is not a woman. If men want to wear dresses, why not. (Though dress for teachers, the office etc should be suitable.)

Sorry, it's probably me being jaded, and not
being able to sort satire from reality sometimes, but I'm just checking this is sarcasm? (because it's not about the clothes, it's about the fact that wearing them is sexually exciting?)

I thought Stonewall point was to take your whole self to work. Pips Bunce et al. If so transparency about what you are bringing to work, ie your desire for sexual thrill is also needed.

If DH is motivated by AGP, then this is what they are bringing to work.

I do think we have been rubbing along ok with transsexuals, and historically the practice has been tolerated and accepted. It’s militant activism and demands for female identity and spaces that have caused the backlash.

Attempts to erase women’s rights and get access to their spaces is an ancient story, and women have never rubbed along ok with that, this is simply the current manifestation. It’s interesting that it’s happening at the same time as erosion of abortion rights and increase of prosecutions for ending pregnancy etc.

It proves that men were only pretending to respect women’s rights. It turns out we don’t have the right to our own female identity as distinct from males or to our own spaces after all. We were granted them as long as men didn’t have a use for them and went along with it to keep us quiet.

But Jan Morris was an arsehole and a misogynist and he wouldn’t have rubbed along well with women whatever his sex, he basically despised them.

Ah ok, got it.

i'm not sure how more upfront he could be. He's told everyone he's got autogynephilia, a sexual fetish that relies on him presenting as, and people referring to him as, a woman.

It would need a pupil, or a parent of a pupil, to sue the school for knowingly exposing their child to a sexual fetishist who is using them for gratification.

I'm not sure why it hasn't happened.

The Overton window will shift like buggery when we are watching the two sides slug that one out.

There are two camps with regards to the 'rubbing long previously fine with transsexuals.'

And I'm sure it's largely because there weren't very many of them. So everyone's experience will be different.

But the fact remains that women weren't asked.

Those who were uncomfortable and self-excluded or were distressed and those who were fine, because it hardly ever happened and they weren't distressed by it.

But the point is, we didn't appear to have any choice.