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

Butch lesbians are falsifying reality, threatening men's safety, and stealing all their prizes?? We should have been told!

It's not DH per se l am enjoying. Its the thought of the TRAs' reactions. Pure schadenfreude.

AGP can only exist where there is a boundary to be broken through. Time the world ungendered clothing, names, and expectations. Then the only things left for Hayton and his kind to mimic will be of the less sexually exciting kind - wages gap etc.

Yes, butch lesbians who trans are falsifying reality, I’ve met many of them. they go into the men’s toilets. They are often very violent (all that testosterone) , some of them are extremely strong and cause a lot of harm. But you’re right on one thing, they’re not stealing men’s prizes. But they would if they could @theilltemperedclavecinist

Has to be seen through the lens of power. AGP is about fetishing subjugation and powerlessness. Hence 'sissy'.

Butch lesbians don't have AGP. They don't fetishise women's oppression.

If you're upset with lesbians, start a thread somewhere else. (Probably not on FWR though)

@GoodOldEmmaNess very well put.

You’re totally wrong @Datun go and look up ftm Reddit read what the females are saying. They are completely fetishising being male. Yes, I know the research. I also know too many autoandrophiles. This board is so one sided , it’s turned into a joke. Research on male sexuality is light years ahead of female sexuality, of course there is less research on the way a female fetish might manifest.

There are two separate strands to how I feel about DH and I’m ok with that! I don’t think we need to tie ourselves in knots making a decision about whether he’s on “our” side or an acceptable person IYSWIM.

1, he‘s doing this AGP thing of banging on about stealing his mums tights and having to do this whole “living as a woman” / “being seen as a woman” tripe which I find really annoying and always have - since way pre the post-2000 trans trend. Like some PPs I grew up as a tomboy and I am a woman - wearing tights and make-up and fantasising about being a woman do not make you in any sense a woman, just as I’m not a man when I wear trousers and boots and put a shelf up. Since I first heard about transvestism and transsexuals it pissed my right off that their idea of “being a woman” was a stupid sexist stereotype that I’d already rejected. And if I was DH’s wife I’d have massively taken him to task about that, before divorcing him.

But 2. I do appreciate his honesty. What he’s doing is blowing a hole in a very vocal TRA narrative that there’s no AGP, that TW are actual women, and that transitioning makes you happy. And I am actually sorry for DH as I’m sorry for anyone who’s gone through this to find that being the opposite sex is an impossible dream and no one thinks you “pass”. This is one reason I don’t like the mockery of TW (or TM), however TRA or deluded they may be, by some GC posters that I see on Twitter etc. All of those people could be suffering horribly as they realise they’ve been lied to, and be on their way to detransitioning, or feeling suicidal as they try to convince themselves and others that they really have changed sex. DH speaks the truth about it all and I hope that helps some people.

I wish for DH that he’d been able to be a feminine man or just a man who recognised the sexist roots of his AGP and looked for a different solution.

I think I'm filing that one with the horrifying news that Putin's infiltrated Clapham with small fluffy attack kittens. Death cuddles now a thing.

Thing is, having had the conversations on here with Hayton, I have zero trust about what 'men shouldn't be in women's toilets' actually means. It is possible that Hayton has finally had a true change of heart after years of women repeatedly explaining it while trying not to bash their heads on their keyboards in frustration. Yippee, one man gets it after years of women trying. Let's have a parade.

But it is equally possible to me that the definition of what is meant by man and male would be quite interesting if the person interviewing Hayton was someone who has the experience of seeing the games played with public trust and women's trust by male people with agendas. Hayton's belief was always that absolutely men should not be in women's toilets. Nor the self-ID type of TQ+ person, or in fact most other male people as Hayton didn't want them there. It was about moving the boundary to women and Hayton and setting it there, and Hayton gently and paternally telling women he'd decided after careful reflection that this was the right thing for them. As with IW and others, they will tell you happily that there should not be males in women's spaces because they've identified out of being male. In the court case last week we had rape crisis staff telling women there were no males employed because all the males identified as something other than male. Devil in the detail.

My trust is kind of buggered you see, after years of all this utter bullshit and manipulation. Some enter women's spaces helicoptering body parts, wielding swords and shouting death threats while seeking used tampons to play with. Others come in and exclude and harm women and destroy women's rights politely with a smile.

One isn't better than the other. It's rather like trying to draw the line between someone who is always drunk out of their skull and shouting incoherent abuse while pissing everywhere, and a functional alcoholic.

My understanding is that this can go two different ways:

1. Regret. Dr Az talks about this in his book Detrans. There are adolescent boys who are caught up in confusion as they develop (during normal puberty) sexual feelings, and get messages via anime, gaming and latterly porn, that they may in fact be female. Some of these young men are potentially on a pathway towards an embedded paraphilia. Dr Az talks about them being encouraged, often by older people, to have surgery. Then, when they no longer have the powerful sexual feelings that are driven by testosterone, they realise that they made a mistake.

2. Escalation. Although the primal sexual urge won't be being driven by testosterone, any narcissistic tendencies (which are a known component of paraphilias in general) are still going to be there. The escalation could take various forms e.g. being actually threatening and physically dangerous (such as inciting crowds to punch women) or the more subtle, yet also dangerous, way of weaving through and influencing policies and institutions.

Presumably there is a third group who neither regret nor escalate but are at peace with their decision, even with the impact on their sex drive. I should imagine this group is very small, given the mental health difficulties which are likely to exist around all of this.

As nobody can see inside the thoughts of another person, the sensible approach is to assume that people will fall in to group 2 from a safeguarding perspective but also to allow and provide help for those that fall in to group 1.

Oh for God sake. Women cannot fetishise men's subjugation, because men are not subjugated.

know you love to hate him, but can't we all just accept some joy in our lives for once? Close your eyes and imagine your favourite interviewer saying to your least favourite TRA "so, is what Debbie says all true then?"

Who would you pick?

I would pick the honest TRA over Hayton every day of the week.

I regularly thank the universe that my ex is a rabid TRA and not a stunning and brave feminist "ally".

Possible a 4th group who both regret AND escalate.

I definitely don’t think of DH as a feminist ally, as he’s deeply sexist. But he is more honest than TRAs, isn’t he?

People can be honest on some issues and lie on others. In fact skilful liars and manipulators are very good at mixing it up.

Some people even deceive themselves!

And when it gets that muddy, I say focus on deeds not words. Ask who benefits. Ask who loses..

I see DH on the toilets issue the same way as I see enthusiasts for comprehensive education who send their offspring to grammar school because the secondary modern is a hellhole.

But by publishing this book, he's sawing at the branch he's standing on. Third spaces is the only logical response.

My trust is kind of buggered you see, after years of all this utter bullshit and manipulation.

Quite.

It is possible that Hayton has finally had a true change of heart after years of women repeatedly explaining it while trying not to bash their heads on their keyboards in frustration. Yippee, one man gets it after years of women trying. Let's have a parade.

There's no way Hayton didn't get it.

There are reams of commentary involving his participation on this site alone. He's been writing about it for years. Talking about it on Twitter, having documentaries made about him, being interviewed.

You couldn't not get it.

I might set more store by his epiphany if he hadn't deliberately swerved the issue for years, until he had a book to sell.

Whilst telling people how clever he is.

Can anyone show me exactly where he says he's rescinded the schools guidance and uses the men's? Because it's still a little unclear to me.

Maybe it's in the book...

No! I meant who would you pick for the imaginary interview? I would really like to know.

I'm thinking of Amol Rajan interviewing India Willoughby. A bit like shooting fish in a barrel though.

Nick Robinson interviewed Paris lees for political thinking a few years ago. It was painful. I know many people don’t like NR but the coherence/thinking ability gap was just embarrassing to listen to. You could hear NR holding back, because he wasn’t allowed to dismantle PL’s points, so all he could do was let PL fall back on emotive nonsense and provide gentle prods.

Not something I know anything about really but just spitballing

• women are not responsible for c.99% of all violence/sexual violence
• women don’t seem to tend to entangle innocents in their fetishes like these men do (wives, husbands, children)
• it’s well documented that the more dangerous sexual fetishes are almost totally the preserve of men
• male porn use and specifically the kind of porn which may produce AGPs - are any women looking at this. Doubt it. Maybe I’m naive!

Essentially I think the problem with flipping the sexes in any scenario is that you can’t make it symmetrical - biological sex differences causing so many disparities between men and women in terms of body size, strength, and bottom line the dangers they pose to one another. It’s never a straight comparison “but women do x too!”. It’s comparing apples with oranges. And even if some women who like strap ons are terribly misandrist that doesn’t vanish away the presence and apparent rise of AGP males and their new insistence on acceptance and inclusion in women’s spaces does it? Or our right and need to discuss it.

This is from the article:

we cannot change our sex and nor can we wish it away. In schools, we sometimes need to treat boys and girls differently – in sports, changing rooms and toilets, for example. In these situations, biological sex matters and transgender-identified children must not be accommodated with the other sex.

No! I meant who would you pick for the imaginary interview? I would really like to know
I don't care who would be in the hypothetical interview. They wouldn't see it as the gotcha you think it is, and neither do I.