Janice Turner interview with Debbie Hayton in the Times

[CaptainWarbeck]

Share token link here: Debbie Hayton: the trans woman taking on the trans activists

www.thetimes.co.uk/article/df87fe47-3dd3-4f35-ac48-81f54aeb418f?shareToken=a53b2f201cdd4c204b9009b204cb1ef3

Janice neatly runs through a history of trans issues with Debbie including a discussion of AGP. An excellent read I thought and will get a wide audience as a Saturday Times Magazine article.

It's the narcissists prayer isn't it?

Weve had tedious years of 'That didn't happen'.
(No it didn't, shutupshutupshutup delete all mentions)
(No I won't look at all that evidence, it's hate that anyone a) noticed it and b) didn't approve of it loudly to demonstrate their righteousness, so c) burn the witch)

We're now on to,
ok, so it IS a thing but it isn't that bad

Aka look, you women have to accept being abused a BIT , it's only fair.

No. Not at all. Not one woman. Fuck off. Not a walking bloody theme park or sex toy for a man with a problem I do not care about his problems. I really don't. They are not my problems to sort out for him or with him. Decent men do not behave like this. Decent people do not play sex games with non consenting strangers or use exhibitionism feeding off their shock, disgust, anger and fear. Decent men do not get excited by breaking the boundaries of those they feel in power over.

Because they don't try this shit on with big strapping blokes who wouldn't #bekind or even consider listening to today's eleventy billion reasons why it'ssosadandIcanthelpit. They wouldn't dare. And because they'd be on the wrong side of the power imbalance, there'd be no happy penis either.

And I am aware even as I type that, and it's from direct and grim experience, that somewhere a bloke will be reading that post one handed and shivering with thrills at the scolding/humiliation and their knowledge that I'd be revolted by their response.

You cannot do anything with someone with this degree of sex addiction and dysfunction, all you can do is have rigid boundaries and consequences in law so that their ability to interfere with and use others is prevented.

I think what it comes down to, is that JT is uncomfortable with being blunt to someone face to face.

I get that, totally. It's ingrained in us to not walk around highlighting things that other people find uncomfortable. With good reason.

And if you are, say, working with someone, it's even more difficult.

But two things.

Firstly, it's not just about being blunt, it's about fear. I'd be more inclined to believe it was an act of courtesy, if women weren't fired for non-compliance, or arrested, or smacked. There's no real choice, here. So it's definitely going to produce people who will refuse to do it, purely on that basis alone.

And secondly, if she'd confined it to her private, real life situations, again, understandable. But she's not. She's telling everyone, in a newspaper, that they should be doing it, out of courtesy. And specifically about a man who is aroused by it.

And if you won't, you're extreme.

It's difficult to believe, really! She's actually telling people that if they won't call a man she, and participate in his fetish, they are the ones who are extreme!!

Oh Janice.

Has the article been commented on a lot, Rex? I hope you don't mind me asking, but I always find the comments very revealing.

And is the one you've posted, still the top comment?

If not naicely enabling happy penises is extreme, <shrug> colour me extreme, Jan. You do you.

And that's the point really. Those who want to enable - which is unfortunately involving yourself as a prop in a man's sex experiences - if you're an adult, you crack on. Knock yourself out. Informed consent, have a third space and pronoun and get your kit off all day.

It's those of us who do not consent that require a space free of all these games to just get on with our bloody lives in peace.

Datun it was 200 comments. Now 276 and that one is still too but with 335 votes. Still not going in JT's favour

One of the things that I worry about with the language of JT and others, styling those with whom they disagree as "ultra," "extremist" etc.

How far away is it from Whittle styling Transgender Trend and Sex Matters as "anti-trans hate groups"?

https://www.mumsnet.com/talk/womens_rights/5000605-maya-whittle-and-phoenix

I have DDs to organisations like Sex Matters. When will a bank think it's appropriate to cancel my accounts because of such accusations?

I know that they have to, but I am apprehensive that I'll leave my notifications on and be in work or with a colleague who'll see a bank or email notice of my DD (they come once a month) and it will be like the final scene from Invasion of the Bodysnatchers.

That's great, if someone is equally willing to listen to women as to men. And give both women and men's opinions equal weight.

I can't deny that I'm beginning to feel this is the Deptford People Project playing out in a shifted sphere.

Excellent post but this bit really hit home. Yes. I think you're absolutely right.

See I can understand that (although we don't actually use pronouns for someone in front of us all that often) but she's arguing that people who don't feel as constrained by politeness/feel more constrained by reality are wrong/bad/ultra

& yes she seems to be missing the consequences (which seems extraordinary)

she's arguing that people who don't feel as constrained by politeness/feel more constrained by reality are wrong/bad/ultra

Yes. It's being framed by 'courtesy' - manners, and politeness. Some might say 'tone policing'.

And for many, it's not a matter of being polite. It's a matter of accuracy and honesty.

I guess in the end Magdalen said it most clearly:

'I'd rather be rude than a fucking liar'.

I'm very polite, fwiw. I'm very peacable. I'm really not 'extreme'. But I cannot use 'she' for a man who's apparently openly written about how he destroyed his family's life in an quest to get his rocks off.

Joanna Williams on Twitter says "For once I disagree with Janice Turner. Using preferred pronouns as a courtesy for people we agree with is to suggest pronouns are determined by politics not biology. This is exactly what transgender activists argue."

I think she's right. Stating that you will use preferred pronouns for nice trans people, but not the nasty ones, is an excellent way of getting yourself into a muddle. What if the nice ones turn out to be nasty? Do they forfeit the right to choose their pronouns?

Consistency is the important thing. I respect Janice - she has been fighting this fight longer than most people - but I think she's wrong on this.

And it's not just demanding the right to be allowed to be honest and not have to lie - which is not 'respect', unless by 'respect' you mean 'act of submission', because where is the mutuality in this? Why does someone being trans immediately require genuflection?

At this point it's demanding the right to not actively enable a large, pernicious agenda that starts and ends with the use and subordination of women as part of the male experience, and begins with that first little step of language that obscures the reality. It is a whole lot bigger than just 'I do not want you to force me, through social coercion, to look you in the eye and play your game'.

Although that's bad enough.

I have trouble understanding why there is a requirement to refer to Debbie as. 'she' ,when Debbie wears T-shirts declaring " Transwomen are Men' and telling everyone who will listen that he is a man? Isn't it enough to be accepting that he feels some irresistible drive to dress in 'women's clothes'?

I don't feel the personal antipathy towards Debbie that some seem to, and I do think it is helpful to the cause that he has outlined, in detail, what AGP involves.

I'm trying to imagine whether the 'she' pronouns were offered as an unanticipated gift, or whether they were requested.

I do thank JT for bringing a spotlight on this, actually.

Previously I'd not been that fussed about pronouns, but the whole issue blowing up has led me to think about it more carefully.

I agree! I've never been particularly militant about never using pronouns ever; but did find the use of 'she' for Debbie very irritating and gratuitously unnecessary.

Apart from that - it was a good, revealing and worthwhile article.

It's so pissing me off.

My pronouns are not a tube of balm to soothe men's feelings!

It brings to mind Marie Antoinette playing milk maid.

Womanhood is the yoke across her back, that she's using to play at being an oppressed peasant for the morning.

As far as I'm concerned, Janice can address or refer to Debbie Hayton however she chooses in a private conversation. None of my business and my line in the sand. This was not a private conversation.

the fact that pupil’s at DH’s school don’t have the luxury of choice that Janice Turner had,
Yes, crucial point and I can't remember Janice raising this - has she? If she hasn't then I think that disappoints me more than today's telling-off.

Is she saying other people should be courteous and use preferred pronouns?
I can't see that in the article?
She's saying that's her position.
And that she rejects all compelled speech.

I disagree with her calling DH she but respect her right to choose her own language. And reject the idea we should seek to police or control what other people choose to say. We are however free to disagree with what they say.

I'm interested in her comment on the equality act.

Would you support removing gender reassignment from the act?
I know the act is a mess but I'm not sure how I see it being clarified in a way which would allow DH or other Transwomen to lose their jobs in schools?
What legal mechanism would you propose to prevent DH working in a school?
Would agp men be fine in offices?

I'm trying to see how this would work.
Also what about all the men dressing as women who don't publicly admit their agp. Are they ok in schools?

Set your own rules? What?

so we can all decide what words mean based on our own individual feelings? That’s a nonsense!

the trouble is this is where Bekind gets you - either woman means adult human female or it doesnt. It can’t mean adult human female plus the TW I personally get on ok with but not the other ones over there

Ooo KJK on Question Time. With Robert Winston! Can you imagine?

She is of course welcome to use whatever language she chooses.

What she cannot do is make other women agree with her, and stop them pointing out to her the many, many issues with her choice. This is essentially what she seems cross about: the lack of agreement and approval. And when she is through the article not selling this as 'this is my choice, other women have other views on this', but 'this is the right, respectful thing that non-extremist (nice) women would do'? Then yes. She can hardly be surprised at the push back.

I continue to also be surprised that after all women have been deluged with by this lobby and its representatives, including the subject of her article, she is annoyed and surprised at their daring to be angry, fed up and rejecting of nicely sucking up a bit more of it.

What we object to is that this man is going to work every day and involving children as a prop in his fetish. Every time a child calls him 'Miss' he gets a sexual thrill.

Does she really see nothing wrong with that?

She can choose to be part of his sexual experience if that's what she wants to do, but those children have no choice.

You know, I think I can. Both of them would bring a lot of light. I think other panellists would feel obliged to perform bringing the heat.