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.

*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?

The point is no one has any right to choose their pronouns ever because you can't compell others speech. The right lies with the speaker to choose what they say.

So yes you can choose to be nice and then change your mind if they're a twat.
Or
You can choose to only ever use sex based pronouns in every situation ever.

You get to choose what you say and how you use language.
Different people will be influenced different ways, at different times but the principle is no one gets to tell you what to say. Not the person you are talking about or the people who disagree with you.

It was a tremendous coup for transactactivists to get that into the equality act.

The question that needs answering is this:

Is trans ideology a Trojan horse for men's paraphilias or is it something else?

If it's the former should it be a protected characteristic? Should a law protect men's public paraphilias?

One thing's for certain, it would not have been made clear to everybody that the protected characteristic of gender assignment will definitely be applied to men with a public sexual fetish that requires non-consenting participation.

I do believe there were some dissenters, who thought it could be, but they were outnumbered.

“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."”

Thanks Corgi for highlighting this.

This is what many of us have been saying here and many people saying elsewhere for a long time.

It bears repeating over and over. Maybe it will sink in. It is just one of the disconnected lines of thinking that shows the degree of falsity, intended or not, people will put up with themselves and demand others follow their lead.

This article today really seems to be only about JT saying she is not like ‘those’ women over there. Fine. But stop being a fucking hypocrite while doing it.

Every time a child calls him 'Miss' he gets a sexual thrill.

This ^^

Which is enabled by people with a loud voice and reach telling society that nice and good people do this for him, because 'respectful'.

Leaving aside whether lying is a sign of respect, as pp says above, is it a choice for those children? Do they have the option of calling him anything else without consequence or pressure? Because that isn't 'respect', that makes it 'submission'. It's a powerplay, with a child, for a man to have a sexual experience. In a school, with children he has a duty of care to.

Fuck!! That is just doubling down on the hypocritical stance !

Does she honestly think calling women ‘ultra’ and ‘extremists’ and telling them they are not doing the cause any ‘good’ is not fucking policing?

I don't understand the claim that any changes would 'prevent' Hayton and other AGP men working in schools. Or being less favourably treated under law.

It wouldn't. It would merely require that they did not perform their fetish on children. No compelled speech, no using female single sex spaces in the same way required of all male staff, no involving children in a belief that they are women, no political influencing with children, gender neutral clothing choices (as most of the staff of both sexes will be wearing), rather than using clothes as part of expressing the fetish in school.

How is that different to the normal requirements upon ANY teacher? These are basic expectations! It would involve letting go of special privileges, and these never should have been taken in the first place, or allowed.

I don't disagree Datun.

I'm asking what is the suggested legal outcome GC feminists are seeking?

There are repeated statements that DH shouldn't be working with children. What is being proposed to legally make it possible to prevent this?

Do people want gender reassignment removed from the equality act? Is this something that is being campaigned for?

Do people want legislation around banning paraphilias in public which names agp? Again is this being campaigned for?

I see lots of pointing out the problem but I'm not sure of the legal solutions being sought.

what is the suggested legal outcome?

For me:

• Repeal the GRA

Those with a GRC will need a grandfather clause, which will need to be effected in parallel with the removal of the secrecy clause, and clarity that sex means birth sex, thus rendering GRCs effectively null and void.

It's high time this was out of our lives and institutions. Enough.

Agree with being able to enforce in schools no compelled speech, no men in female only spaces, no suggestion to children anyone can change sex.

But you can't stop a man getting a boob job wearing women's clothes and make up to school can you? Isn't that the fetish too?

I agree with repealing the GRA.

But we'd still have the Equality act.
DH would still be able to work with children.

If you believe he shouldn't be able to perform his fetish by dressing as a women around children how would this legally be achieved?

Surely we already have the legal framework - namely safeguarding in schools, Working Together etc? (I know not all of it has legal obligations and other posters will be able to specify).

If we forget AGP, forget the whole trans thing, what are we left with? A man who is a teacher has published a book about what sexuallly arouses him. What does Working Together to Safeguard Children say we have to do?

That's because it is in the equality act.

It would need a complete rewriting.

It's not about denying Debbie H his job, it's about telling him not to wear a dress at work, because he's just told everyone it turns him on.

The man in Canada with a gigantic breasts is a case in point. That is where this leads.

It's a minefield, though, because clothes are clothes.

Personally, I think it's quite hard to legislate what clothes people wear, without reinforcing gender boundaries.

But you could definitely start with pronouns, calling a man a man, and making him use male facilities.

Historically we managed it socially, with the understanding that everyone knew what was appropriate, and applied social behaviour as a result.

Is this all about Janice Turner and the protection of her career? Is it about making clear that her politics align with the Labour Party, and kicking away anything and anybody who could make her look like the spokeswoman for right-wing women?

The insults - ultras, extremists - are just awful from her, and very deliberate. She seems to be trying to coin ultra as the new terf, which is such a damaging thing to do to less-powerful women struggling to maintain boundaries.

Is it also about Kelly Jay Keen starting a women's political party and wanting to create clear water between her politics and Janice's position as an elite journalist?

It's a very aggressive, disingenuous, damaging column. All I could think about reading it was the female prisoners who have been threatened with longer sentence for 'misgendering' the male prisoners they're trapped with.

If you repeal the GRA, the PC of GR means nothing, in effect. You're still the sex you were if sex means sex. Just means you have thoughts in your head.

Yes Scribbling, that's what it seems to be.

She should have taken stock, instead of taking to scold with a side of DARVO.

Is that tweet from today??

She's just written an article calling women who disagree with her ultras and extremists.

How is that not tone policing??

Eh?

What am I missing?

I'm not sure why you quoted my post? I largely agree with your points. I said that I draw the line at what language people use in their private conversations which JT's article was not.

@Datun yes it is.

It's about a proportionate response to the challenge to safeguarding. There may be differences of opinion as to what a "proportionate response" is, as we already know from the disputes about single-sex spaces.

I fully accept the mire this creates because, as PPs remark, clothes are clothes. I don't think anyone would raise an eyebrow at male teachers wearing sarongs or tunics appropriate to their culture.

We seem to have been trapped for decades by a culture of despair about paraphilias and the transgressive ability to enlist unconsenting people into facilitating them.

It would be a fascinating topic for a Citizens Assembly. Of course, that would predicate a neutral preparatory set of education materials and I am uncertain that that would happen.

Yes. And occasionally a manager or headteacher had to point out to an employee that their clothing choice was inappropriate. One of my schoolteachers was a young woman who wore inappropriately short skirts in the classroom. Most of the boys spent more time looking at her knickers than working. It was a relief when she left the school.

I mean we could just say that you're not allowed to bring a paraphilia to work, and if we think you have, we're going to tell you to change, or leave.

This isn't true is it?

The protected characteristic of GR in the EA applies without the GRA?

If we are in the position where performing a fetish in front of children is something people are unable to say is wrong we are in very deep shit indeed.

Applies to what though? If sex means sex and there's no secrecy clause for those already with a GRC, what does it apply to?

Most teachers in a school will be wearing gender neutral clothes. Trousers, shirts, jumpers, jackets. How they identify doesn't matter. No one needs to be using costume to indicate that they identify as a stereotype of the sex they are not. This is about the reasonable limits on self expression as it impacts on others.

It would also fit exactly with the schools guidance currently being considered. That no one should be encouraged or required to mis-sex others, that no one should be dressing in opposite sex coded clothes (gender neutral available, its not as if there's a requirement to wear own sex clothing), no using opposite sex spaces but other alternative changing and toileting facilities can be provided, no one required to enact a belief that a person has changed sex.

The job is to meet the needs of the children. Not to self express.