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.

I've explained this in two separate posts now.

I suspect (but it is only a guess) if a parent were to push back, they would be welcome to remove their child from the school. I don’t know, though- it may well be that no one at the school has complained or questioned it.

It would be good to know whether given that DH says he doesn’t mind which pronouns are used for him, does he tell pupils they are free to use whichever pronouns they want, no pressure? Or does DH in the school setting, quietly and conveniently go with school policy and the sentiment stated on their website that “to actively misgender a person is an act of hostility”?

This.

As usual, it has nothing to do with TQ. It has to do with unacceptable behaviour. And the lobby's rather odd reluctance to separate the two for some reason.

So logically either their argument becomes 'unacceptable behaviour is a part of TQ and cannot be controlled or resisted' - which is going to be a problem in many jobs.

Or 'TQ people should be specially exempted from unacceptable behaviour'.

Which is it, I wonder?

I've read your posts and I don't think they address the issue.

I think the only way to achieve this without hitting discrimination laws is a gender neutral uniform which applies to everyone.

Whilst the EA protects men who say they have reassigned their gender it remains impossible to draft a dress code which prevents men wearing women's clothes at work.

You cannot stop a man wearing the exact same outfit a women is wearing to work, even if you have a gendered dress code, under the EA if he says he is reassigning his gender.

You could argue to treat him as a man but under what specific provision to protect women. (He's not saying he's agp it's just his identity)

And how would you legally justify gendered dress codes anyway if that's what you're suggesting? The clothes are just clothes argument would be made.

We've thrown away the social and cultural mechanisms we used to use to manage this and trying to use the legal system is going to be a mess, particularly while current legislation remains.

The problem is, everyone thinks that discrimination law trump safeguarding.

And everyone is pretending that a male teacher demanding children call him 'miss' is not a safeguarding issue.

When i say everyone, i include schools and government.

Its going to take the equivalent of a teacher isla bryson to bring it out into the open. Then schools and government will have to do something about it.

Apparently Hayden says in his own book

“Take away the official gatekeepers…and women may well introduce informal gatekeepers of their own that may be far less welcoming of transsexuals”

Which, apart from a rather foot shooting acknowledgement that he knows women don't want these men in their spaces, would also indicate that social opprobrium is what he dreads the most.

It would appear, that despite many of these men having a humiliation fetish, the actual public humiliation of people's displeasure is something to avoid.

(also note, how he now calls himself a transsexual. Another bit of retconning sanitisation going on).

What DH is angling for is a scenario where institutions can have strict sex-based dress codes, from which only castrated males are exempt.

And that would solve 90-95% of the problem, as well as mitigating the rest(?).

(DH claims that castration has taken away most of the urge that drove him to it in the first place. If so, why doesn't he go back to presenting as a man, but just lay off the testosterone? His wife's sex life might still have been wrecked, but he would no longer be a public embarrassment to her.)

Of course, that does take us back to the idea that only those truly dedicated to self-mutilation have the right gender woo. But DH says gender woo isn't a thing, and he should know....

I think the pronoun issue can be more easily addressed under the compelled speech/ protected beliefs legislation.

Clothing is going to be more difficult as it doesn't explicitly require anything of the other person so hard to argue for your rights (if they claim as they do it's identity not agp) and 'clothes are just clothes; there's no reason to argue for insisting they are sex coded.

Take away the official gatekeepers…and women may well introduce informal gatekeepers of their own that may be far less welcoming of transsexuals”

Let's hope he's right.

And everyone is pretending that a male teacher demanding children call him 'miss' is not a safeguarding issue.

Including, for example, our DSL, who is adamant that this is not a safeguarding problem.

Actually, I think he truly believes it is not.

Yes Agps would love strict sex based dress codes. The fact that the EA would allow them to wear the women's code would reinforce their identity and the thrill.

Has any journalist or podcaster ever put this question to Debbie Hayton?
If not (and I can't recall it happening) then that is quite startling. Being nosey and asking awkward questions is part of their job.

Please forgive me being hyperbolic, but Andrew Doyle’s article in Unherd (and his podcast with Benjamin Boyce) coupled with both of Janice Turner’s articles (and her tweets) is giving me the feeling that they’re both doing a version of: "You ungrateful peasants, how dare you turn on me after all I’ve done for you. I’ve been missed off dinner party invitation lists for standing up for you ingrates." 😬

In reality, with no hyperbole, my response to them is that I’m just fed up of being told off for not being nice enough. I don’t want to be nice in the face of diminishing women’s rights; being nice won’t save children from medicalisation or keep sex criminals out of women’s prisons; being nice won’t protect lesbians from fetishisation and the imposition of fetishistic men into their lives. Being nice won’t protect gay boys from being diagnosed as not masculine enough to be considered men.

No-one listens to nice women, especially not men: they pat us on the head and tell us to run along - we often have to lose our rag with them before they take us seriously. I don’t care if people think we’re rude as long as we’re effective. And if people are trying to deny us our rights because they feel we’re insufficiently polite then our rights were always conditional rather than fundamental.

There's are lots of ways we treat people differently, despite the EqA existing. We dont let teachers have relationship with their 16 year pupils, for example.

If the EqA means that children are put in dangers of being exposed to adult sexual behaviour, the EqA is wrong.

Sadly, its going to take massive saftguarding fail for those who should know better to acknowledge it.

No-one listens to nice women, especially not men: they pat us on the head and tell us to run along - we often have to lose our rag with them before they take us seriously

Reminds me of this re: KJK's appearance on This Morning. (Blimey, was it really 2018?)

https://www.mumsnet.com/talk/womens_rights/3378698-Disrespectful-Woman-Posie-P-on-This-Morning

And if people are trying to deny us our rights because they feel we’re insufficiently polite then our rights were always conditional rather than fundamental.

Well said.

@HipTightOnions Yes this gaslighting by school staff is enabling CSA. In her evidence to court, the girl victim in the Amy/ Andrew Miller abuse case said she thought he would be safe as he was trans/ dressed as a woman.
https://reduxx.info/scotland-transgender-butcher-pleads-guilty-to-abducting-and-sexually-abusing-schoolgirl/

This is one of the issues the new draft schools guidance is supposed to sort out- preventing schools trying to force traumatised victims of CSA to pretend males are female and removing female bodily privacy.

Absolutely right UtopiaPlanitia this is the truth (the quote Datun pulled out). As women our rights have always been conditional and so we will always need to strategise around that.

I had no idea until recently how conditional our rights as women are, how easily they are lost. How we like them by being told, bullied, guilty, co-erced into giving them away
We have to remain vigilant, forever.
We need to work now, make sure our daughters don't drop the ball.
Be kind to women
Hold the line

I had no idea until recently how conditional our rights as women are, how easily they are lost.

Me neither. What a shock the last few years have been. There's no room to give a single inch more when whole feet and yards have been lost.

I thought the same, Utopia.

Times comments update for the interested(!).

441 comments total
Top comment remains the top one with 483 votes
Top reply to the comment comment is on 331 votes
Previous second placed comment still in second place on 317 votes
Previous third placed comment still in third place on 273 votes

So there you are. Quite a few of us ungrateful uppity wims need shutting up, it would seem.

I found this interesting tweet from Jennifer Bilek with regards everything that’s been discussed since That Article was published:

https://x.com/bjportraits/status/1756030842587976029?s=20

'Needing to understand male fetishists that are creating harm, or the fetishes themselves, does not warrant promoting them, the men who have them, or having them discuss their proclivities in public, ad nauseam.

This is not as complicated as people are making it.

If you are a clinician and are so interested in this, why not keep it in your lab or clinic - why do we all have to hear about this revolting entitlement of some men as if they and their fetishes were the second coming of Christ?

Jane Caputi, in The Age Of Sex Crimes, makes an extremely cogent argument that the public attention given serial killers manifests more of them because they crave attention.

It seems abundantly clear at this stage that these narcissists claiming they want to “have women’s bodies,” are proliferating like wild fire the more attention they get all over social media.

I am so not buying this crap that we NEED to understand them. We need to stop their entitlement to walk over women’s and children’s boundaries - and make no mistake, the boundary I am talking about as far as women goes, is wearing synthetic facsimiles of their anatomy and calling it treatment. This is not treatment!!! Our wholly sexed humanity is not a medical cure for men’s abberant sexual issues, ffs.'

I feel as if GC women have allowed Janice Turner to stand on our shoulders and now she's pissing down on us. Not cool. Not one bit cool. But I'm very heartened to see the direction of the comments on the article.

To be fair, Janice was in this right from the start - she was at Speakers Corner in 2017 when TRAs beat up Maria Maclachlan and sat near me at the event we’d all gone there for. It was the first of its kind (I think) & the TRAs were all outside shouting BURN IT DOWN! The police escorted us out afterwards.

She was also writing about this long before anyone else.

I don’t agree with her about the pronouns but I still have a lot of respect for her.