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.

Why on earth has my post been deleted?

I'll repeat I can't get too worked up with loathing for Hayton. My main take is the article overall furthers the goals that I think are important; which is to reveal the true nature, in practice , of transgenderism, in particular transgenderism motivated by AGP. I think we can trust the public to read between the lines and intuit the nature and conditions of the marriage.

The pronoun use is certainly annoying - but i suspect one of Turner's main motivations is to vote Labour and she's on a mission to adjust her position on account of that.

Some of the deletions on MM are very sinister. What on earth are people so frightened of that they must report? I can only think people want to be able to totally control the narrative.

Having read recent admonitions from Hadley Freeman, Kathleen Stock et al towards women expressing anger and dissatisfaction with Janice’s article I think I’ve had a revelation: it feels like the 'head girls' will take the support of anonymous, non-establishment women for crowdfunders, hastags on Twitter and buying magazine subscriptions for their articles but ultimately what they really want is to be allowed back in from exile. They don’t want to make a new life with bolshy women trying to pull down the establishment mistakes, what they really want is their old social/academic/journalistic circle to accept them back while allowing them their difference of opinion. They are happy to signal that they’re still naice and largely-establishment by going along with polite pronoun use, publicly supporting Labour pronouncements on GI, stating that there’s a compromise position with AGPs, and scolding/distancing from the 'GC Ultras'.

I think they might actually be happier tinkering around the edges of the problem of gender ideology through seminars, conventions, and think pieces rather than wanting a full-throated female rejection of it.

I may very well be wrong in my theory but today it feels to me like they’re often ashamed of us for not 'behaving well' in public, they worry that we make them look bad - they’ll take our money but wish we’d let them all do the talking 🤔

Hmm. I haven't read all the admonitions- is it centering on pronouns? I say pronouns are not insignificant but not the thing itself - they are symptomatic of a problem with power balance.

Do we prioritise a man's sexual fetish/mental health issues, or do we prioritise biological reality and freedom of expression?

It seems to be largely admonishing us for complaining about pronoun use. But also defending the puff-piece nature of the article; stating the Stephanie isn’t a victim because she’s choosing to stay with him; saying his dressing as a teacher at school isn’t a problem; saying that the public needs to know about AGP and this article does that effectively; stating that accommodations have to be made for and with these men; saying that complaining about the tone and photo in the article is being unnecessarily picky; and the usual "We’re not anonymous, we’re out here using our real names and we’ve suffered for our views".

Freeman dug up a 2013 tweet of KJK’s to make the point that KJK hasn’t always been anti-pronoun or as hardline as she’s been since starting LWS and accused KJK of brand building by criticising Janice.

That's certainly one angle........but it could also be that they understand a need for a certain level of diplomacy and practical, realistic politics in order to achieve their goals. The ideologues/ideologically pure can continue to occupy opposite ends of the spectrum as ideologues always do - but practical achievements sometimes necessitate certain types of compromise.

If the end goal is protecting the dignity, privacy and reality of women and girls in law, then revealing to people the nature of transgenderism furthers this cause. It is always helpful, I find, to listen to the stories of transitioners and detransitioners - to understand their thoughts and processes at different stages - because it reveals what transgenderism is made of.

Yes, we can certainly all feel angry for Stephanie and put ourself in her shoes; and we can see that how much Hayton's process and self definition have dominated the marriage and the lives of their children - but then so will the readers of the article.

I also certainly agree it is not right to impose one's fetishes on schoolchildren: we can all agree on that - and the end goal is to roll back from this madness; but I think we also have to accept it is going to be a long haul; it is going to take at least a coupe of decades to fully unravel.

At some point this crazy trend/ideology will diminish in strength and effect, though there will always be people who identify as the opposite sex, for whatever reason. Cross dressers are clearly large in number and have always been with us - but the elevation of this practice to the status of an imposed totalitarianism to which we must all bow down - will diminish.

If calling a man she makes his willy tingle, I'd like to know what the justification for it is.

Sometimes I think there are people who, even though they know what AGP is, even though they are told, unequivocally what it does, they're still slightly sceptical.

Which I kind of get. What fucking idiot gets the horn from being called she.

But they do. They really, really do.

And it tingles even more if they've made you do it. And even more again, if they've made you do it whilst flatly disagreeing with the ideology.

There is a very fine line between diplomacy and appeasement.

I genuinely really hope you’re right Rebellious because these establishment women (and Lefty politicians) often make me feel like I’m Boxer or Clover from Animal Farm - they want my support, my strength to campaign for them, to use my resources, to point to me as the disadvantaged woman whose existence legitimises their work but they don’t want me making any decisions about where the movement goes politically, they think I’m not sophisticated enough to see 'subtleties' are necessary in networking and politicking, and they want me agreeing with their interpretations of everything.

Yes, I guess when you have a public facing role or career to protect then your movements will be modified by having that in mind.

I often look at the Labour front bench and wonder how they manage to put a lid on it - when their leader is saying and doing stuff they profoundly disagree with. But you don't get to the front bench unless you are able to do that. I imagine they see it as the necessary price for achieving the power to effect anything at all.

today it feels to me like they’re often ashamed of us for not 'behaving well' in public, they worry that we make them look bad - they’ll take our money but wish we’d let them all do the talking
…
make me feel like I’m Boxer or Clover from Animal Farm…they think I’m not sophisticated enough to see 'subtleties' are necessary in networking and politicking, and they want me agreeing with their interpretations of everything.

Likewise. But I suppose that's because my work is healthcare and science whereas they are engaged in high-level thinking that is beyond my cognitive resources or capacity.

But their contempt is misplaced and largely irrelevant unless they are permitted to represent themselves as the sole source of acceptable viewpoints.

We need a plurality of voices and perspectives to represent the diversity and plurality of women. As a MNer once remarked, "We're not a be-cardiganed monolith".

I shall continue to provide financial support where it is strategic: Sex Matters, crowdfunding for various tribunals and legal actions. I shall not attend a women's event where TW are showcased because it, by default, can exclude trans widows.

As a MNer once remarked, "We're not a be-cardiganed monolith".

Rethinking I love this description; it’s so accurate 😊

I’ll continue to fund and support and avoid, like you suggest, but I can’t help resenting that I’m considered to be infra dig, beyond the pale, and non-U by certain gender critical women for my firm and unshakeable knowledge that sex cannot be changed (and socially pretending about this fact is dangerous), as well as my dislike of seeing 'well-behaved' AGPS treated as allies in the fight for reclaiming women’s rights.

I appear to be constitutionally allergic to doublethink (or I’m stubborn) 🤯😵‍💫

“Likewise. But I suppose that's because my work is healthcare and science whereas they are engaged in high-level thinking that is beyond my cognitive resources or capacity.”

Or, more basically, whereas they are engaged in finger-to-keyboard paid work of putting their latest hot take on whatever topic out into the public domain, on the back of which they get to be able to pay their mortgages.

I've found tweets by Patrick@stilltish illuminating today

x.com/stilltish/status/1753767967534305423?s=46&t=A2fpFNgDRyXF2d6ye97wEA

x.com/stilltish/status/1753828060866982142?s=46&t=A2fpFNgDRyXF2d6ye97wEA

I have little interest or patience in highly intellectual women who see themselves as superior and above other women, and are happy to sacrifice these embarrassingly common and unimportant types of women in order to achieve their political goals by patting the egos and the other bits of men.

It is either fantastically naive, or its corrupt. It is seeking female subordination on their terms in ways that benefit them.

The Boxer comment is apt.

Your description is very interesting and gives me more to consider.

The more I read, here and from non-compliant women (and some men)on Twitter, the more I’m angry at Hadley Freeman accusing Kellie Jay Keen of engaging in brand building by objecting to Janice’s article.

I mean, Freeman knows what happens to KJK and the Let Women Speak women when they’re out in public - mobs of protesters who want to kick off. The LWS women are publicly putting themselves on the line to fight for women’s rights. And Freeman knows KJK was attacked by a mob in New Zealand and was very lucky to escape without serious injury (unlike other women on the day). Does Freeman’s accusation give an insight into the thoughts of opinion columnists (and maybe academics-cum-opinion columnists) that all public writing and speech is brand building for them? Freeman’s accusation just seemed so cynical, dismissive, disappointing and classist. It reminded me of Sarah Ditum calling KJK a poundshop Marine Le Pen.

Oh @UtopiaPlanitia you articulated your thoughts extremely well and I agree with everything you wrote. I don't usual comment on the spats because it does the movement no good, but I am really pissed off.

I'm an anon account because my children are adopted. However, like many other thousands of women, I am in an activist group, I work for free using my specific skills to further feminist causes, I buy all of the books these proper feminists sell, I contribute money to their crowd funders, I attend the conferences where they are platformed, I subscribe to various rags and blogs so I can read their articles and contribute financially to their work, I attend the protests and rallies.

I am sick of being told I'm not doing it right, that I'm concerned about the wrong things, that I'm a bad feminist for not having faith in the Labour Party and that I am wrong for believing Cleverley's 'off colour' joke about a date rape drug was no where near appropriate for an M.P. and that we should be demanding better.

I know some of these writers and academics have done amazing work over the decades, but I do not think they would speak so candidly on this particular topic if they knew they didn't have a legion of grass roots, anons behind them to back them up when things get a bit raucous.

I thought hierarchies, nepotism and egos weren't ideally supposed to exist in feminist activism, but what would someone like me know?

https://karadansky.substack.com/p/to-pronoun-or-not-to-pronoun

I thought hierarchies, nepotism and egos weren't ideally supposed to exist in feminist activism, but what would someone like me know?

😁

Does Freeman’s accusation give an insight into the thoughts of opinion columnists (and maybe academics-cum-opinion columnists) that all public writing and speech is brand building for them

Yes, it does.

As above, I shall weather their contempt and disdain despite the close resemblance to the class-based reasons and misogyny that have underpinned similar attitudes to me (and other women) in the past and in the present.

Ingratitude is monstrous, and for the multitude to be ingrateful, were to make a monster of the multitude.

I didn't expect the people I've supported and funded to be grateful to me and others like me.

I'm disappointed that they style me (and others) as coarse of thought and tongue, barely sentient as to the way of the world and lacking due deference and gratitude to them and those, like Hayton, whom they have elevated and marked for esteem.

What a monstrous regiment of Boxers and Clovers women we are. Resistant to the thought reform that would alleviate us of the burden of our need to think and evaluate.

I'm disappointed that they style me (and others) as coarse of thought and tongue, barely sentient as to the way of the world and lacking due deference and gratitude to them and those, like Hayton, whom they have elevated and marked for esteem.

Bloody hell, this is such a bad faith take on the whole thing. It's practically reaching TRA levels of hyperbole. Can we just stop with the snide digs about people who largely agree on the substance of the argument, but differ as regards tactics or vocabulary? This is such a big issue with so many facets that are going to require work in order to make the changes in law and policy that we need, that it needs people with a wide range of different skills and experience to make the case to different groups. It's not just a case of raising awareness in people who are already inclined to agree with us, but persuading people who disagree but aren't completely entrenched in their position. Jumping on people for not using sex based pronouns is as much of a turn off as when the TRAs do it regarding gender based ones

I'm disappointed that they style me (and others) as coarse of thought and tongue

I'd be fucking disappointed to be styled any other way tbh 😂

this is such a bad faith take on the whole thing. It's practically reaching TRA levels of hyperbole. Can we just stop with the snide digs

Just so I know, is your take an official preferred style? I'm eager to be schooled in the art of managing my expression and thought at all times but I wouldn't be comfortable adopting it.

I'm startled to learn that I've never made a point about plurality, policy, and law.

This has become very apparent over the past months since the Brighton Let Women Speak event in particular.