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.

Maybe the biggest problem is TwiX as a medium. I hugely admire Turner as a journalist, and my reservations about her approach to the interview with DH didn't change that.

But ye gods and goddesses, I wish she hadn't made those follow-up comments on TwiX! I'm sure the feedback from readers was unpleasant to read, but in turn, her own turn of phrase in her responses couldn't grate more on my nerves if she was outright trying.

Catching up on some telly a bit later than usual; Andrew Doyle had Hayton on Free Speech Nation this evening to discuss the book.

Four points of interest for me in light of discussion on this thread:

• Hayton refuses to comment on any input to the teaching union guidance that was pro self-ID re access to sex segregated spaces etc. Says it wouldn’t be possible for him, as a union member, to comment on union-written policies.
• Asked about men using women’s toilets Hayton goes on about preferring to use single cubicle toilets, but does not actually say outright he doesn’t use women’s loos.
• Hayton’s description of AGP is rather sanitised as ‘'being attracted to one’s own body’ and then something about male bodies being lamentably not what heterosexual men find attractive.
• When asked how, as a teacher, he would explain gender to students, Hayton refers to following the guidance of Head Teacher & school policy.

About to watch Helen Joyce being interviewed by Andrew about NUFC banning Linzi now.

Yes, that is a bit puzzling.

I think part of Hayton’s agenda is to normalise transgender ideology in the CofE, which is always vulnerable to “be kind” thinking. Unfortunately it’s only the more extreme wing of the mostly fairly mild evangelicals within the CofE who stand up vocally for sex reality, from a conservative evangelical viewpoint. Within the CofE, Hayton is now quite well known.

I always assumed Hayton had political ambitions- presumably Labour - & have been surprised it hasn't come it anything yet, maybe this is the push? Sanitising the fetish & boosting publicity - being seen as the reasonable middle ground 🙄

Watched the GB news segment. DH comes across as reasonable and personable.

Presenting AGP as 'sexually and romantically attracted to one's own body as a female' also sounds quite reasonable and everyday.

Hayton notes 'most' transwomen are driven by this urge ('the male sex drive, the most powerful force known to man', which I found amusing from a physics teacher).

So he is clear that it's all driven by what he describes as a very powerful sexual compulsion.

And he's managed to make that sound matter of fact.

Yes this is being presented as an orientation rather than a fetish. When you think about it that's the next logical step.

Yes, twitter does no-one any favours.

Maybe that is why Janice is so supportive - given her obvious desire to vote Labour.

The C of E gives me the ick these days.....I wonder if it will ever be disestablished? There seemed always to be lots of of C of E men involved with The Beaumont Society.

When asked how, as a teacher, he would explain gender to students, Hayton refers to following the guidance of Head Teacher & school policy.

Given DH’s current school states on their website “to actively misgender a person is an act of hostility” that’s not reassuring in the slightest.

Not long back, I found an article written in 2000 about the first male transitioning vicar in the CoE. I don't think it would be printed that way now. It's an interesting read.

article

When the Reverend Carol Stone took to the pulpit in Swindon on Sunday she was making history as Britain's first sex-change vicar. She has been applauded by many in the church for her bravery and has the backing of her bishop. But, as IAN FANNON reports, there are others who will never accept her need for a new identity.
SENIOR clergyman Andrew Hetherington has spoken of his opposition to the decision to allow the Reverend Carol Stone to remain in the church.
And he claims to represent the view of many Christians who have so far remained silent on the issue.
The Reverend Hetherington, team rector for the West Swindon and Lydiards parish, believes gender re-assignment is against Christian morals.

He says Ms Stone who was called Peter Stone before his operation this summer should stand down from the ministry.

Mr Hetherington has made his views public after fellow church leaders in his parish which includes Baptist, Church of England, Methodist and United Reformed Church denominations said they shared his concern.

The churches in the parish are Holy Trinity Church in Shaw, All Saints in Lydiard Millicent, St Mary's in Lydiard Tregoze, Toothill Church and Westlea Church.

Ms Stone made her first public appearance since the operation on Sunday when she returned to the pulpit at St Philip's Church in Stratton St Margaret.

She received a standing ovation from the 100-strong congregation, who have fully backed her decision along with the Bishop of Bristol, the Right Reverend Barry Rogerson.

But Mr Hetherington, vicar of Holy Trinity Church, said: "In my pastoral ministry, there are people I meet who have deep inner urges which it would be wrong to give in to, such as harming themselves.
"I'm not suggesting her urges should have been suppressed, but that she should have sought help and counselling instead of going ahead with the operation.

"If she was still unhappy, she should, as a Christian, have accepted that not everything can be put right in this world.
"She may feel better now, but people often say they feel better on drugs in the long run, what has changed? She is still 80 per cent male."
Mr Hetherington said he was disappointed that the clergy in Swindon were not asked their opinion on the issue before Bishop Rogerson gave it his approval.

He claimed that after the historic announcement was made, at least 20 clergymen from across the town expressed their disagreement with her decision to the Bishop.

"I have deep compassion for someone with such inner urges, but this should not be acceptable in the Christian faith and she should stand down," he said.
"We're still part of a society that needs moral boundaries, otherwise society devolves into selfishness. Her action was largely selfish.
"As a Christian leader, she should have set an example, because our leaders need to uphold moral standards and she has failed in this duty."

The Evangelical Alliance, a national church organisation representing one million Christians in Britain, has also condemned gender re-assignment.

A member of the alliance, Swindon pastor John Tait, from the King's Christian Centre in Old Town, said: "If she'd been in our alliance, she wouldn't have been allowed to retain ministerial status.
"There has been a lot of publicity supporting her decision, but it needs some Christian balance, because the Church of England is way out on a limb on this issue."

Ms Stone declined to respond, but a spokesman for the Bristol diocese, the Reverend Stephen Oram, said there was no question of her standing down.

He said: "This is an issue about gender redesignation and not about Carol Stone. If clergy have difficulties with an issue, then they should discuss it with the diocese or church authorities.

"She has no intention of resigning her post and certainly not as a result of such comments."
At Sunday's service, one woman had to be escorted from the church after an outburst against Ms Stone.

Afterwards, the vicar who married twice and fathered a child said: "It would have been naive of me to assume that everyone would be as happy as others are and that is something I will have to live with for the rest of my life."

From: https://archive.is/fhUiS

An ecumenical matter, I suppose.

It’s a shit show. And an ongoing issue now wrapped up with same sex marriage.

"80% male" is such a hilariously precise and wrong figure

Yes, ultimately this seems to be about force teaming the T with the LGB again. Janice has done so much to raise awareness and fight back against the TRA agenda but can’t seem to see what’s going on here because of the seemingly sensible approach to third spaces.

I did enjoy that. What does the 20% apply to?!

The marigolds?

Yep.

We're going to have to spell out very clearly the difference between a fetish and an orientation.

I'd have said this had all been firmly established in medical literature, but then we have seen 'gender dysphoria' get reclassified as not a mental health issue, but somehow still requiring medical treatment, so who knows.

'T' as a sexual orientation is coming up next.

Depends if its additive or reductive, I suppose? I kind of imagined the person quoted meant the person was 20% 'less male' after an op.

Edit: Maybe the term I'm looking for is 'subtractive', but this is gendermaths, so who knows.

How is this going to work?

The authorities are going to have to be confronted with the fact that they've legitimised a fetish. Given it civil rights, in fact. Protected it.

You get men who can explain to you exactly what AGP involves (not Debbie H). Are you going to allow them to be teachers, or kindergarten workers? Letting children, and the general public, feed their fetish? Telling them, in fact, that they must do so. Or are you going to say no, and have to address the big fat elephant in the equality act that would call it discrimination?

In interviews, men like Debbie Hayton will definitely have made sure they weren't going to be asked too many awkward questions or, as Utopia says above, have refined, finessed, and perfected their evasive answers. (And for anyone not quite appreciating the amount of manipulation that goes into doing that, hopefully her post would have clarified it).

And enough women know now. Men like Hayton will be asked directly, to confirm, or deny, to be accountable and define and how hot, exactly, are you willing to let your feet get with that fire.

And if they refuse to be held accountable, then, that, as ever, speaks for itself.

I think, Datun, the key aspect is whether AGP is being presented as a solitary pursuit - that a man is just interested in his own presentation and imagination of himself as a woman.

In reality, this fetish most often involves others being involved - and the crux of the matter - involved non-consensually.

AGP requires an audience, and much of it depends on the response of other people. As we know, that might involve both positive and negative responses. Some of it is about shame, or invoking shock, and some of it is invoking 'fawn' responses.

All of that depends on other people, but it also - as far as I understand it - depends on those other people not giving full and informed consent.

Happy to be corrected on that, but that's my understanding.

Fetishism can be involved on inanimate objects, but cross dressing in public is transvestic fetishism and the 'public' part is integral.

https://archive.org/details/diagnosticstatis0005unse/page/702/mode/2up

Borrowable on archive.org.

Differentiates between Gender Dysphoria, Fetishism, and Autogynephilia. Also notes 'often found in association with other paraphilias'.

AGP requires an audience, and much of it depends on the response of other people.

Yes. And of course, the people most likely to give you the facts of this are transwidows.

It's got to be bloody galling that they are the last people to be consulted.

I wish people like Janice Turner and Andrew Doyle would interview them.

But yes, of course, if there is any aspect to a fetish that relies on the general public's unwitting (and unwilling), participation, then how do you address that, when you've bloody put it in the equality act.

And, it has to be said, that many women have seen this for ten or more years. Seen the progress that transactivists have made in order to repackage a paraphilia, as either an innate essence, a medical condition, a mental health issue or even a lifestyle choice, (whilst wriggling out of each those descriptions whenever they're inconvenient).

It's my understanding that the original intention was that doctors would be able to differentiate between AGP men, and non-AGP men. And that would sort out the gatekeeping both in terms of treatment, and also in terms of signing off for a GRC.

Well we know the treatment aspect is completely out the window. Anyone can get it. And also, the GRC. The Internet does, and always has, abounded with the exact wording to use for your doctor, in order to get their signature.

And yes, AGP is not a sexual orientation directed inwards. It's a paraphilia. And paraphilias are known to cluster.

It's certainly not my area of expertise, but I've read enough to know that some of the comorbid paraphilias are things like voyeurism, exhibitionism, etc.

Plus we know that men with an addiction like AGP are more likely to have a personality disorder, the most common of which is narcissism. Known for its coercive control.

This is not a sexual orientation.

I mentioned this on the other Hayton thread but I think it's worth mentioning here too. KJK's latest video hits the nail on the head for me.