Stephanie Hayton in The Times

[nythbran2]

Share token: www.thetimes.co.uk/article/14e32be1-7d9e-41e9-833d-04defedc9cad?shareToken=7730fec65ff9cf9bf7f92cc29de3781c

Lorelei’s thread review was excellent and very revelatory - we now have, in essence, Hayton’s Manifesto and we can quote it, chapter and verse, without Hayton having wiggle-room to equivocate (as has happened so much in the past where the message was always edited and targeted to the particular audience).

Honestly, D Hayton is living proof that the medium is the message with these guys.

Thanks. I don’t want to read his book, certainly not pay for it! but that tells me a lot of its contents.

‘On the basis of the courtesy others offer him he believes that if a woman was someone “perceived as a woman”, he would make the grade.’

This is part of the problem with #bekind and using someone preferred pronouns, Hayton actually thinks he passes 😳

The perspective of the users on Ovarit, regarding this book, might be of interest to this thread:

https://ovarit.com/o/GenderCritical/533846/for-those-curious-about-the-debbie-hayton-book

He has said on numerous occasions that in group/public situations it makes sense to refer to him, and to point him out to potential strangers, as a woman rather than as a man because calling him a man would only confuse these potential strangers because, as he says, he so obviously looks like a woman 🤷‍♀️

Amazing that so many posters on here, who presumably consider themselves feminists, seem to think they know better than Stephanie herself how she should behave and what she should think.

we have expressed concern that she has a husband who is demonstrably manipulative and we have speculated about what she may be thinking and why , I’ve questioned how someone can reconcile deep Christian belife’s with use of sissy porn as I find that hard to comprehend but I don’t recall anyone stating with certainty how Stephanie should behave and what she should think

What's the feminist bit about? That women shouldn't question what is going on with another woman and the situation she's chosen to put in the national press and opened up for discussion?

Really?

Yes. A LOT of women from difficult relationships do in the long term describe how what they said and even thought they felt at the time were more about survival than what they really felt or wanted. There's a hell of a lot of pressures going on for a woman in this very difficult situation, many layers to the situation, and self deception and self protection are often a part of it. Which is naturally something feminists would care about.

Feminism is literally the title of this board

There it is again. Making assumptions while knowing almost nothing about SH. Seriously, so patronising (ah, the irony)

You what?

No fuckin' way.

Yes this is the feminism board. If we see our friends or other women in what we perceive as an abusive situation do we not speak up? If our friend is telling us that they are absolutely fine are we patronising her if we worry for her because we can see the classic progression of abuse? No of course not. SH has given an interview in a national paper. This will invite speculation and questions. This is an important discussion for women to have, as I am sure you have noted, many other women have left similar marriages because they did see it as abusive. Those women have been able to support each other and through discussions been able to shine a light onto something that has been and still is widely ignored. I have no idea what is happening in SHs mind or what she thinks but unfortunately I am well aware of the different forms of abuse women face and the situations they are locked into because of it. Whatever Stephanie chooses to do in her marriage then good luck and best wishes to her.

Thanks for putting into words what I’ve been feeling on the issue 👍

Well I'm sorry, but a) feminism doesn't mean you don't question other women. Think about it, that really would be daft

and b) She's married to an AGP. Almost everything she says is completely typical, and exactly what transwidows will identify as a pattern.

It's not like Stephanie isn't telling people. All the escalation, all the broken promises, all the obsession. It's textbook.

Recognising male pattern behaviour is part of feminism.

Exactly this. I think discussing Stephanie's situation here is important. Not least because it might help other women who are in the same position.

Stephanie herself in an earlier interview in 2020 said how she had no say in her husband's decision to transition, he said he'd leave if she asked him to, but then refused when she did. His behaviour then was obviously abusive.

Stephanie was denied access to much of the support that might have helped her. Her husband used to post on here. How easy would it have been for her to access support from women on here while he was posting on here as some sort of rational and acceptable trans person? Media outlets were fawning over him. How could any woman married to such a man stand up and say that actually he's self-centred, narcissistic and abusive?

He was lauded by WPUK as an acceptable trans person and spoke at several of their meetings. Those meetings should have been for women like Stephanie, but how could they help women like her when they were allowing men like her husband to speak there (feeding their paraphilia)?

It must be hard enough just being married to a man like this, but her husband is actively supported in his paraphilia by the groups who should be supporting women like her, and is plastering himself all over the media as the reasonable face of transgenderism. Life must have become almost impossible for Stephanie.

Yes. It isn't necessarily supportive or helpful or honest or even actually kind to 'yay, girl' to absolutely everything - prostitution, acting in extreme porn, surrogacy, staying with an abusive partner, etc.

Liberal feminism often attempts to do this, by focussing on a very immediate-gratification hyper individualised point of view. 'Sex work makes good money - yay, go you!'

Analysing patterns, asking questions is not about 'telling women what to do', but looking at women's actions and situations, and considering how healthy they are and whether they have been informed by other larger patterns within society - the male gaze, or the gender pay gap, fear, etc, and whether we could make better choices, more liberated choices that are not false dilemma fallacies.

And beyond feminism and just as a human being, I am going to be blunt in that I read this article and see an unhappy woman who has been treated very badly for a very long time, and it makes me angry.

Assertions about how abused women are weak or passive are just mistaken. And those can be damaging assertions, that can keep someone trapped.

her husband is actively supported in his paraphilia by the groups who should be supporting women like her, and is plastering himself all over the media

Quite.

How can a woman seek support or speak openly about herself when her husband is body blocking her from all support by dominating and controlling it all himself, including setting the narrative? And women are being effectively groomed into helping him out with this.

How consciously it is being done by her husband is another interesting question.