GC Ultra / GC Lite?

[Catsanfan]

Hi all

I keep seeing these used on X. I'm not totally sure what they mean. Is it in a nutshell GC Ultra = Posie Parker GC Lite = people who think Debbie Haytons a decent bloke.

Or am I totally on the wrong page? So much terminology these days!

TIA

Sorry if I was unclear.

Are you saying that specifically the students Hayton teaches have the freedom to use correct sex pronouns for Hayton?

Because I don’t believe that is the case.

And if they don’t, is this only because of the school, or has Hayton expressly said in the book that they don’t care if the students say ‘Mr Hayton’ or ‘sir’?

Hi @RethinkingLife sorry If you didnt like my use of we. Will stick it i as best i can.

@Helleofabore Cross posts, well i can only go on What Hayton says in his book, and on youtube. And that is his position now, but not before he “saw reason”.

Sorry Karen. I must be unclear.

Has Hayton expressly said that Hayton’s students are free to use whatever pronouns they wish for Hayton?

Or have you extrapolated that yourself from what you have seen and read?

@Helleofabore I am pretty sure he said that though i will have to go back and check. Got other stuff to do but will be back with an answer

Thank you Karen.

That would be very interesting. Because I am thinking that the school has a trans policy that would not allow it. And I suspect that Hayton was also probably as involved in writing suggested school trans policies on what to call teachers, as Hayton was in specifying toilet usage in the trans policy they were involved in consulting for.

My worry would be that arguing for this as well as single sex spaces will give fuel to activist who will say we are anti-trans rather than pro-women's rights.

Quite @lifeturnsonadime a decision has to be made.
Are we campaigning for men not to perform their fetish at work? Which would mean a repeal of the EA and would probably not have the instructive public support of campaigns for sports, prison etc.

Or do we pragmatically accept that as long as we don't have to pretend they're men and we maintain our spaces we reluctantly accept they'll be some men in cosplay at work enjoying it?

If we accept that we have to drop the line, no performing fetishes at work, because it won't be true or consistent.

Personally I'd like to return to a culture with more socially enforced dress codes in public. Maybe 10 years ago? But I don't want legislation around dress.

I think maybe I'm for legally liberal with a more conservative culture. But that ship has sailed.

It can get quite heated and unpleasant on Mumsnet, at times, when somone argues in favour of moderation as a strategy - in pursuit of longer term goals. I've been subject to it myself. People suggest you " put men first" are an " appeaser" and so on. I even name changed because of it. Very unpleasant.

Kathleen Stock and Janice Turner are not just "paid media personas" - they have been very important and influential political actors, and will no doubt continue to be. We rely on people with a media presence to articulate the key areas of concern.

Social media amplifies these divisions and turns everything quite toxic...which is why Kathleen Stock and Andrew Doyle are better off away from it. Twitter wars are not what is going to effect meaningful change.

nor would i want a law about what men or women ought to wear.

Yet that is what we have; the GRA grants a certificate creating a lie based on “living in the acquired gender” part of which is clothes.

That would only solve the issue for those few like DH who self declare their agp.
Most of them deny it and claim it's a special identity not sexual, so you couldn't challenge them on this basis.

@Helleofabore just scanned the book have not found it yet. Will let you know when i do.

I have found one comment on the use of pronouns in school being harmful to children and confusing.

On YouTube i recall him saying he didn't have to worry about pronouns as he now uses his title of doctor (he has a PHD)

I have never seen evidence of him being an Author of trans inclusivity in schools so if you could post a link to that it would help me understand peoples anger towards him as i have never found proof of this on internet.

But what his book is about is his journey and where his thinking is now, and the wrong thinking of his past.

I've just checked the article he wrote for the tes in 2019 and anything on pronouns are absent bar "gender neutral pronouns for eg they/them, may be used as an alternative to sex based pronouns."

However the entire piece has the premise that trans kids exist and we should be calling children by their preferred names. That is said repeatedly. As a teacher reading that without any knowledge of these issues and in the current climate, I'd not see pronouns as an issue. The issues raised are girls single sex spaces.

'She' is used in Hayton's article bio.

Personally I think it's deliberately not clarified. To state that 'we call boys she' will have had a jarring slant against the transgender trend quotes etc

This is the part on safeguarding the child:

Sorry, not hugely clear. This one has the bottom para taken off, hoping is clearer.

Here you go

https://dera.ioe.ac.uk/id/eprint/33503/1/085066bb-c224-40de-b79e2a1358801ee9.pdf

Hayton was a consultant for this guidance I believe. And now refuses to talk about it citing confidentiality.

Hayton was a regular mumsnetter. Many regulars have directly interacted with Hayton before the 'breast size' comment that really showed the misogyny inherent in Hayton's position.

Thanks @WarriorN there is a subtle shift from what he says there to what he says now about the concept of trans children and pro nouns

We need to remember he is not the "expert" here.

Of course he is not an expert, on searching his book he states that he and no other teacher is. He goes on to recount that, because of his appearance on two separate occasions, teenagers have approached him about their own gender questioning, and he states, that he followed school safeguarding, referred them to pastoral care etc, and did not get involved, any further.

He states in another chapter, that in a meeting he said “hi my name is Debbie, and i am not declaring any pronouns”

He goes on to say “offering pronouns…………can quickly become an expectation and an imposition”“others can use whatever pronouns they like for me”

There is one thing as, a transexual that he is clearly is not understanding or not discussing, and that is the discomfort that others recognising him as a man, can be a very uncomfortable and discombobulating experience, which i say of myself, that can only be resolved by getting to know them.

We also need to remember that Hayton is very heavily invested in the acceptance of this paraphilia as something to consider normalised enough that teachers with this stated paraphilia are not considered to be a risk to the children they teach. Either directly, or indirectly through policies set up for their 'protection', compelled belief, usage of single sex spaces etc.

There are many aspects of life, and safeguarding, that this 'normalisation' impacts. It is certainly not simple. And it should never be underestimated as to where this normalisation could lead.

How many years did France maintain their abusers paradise of lowered age of consent? All because some adults felt that children should be free to express their 'sexuality' and lowered children's sexual boundaries in law. They were considered the liberal and literary elite of France at the time. And it led to many children being preyed on and harmed.

Stella O'Malley's positioning herself as a 'liberal' doesn't make me feel that I am 'illiberal'. It makes me feel that she really doesn't have a grasp on the ramifications of what she is advocating for. And I think hiding this behind the label of 'liberal' is fucked up.

And yet, Hayton still uses the name Debbie and Hayton's wife calls Hayton her 'wife'.

There is many inconsistencies here.

Thanks @Helleofabore

I cant be arsed reading the whole document but scanned it. His position is now different, i can certainly see why people were pissed of with him.

I interacted with the argument yesterday. I've already had this conversation. I thought it was with you?

I said that the equality act needs to be rewritten. I said that gender reassignment as a PC was a coup for transactactivists. And I said that it's my belief that it has been framed as an ideology, in order to obscure that it's actually driven by sex.

In terms of Hayton, specifically, he's already told people that he's coming to work in fetish gear.

HR should tell him not to. If a man working in a school is telling you he's wearing fetish gear to work, you should be able to stop him!

And if it goes to court, then bring it on.

Pour the sunlight on it, talk about it, make people understand how utterly narcissistic this fetish is, and how it leaves a trail of destruction in its wake.

Give all the microphones, the column inches and the interviews to transwidows and children of transitioners. Let's have the experts

And alongside them, we can have the child safeguarding experts. We can see what they have to say about men enacting their fetish at school and how we've arrived at the point where no one seems to be able to do much about it.

Let's ask them what has to be rewritten.

There are several strands to this. And one of those is to raise awareness of how prevalent AGP is. (And now, it would also seem, that we are having to argue with feminists against its normalisation).

Because, alongside all this, raising awareness will impact public attitudes. Social opprobrium cannot be underestimated.

Indeed. The problem is, that is that the women here have been interacting with Debbie H for years and years. Then every time he ups his profile in public, we see the past being tweaked.

He goes on to recount that, because of his appearance on two separate occasions, teenagers have approached him about their own gender questioning, and he states, that he followed school safeguarding, referred them to pastoral care

Again, to me, this is a form of forced teaming. But with abstract children, this time. Conveying the commonality between him and them.

Debbie Hayton is not gender questioning, Debbie Hayton has a full throttled adult fetish that has been consuming him for decades.

What you've actually got is him being in a position where minors are talking to him about his fetish, and he's painting it in a positive light! Which also appears to reflect well on him!!!

Yes. Datun.

It seems to Stella that just because this particular fetish involves everyday clothes, that it is impossible to police. Indeed, that it should NOT be policed because, well, women wear 'sexy' clothes and this should be treated the same. Actually, if women are wearing sexy lingerie under their clothes (not pretty and normal style of bra and undies if you know what I mean) while teaching children, I would be rather against this too. Just like if a teacher was wearing BDSM gear under their clothes, or their 'baby' fetish gear.

It means that they cannot conceivably be expected to understand the sexual boundaries and the needs of children. It certainly means that while they are at school, they are not fully focused on the needs of the children they teach. It leaves me in doubt that they understand children's sexual boundaries.

As many of us keep saying, this has more layers than the simplistic nature of what some people advocating for this normalisation want us to believe.

And the arguments that I am seeing to defend the normalisation of this paraphilia seem to follow the : the rapist is going to rape anyway, creating laws to uphold safeguarding are not going to be any use, why bother.

The exact same style of argument that we see for toilets and single sex spaces. Can't be done, why bother.

@Datun you did. It was me on another thread. I was talking about the points on this thread being raised by others and your resposnes here.

Your points here are intersting and start to, imo, unpack the issue rather than the denying that there is an issue which has gone on with some posters.

I said that the equality act needs to be rewritten. This is an intersting as I don't think I've seen this being argued until now (maybe I'm wrong, but I don't think it's been centre to discussions?) and yet it would have to be done to prevent tranvestivism at work.

How would it be rewritten whihchwould prevent this I wonder? Is the suggestion that GR is just removed as a protected chrasteristic?

HR should tell him not to. If a man working in a school is telling you he's wearing fetish gear to work, you should be able to stop him. Yes you should but how? HR will only do this if they believe the law supports them. What law or argument could HR be promoted to use to get them to do this?
It's no good just saying they should. They need to be told why they should, what laws support that and that they are in danger of prosecution themsleves if they don't.

There are several strands to this. And one of those is to raise awareness of how prevalent AGP is. I kind of agree with this but think we should go back to calling them tranvestites. I'm not sure this new 'medical' type label is useful or necessary. We always knew that men in women's clothes was usually sexual. WE had a word for it. It was a bit shameful, expected to be private, and could be ridiculed as absurd e.g Little Britain. You could also just choose not to emply someone if they were a man dressing as a women.

Social opprobrium cannot be underestimated. I agree with this but fear we're now so far down the 'liberal' route of 'wear what you want' being the culture it's going to be hard to restore this mechanism that previously worked so well on this issue.