Debbie Hayton is a British physics teacher, trade unionist, and transgender person who rejects the concept of "gender identity." Debbie has written extensively about transgenderism and personal experience with autogynephilia in The Spectator, UnHerd,
Probably better not to fall in to the lie. No such thing exists as a “transgender person.” Sex is binary, regardless of the feelings of those who “feel” otherwise. People insisting they are “trans” or “non-binary” or “gender fluid” are in reality clinically insane by definition.
Accepting and thereby promulgating their insanity / dishonesty is dishonest. Being untruthful helps no one and hinders society at-large. Best bet: don’t lie and don’t accept the lies.
"Sex" is an entirely different kettle of fish from "gender". That's Hayton's point in arguing that he's still male (sex) but has feminine traits (gender). Try reading Merriam-Webster:
MW: "Among those who study gender and sexuality, a clear delineation between sex and gender is typically prescribed, with sex as the preferred term for biological forms, and gender limited to its meanings involving behavioral, cultural, and psychological traits. In this dichotomy, the terms male and female relate only to biological forms (sex), while the terms masculine/masculinity, feminine/femininity, woman/girl, and man/boy relate only to psychological and sociocultural traits (gender)."
Yeah - no. All the idiots on the left yak like you, trying to convince the adults that these morons differentiate sex & gender. We - that’d be the adults - recognize that when these degenerates start chopping off tits & dicks, and trying to build vaginas for males, we’re talking about immutable SEX traits.
When they start looking for the female GENDER bath room to go rape actual females, get back to me. You can pretend we’re talking about male & female nouns, as you seem to be implying, but people with working brain cells (e.g. not you) understand what’s really going on. I’m not sure to which book I’d point you, as the dictionary you reference provides all the above information but you’re so dense you can’t grasp that, yet point me to it. You’re just not very bright and pretending, as do most pre-adolescents caught publicly in their ignorance, to be much more intelligent than you are. It’s ok; many people are like you. Dunning Kruger published a study showing why smart people (me) know we’re smart, but stupid people (you) don’t know you’re stupid. Maybe you should read that. Perhaps you’ll be able to understand it.
The word "gender" has no application to humans. It's a linguistics term. That's why when people use it, they can make it mean everything, nothing, anything, sex, but not sex, clothes, makeup, hormones...it's purposefully confusing.
Humans come in two sexes--male and female. Everything else can be described more accurately without using "gender": personality, hobbies, etc. "Gender" applies to words only (like la mesa or el gato). People who defend "gender" are just not smart enough to know where it comes from.
You're blathering there mate; you don't know your arse from a hole in the ground. Merriam-Webster clearly differentiates between sex and gender, and says many reputable sources do likewise. Like the late, great Justice Anton Scalia:
AS: “The word 'gender' has acquired the new and useful connotation of cultural or attitudinal characteristics (as opposed to physical characteristics) distinctive to the sexes. That is to say, gender is to sex as feminine is to female and masculine is to male."
And you might try getting your head out of your arse long enough to read what are the standard biological definitions for the sexes published in reputable biological journals, encyclopedias, and dictionaries:
More particularly, the upshot of those definitions is that to have a sex is to have FUNCTIONAL gonads of either of two types, those with neither being sexless.
You’re like those morons who argue about trees when the forest is burning, yammering on like a child about the oil pressure being low as the car drives over the cliff. And it’s spelled “ass,” just as it’s spelled “harbor;” y’all lost the empire generations ago, lost London in living memory and really no longer are worth anyone’s time.
And it’s not gender we’re talking about, anyway. It’s chopping off dicks & tits. But your head is so far up your ass you can’t understand this. Dunning Kruger archetype.
LoL. I'm not a Brit so another wrong tree you're barking up like some demented poodle.
Though you're right -- stopped clocks and all that ... -- that the issue IS about "chopping off tits and dicks". But you're too clueless, too much of a scientific and philosophical illiterate to realize that that is the result of various transloonie nutcases and their fellow travelers insisting that to do so is to change their sex from male to female or vice versa. Which you're contributing to by refusing to define your terms, and refusing to accept Scalia's dichotomy.
Hayton and Bruce Jenner and their ilk have changed their appearances, their "genders" to, maybe, more feminine ones -- if one was half blind or dead drunk -- but they haven't changed their sexes -- i.e., from being able to produce sperm -- both Hayton and Jenner have FATHERED children -- to being able to produce ova. All that Hayton and Jenner, and many other transwomen have done is turned themselves into sexless eunuchs.
Words have meanings, and a great deal of importance -- which you're too thick to even consider. But some definitions are more useful and accurate than others.
Please consider Hayton's previous writing about God as male and his inability to find himself in the Christian male-god theology. It explains a great deal. What Hayton does not speak on is the psychological and emotional damage men like him do to their wives. (he wrote about baking the family's bread as a "female" task when he was "transitioning.") Please people, stop giving these AGP dudes a platform. Ignore them, let your boredom grow. They are a bore. Except when they're demanding their wife to put on a strap on and pretend to be male in bed. Then they are a danger. Hayton's wife, who openly said she asked for a divorce, has openly stated they do not sleep together.
I respectfully disagree that we should stop giving these AGP dudes a platform and still think the best solution is to encourage productive conversations. That said...
Thank you, Ute, it took a while to get through to me, but I think I am starting to grasp the importance of your message. When I am thinking about delusion, I usually try to relate it back to a person that is anorexic to help me think about it. I have thought about how I would want to be patient with a loved one who is anorexic because people can come out of a delusional state. For the first time today, I began to think of this in a new light. I believe it was this particular set of sentences that connected the dots for me:
"They are a bore. Except when they're demanding their wife to put on a strap on and pretend to be male in bed. Then they are a danger. Hayton's wife, who openly said she asked for a divorce, has openly stated they do not sleep together."
Now as I reconsider my anorexia analogy, I think of a personal anecdote. I know someone who used to be anorexic; she is no longer and now understands how harmful it was. I have asked her about it, trying to understand how one awakens from such a powerful delusion. It was when she realized she wanted to eat less for different reasons than she originally thought she did, that she was deceiving herself and had the power and desire to bring an end to it. This success story drove my focus towards compassion towards the delusional, which I still believe is necessary. However, your story has made me realize that there is another person in the analogy in need of equal consideration and compassion, the spouse. Again, I think the openly asking for a divorce and it not being granted or being at a dramatic disadvantage in the marital court system, is what got through to me. The post-anorexic person I know told me a story of how she once asked another anorexic friend how thin she wanted to become and her friend answered, "I want to be a skeleton." I don't spend a lot of time thinking about what it must be like for other couples in the bedroom, so it is easy to overlook, but her friend was married at the time. I never considered what it would be like to find myself married to someone who decides one day that she would look sexier as someone lingering on the edge of becoming a corpse and having no legal recourse in that situation. Thank you for your patience and perseverance in bringing this to my attention.
These men are worse than the full-on crazy delusional troons like WIll "Lia" Thomas. They're inconsistent and they function as Trojan horses to lull people into a complacent sense of calm.
It is interesting that the people who think gender is just a social construct think that you can transition from one gender to another… It’s like an atheist who blames God for the worlds problems… It’s not logical.
The language is the battle. To use the word "gender" in reference to humans means that it has validity in reference to humans. Once the floodgate of crazy is opened in that way, there is no stopping it. The flood can't be let out only a few feet, and then contained. None of this is applicable. "Gender" applies to words only as it's a linguistics term. John Money knew that, and that's why he intentionally caused this confusion in the first place.
I will never understand how Money rose to such prominence except, perhaps, as a case study of the dangers of experiments on human subjects. It seems to me that the catastrophic outcome of his experiments on the Reimer twins irrefutably 𝘥𝘪𝘴𝘱𝘳𝘰𝘷𝘦𝘥 the harebrained notion that some unverifiable and therefore unfalsifiable characteristic called "gender" was a so called "social construct". But then, I'm not trained in the mental gymnastics of academic medicine or psychology
"It is interesting that the people who think gender is just a social construct think that you can transition from one gender to another"
Hang on a minute.... that makes perfect sense. Feminism's assertion that gender is a social construct means gender is arbitrary and a matter of personal preference (assuming you are willing to overcome your childhood conditioning). This aligns perfectly with the concept of changing one's gender at will (often several times a day - as is now the norm for some people).
Feminism's social construct theory of gender is precisely what paved the way for today's transgender movement..... a movement which is AT ODDS with the traditional notion of the transexual. Transexuals (prior to feminism's 3rd/ 4th wave) asserted that (1) gender was fixed for life and could not be changed (hence the desire to modify the body to align with that fixed gender) (2) there were only two genders/ two sexes (male/ female).
What we are witnessing today with all the de-gendering madness is feminism's 5th wave. Like all waves of feminism it has APPROPRIATED a bunch of other causes and demographics to the 'feminist cause' to make up for the fact that women don't actually lack any rights relative to men, which makes feminism a movement without a cause.
In the past feminism appropriated homosexuals, ethnic minorities and the poor. It even tried to appropriate men ("patriarchy hurts men too"). Now it has appropriated transexuals, and flipped the concept on its head by injecting it with feminism's social construct theory.
Peter, I've watched every interview of yours I can find and every video you've posted and this might be the weakest. You were in a raft floating above the Marianas Trench and you didn't even peep over the side.
So.
Why did both participants assume that of course it's acceptable in a liberal society for an autogynephile to teach children and why was there an unchallenged equivalency made to letting a homosexual teach? Suggesting they're comparable scenarios makes me wonder whether you assumed that autogynephilia is a sexuality, which is inaccurate. Autogynephiles are heterosexual men (with a "target location disorder", as Hayton stated). Autogynephilia is a fetish/mental disorder/paraphilia. Homosexuality is a sexuality.
If autogynephilia isn't a mental disorder, then what is it? If someone claims it's a sexuality, then 1) that's its own debate and 2) it would lead me to question whether all sexualities should be tolerated in society.
Given AGP/trans sex offending rates, why would you so easily agree that any of them should be allowed around minors? Isn't it at least worth raising a few serious positions to work through if you're going to have him on?
Why assume a liberal society should allow the mentally disordered to pretend to minors that their condition is normal? If there's a social contagion aspect to transgenderism as discussed, then why should we allow Hayton to interact with the cohort of society that is most susceptible to social contagions? His presence in the classroom is normalizing his behavior to them.
Would be very beneficial to have someone join you who robustly, completely disagrees with you in order to call out this crap and present a vigorous, energetic opposing stance. Ex: Cutting one's genitals off is not a gold standard for commitment (!) that legitimizes an idea of "true trans"; it's just a gold standard for fetishism. If he'd cut his leg off and identified as disabled and was demanding wheelchair ramps be built for him, would you still have coddled him this way? All he's legitimized is the fact that he's so mentally disordered that he needs to be committed to an asylum.
Why not bring up the fact that the treatments and surgery he got on the public dime are cosmetic. If he calls it suicide prevention then that's further evidence that he is mentally disordered and belongs in an asylum, not a school.
When he confirmed he is sexually attracted to women, why not ask about the visible impact his transition had on his wife and kids?
Why bother talking about feelings in relation to making public policy if you're going to sidestep following up about his historical lobbying to use the female students' bathroom at school and the impacts it had on minor students and public policy precedent?
Why not define the terms "gender" and "sex" in writing for each other and challenge their use (and conflation). Why not talk about how these terms were conflated societally in the past and whether they should be conflated?
Endless pitches coming in right over the plate and you just wouldn't swing. Low hanging fruit everywhere. Fish in a barrel! What's going on? What happened?!
You can behave or dress any way you like, but you can't lie about your sex and force us to believe you. Sex and gender are different. We will let you define gender as behavior. You can't redefine sex.
"transwomen" -- compound words like "crayfish" which ain't.
And transwomen who cut their nuts off no longer qualify as males, nor as adult human males, i.e., as men.
You might actually consider starting with the biological definitions for the sexes by which to have a sex is to have functional gonads of either of two types, those with neither being sexless.
You aren't intelligent. Stop writing. You think a dictionary definition means anything nowadays? The same idiots who came up with this wrote that nonsense. It's cultural, social, psychology, behavior---everything, anything, nothing. You don't know what you're talking about. Just shut up.
If "Debbie" knows that he's a man, then what is the point of anything that he is doing? Why does he call himself Debbie? Why did he grow out his hair? Why is he calling himself a "trans"woman at all? How can he KNOW that he's a man, and then claim that he has some kind of condition where he FEELS like he's a woman? If he knows that, what's the point of any of this? Call yourself David, get a haircut, and stop with all of this.
These men are even worse than a full-on delusional troon like WIll "Lia" Thomas. At least he's consistent. He claims he's a woman, which means he should play women's sport. These men are inconsistent. They act like they're one of the "good ones" (I'm a "cool" tr@nny, not like the regular tr@nnies!), meanwhile they have no point.
Tell Mr. Hayton to stop it then. What's the point of his existence? Well, actually I know--he's a Trojan horse to lull people into a false sense of complacency.
Probably better not to fall in to the lie. No such thing exists as a “transgender person.” Sex is binary, regardless of the feelings of those who “feel” otherwise. People insisting they are “trans” or “non-binary” or “gender fluid” are in reality clinically insane by definition.
Accepting and thereby promulgating their insanity / dishonesty is dishonest. Being untruthful helps no one and hinders society at-large. Best bet: don’t lie and don’t accept the lies.
"Sex" is an entirely different kettle of fish from "gender". That's Hayton's point in arguing that he's still male (sex) but has feminine traits (gender). Try reading Merriam-Webster:
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/gender
MW: "Among those who study gender and sexuality, a clear delineation between sex and gender is typically prescribed, with sex as the preferred term for biological forms, and gender limited to its meanings involving behavioral, cultural, and psychological traits. In this dichotomy, the terms male and female relate only to biological forms (sex), while the terms masculine/masculinity, feminine/femininity, woman/girl, and man/boy relate only to psychological and sociocultural traits (gender)."
Yeah - no. All the idiots on the left yak like you, trying to convince the adults that these morons differentiate sex & gender. We - that’d be the adults - recognize that when these degenerates start chopping off tits & dicks, and trying to build vaginas for males, we’re talking about immutable SEX traits.
When they start looking for the female GENDER bath room to go rape actual females, get back to me. You can pretend we’re talking about male & female nouns, as you seem to be implying, but people with working brain cells (e.g. not you) understand what’s really going on. I’m not sure to which book I’d point you, as the dictionary you reference provides all the above information but you’re so dense you can’t grasp that, yet point me to it. You’re just not very bright and pretending, as do most pre-adolescents caught publicly in their ignorance, to be much more intelligent than you are. It’s ok; many people are like you. Dunning Kruger published a study showing why smart people (me) know we’re smart, but stupid people (you) don’t know you’re stupid. Maybe you should read that. Perhaps you’ll be able to understand it.
The word "gender" has no application to humans. It's a linguistics term. That's why when people use it, they can make it mean everything, nothing, anything, sex, but not sex, clothes, makeup, hormones...it's purposefully confusing.
Humans come in two sexes--male and female. Everything else can be described more accurately without using "gender": personality, hobbies, etc. "Gender" applies to words only (like la mesa or el gato). People who defend "gender" are just not smart enough to know where it comes from.
You're blathering there mate; you don't know your arse from a hole in the ground. Merriam-Webster clearly differentiates between sex and gender, and says many reputable sources do likewise. Like the late, great Justice Anton Scalia:
AS: “The word 'gender' has acquired the new and useful connotation of cultural or attitudinal characteristics (as opposed to physical characteristics) distinctive to the sexes. That is to say, gender is to sex as feminine is to female and masculine is to male."
https://tile.loc.gov/storage-services/service/ll/usrep/usrep511/usrep511127/usrep511127.pdf
And you might try getting your head out of your arse long enough to read what are the standard biological definitions for the sexes published in reputable biological journals, encyclopedias, and dictionaries:
https://academic.oup.com/molehr/article/20/12/1161/1062990 (see the Glossary)
https://link.springer.com/referenceworkentry/10.1007/978-3-319-16999-6_3063-1
https://web.archive.org/web/20181020204521/https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/female
https://web.archive.org/web/20190608135422/https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/male
https://twitter.com/pwkilleen/status/1039879009407037441 (Oxford Dictionary of Biology)
More particularly, the upshot of those definitions is that to have a sex is to have FUNCTIONAL gonads of either of two types, those with neither being sexless.
You’re like those morons who argue about trees when the forest is burning, yammering on like a child about the oil pressure being low as the car drives over the cliff. And it’s spelled “ass,” just as it’s spelled “harbor;” y’all lost the empire generations ago, lost London in living memory and really no longer are worth anyone’s time.
And it’s not gender we’re talking about, anyway. It’s chopping off dicks & tits. But your head is so far up your ass you can’t understand this. Dunning Kruger archetype.
LoL. I'm not a Brit so another wrong tree you're barking up like some demented poodle.
Though you're right -- stopped clocks and all that ... -- that the issue IS about "chopping off tits and dicks". But you're too clueless, too much of a scientific and philosophical illiterate to realize that that is the result of various transloonie nutcases and their fellow travelers insisting that to do so is to change their sex from male to female or vice versa. Which you're contributing to by refusing to define your terms, and refusing to accept Scalia's dichotomy.
Hayton and Bruce Jenner and their ilk have changed their appearances, their "genders" to, maybe, more feminine ones -- if one was half blind or dead drunk -- but they haven't changed their sexes -- i.e., from being able to produce sperm -- both Hayton and Jenner have FATHERED children -- to being able to produce ova. All that Hayton and Jenner, and many other transwomen have done is turned themselves into sexless eunuchs.
Words have meanings, and a great deal of importance -- which you're too thick to even consider. But some definitions are more useful and accurate than others.
No one is "trans", there are only delusions of "gender"
Please consider Hayton's previous writing about God as male and his inability to find himself in the Christian male-god theology. It explains a great deal. What Hayton does not speak on is the psychological and emotional damage men like him do to their wives. (he wrote about baking the family's bread as a "female" task when he was "transitioning.") Please people, stop giving these AGP dudes a platform. Ignore them, let your boredom grow. They are a bore. Except when they're demanding their wife to put on a strap on and pretend to be male in bed. Then they are a danger. Hayton's wife, who openly said she asked for a divorce, has openly stated they do not sleep together.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R1HdWiW9GO8
I respectfully disagree that we should stop giving these AGP dudes a platform and still think the best solution is to encourage productive conversations. That said...
Thank you, Ute, it took a while to get through to me, but I think I am starting to grasp the importance of your message. When I am thinking about delusion, I usually try to relate it back to a person that is anorexic to help me think about it. I have thought about how I would want to be patient with a loved one who is anorexic because people can come out of a delusional state. For the first time today, I began to think of this in a new light. I believe it was this particular set of sentences that connected the dots for me:
"They are a bore. Except when they're demanding their wife to put on a strap on and pretend to be male in bed. Then they are a danger. Hayton's wife, who openly said she asked for a divorce, has openly stated they do not sleep together."
Now as I reconsider my anorexia analogy, I think of a personal anecdote. I know someone who used to be anorexic; she is no longer and now understands how harmful it was. I have asked her about it, trying to understand how one awakens from such a powerful delusion. It was when she realized she wanted to eat less for different reasons than she originally thought she did, that she was deceiving herself and had the power and desire to bring an end to it. This success story drove my focus towards compassion towards the delusional, which I still believe is necessary. However, your story has made me realize that there is another person in the analogy in need of equal consideration and compassion, the spouse. Again, I think the openly asking for a divorce and it not being granted or being at a dramatic disadvantage in the marital court system, is what got through to me. The post-anorexic person I know told me a story of how she once asked another anorexic friend how thin she wanted to become and her friend answered, "I want to be a skeleton." I don't spend a lot of time thinking about what it must be like for other couples in the bedroom, so it is easy to overlook, but her friend was married at the time. I never considered what it would be like to find myself married to someone who decides one day that she would look sexier as someone lingering on the edge of becoming a corpse and having no legal recourse in that situation. Thank you for your patience and perseverance in bringing this to my attention.
These men are worse than the full-on crazy delusional troons like WIll "Lia" Thomas. They're inconsistent and they function as Trojan horses to lull people into a complacent sense of calm.
It is interesting that the people who think gender is just a social construct think that you can transition from one gender to another… It’s like an atheist who blames God for the worlds problems… It’s not logical.
Unless people stop using the stupid word "gender" in lieu of SEX, this bs never ends.
100% correct
The language is the battle. To use the word "gender" in reference to humans means that it has validity in reference to humans. Once the floodgate of crazy is opened in that way, there is no stopping it. The flood can't be let out only a few feet, and then contained. None of this is applicable. "Gender" applies to words only as it's a linguistics term. John Money knew that, and that's why he intentionally caused this confusion in the first place.
Even before John Money, frikin religious homophobic male shrinks were labeling all homosexuals as "souls born in the wrong body".
Outside grammar "gender" is simply a religious euphemism for proper biology.
Biophobia, brought about by freaks who don't like to compare Homo sapiens to other animals.
" 'Gender' applies to words only as it's a linguistics term".
What unmitigated horse crap. You think that if you keep repeating that "lie" that it will eventually become true? Like 2+2=5"? 🤔🙄
You might try getting your head out of your arse long enough to read what Merriam-Webster has to say on the topic:
MW: "2b: the behavioral, cultural, or psychological traits typically associated with one sex"
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/gender
I will never understand how Money rose to such prominence except, perhaps, as a case study of the dangers of experiments on human subjects. It seems to me that the catastrophic outcome of his experiments on the Reimer twins irrefutably 𝘥𝘪𝘴𝘱𝘳𝘰𝘷𝘦𝘥 the harebrained notion that some unverifiable and therefore unfalsifiable characteristic called "gender" was a so called "social construct". But then, I'm not trained in the mental gymnastics of academic medicine or psychology
"It is interesting that the people who think gender is just a social construct think that you can transition from one gender to another"
Hang on a minute.... that makes perfect sense. Feminism's assertion that gender is a social construct means gender is arbitrary and a matter of personal preference (assuming you are willing to overcome your childhood conditioning). This aligns perfectly with the concept of changing one's gender at will (often several times a day - as is now the norm for some people).
Feminism's social construct theory of gender is precisely what paved the way for today's transgender movement..... a movement which is AT ODDS with the traditional notion of the transexual. Transexuals (prior to feminism's 3rd/ 4th wave) asserted that (1) gender was fixed for life and could not be changed (hence the desire to modify the body to align with that fixed gender) (2) there were only two genders/ two sexes (male/ female).
What we are witnessing today with all the de-gendering madness is feminism's 5th wave. Like all waves of feminism it has APPROPRIATED a bunch of other causes and demographics to the 'feminist cause' to make up for the fact that women don't actually lack any rights relative to men, which makes feminism a movement without a cause.
In the past feminism appropriated homosexuals, ethnic minorities and the poor. It even tried to appropriate men ("patriarchy hurts men too"). Now it has appropriated transexuals, and flipped the concept on its head by injecting it with feminism's social construct theory.
Peter, I've watched every interview of yours I can find and every video you've posted and this might be the weakest. You were in a raft floating above the Marianas Trench and you didn't even peep over the side.
So.
Why did both participants assume that of course it's acceptable in a liberal society for an autogynephile to teach children and why was there an unchallenged equivalency made to letting a homosexual teach? Suggesting they're comparable scenarios makes me wonder whether you assumed that autogynephilia is a sexuality, which is inaccurate. Autogynephiles are heterosexual men (with a "target location disorder", as Hayton stated). Autogynephilia is a fetish/mental disorder/paraphilia. Homosexuality is a sexuality.
If autogynephilia isn't a mental disorder, then what is it? If someone claims it's a sexuality, then 1) that's its own debate and 2) it would lead me to question whether all sexualities should be tolerated in society.
Given AGP/trans sex offending rates, why would you so easily agree that any of them should be allowed around minors? Isn't it at least worth raising a few serious positions to work through if you're going to have him on?
https://fairplayforwomen.com/prison-data-confirmed/
https://www.dailywire.com/news/9-in-10-trans-women-in-canadas-prisons-are-violent-nearly-half-convicted-of-sex-crimes-study
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/up-to-half-of-trans-inmates-may-be-sex-offenders-26rz2crhs
https://fairplayforwomen.com/transgender-prisoners/
Why assume a liberal society should allow the mentally disordered to pretend to minors that their condition is normal? If there's a social contagion aspect to transgenderism as discussed, then why should we allow Hayton to interact with the cohort of society that is most susceptible to social contagions? His presence in the classroom is normalizing his behavior to them.
Would be very beneficial to have someone join you who robustly, completely disagrees with you in order to call out this crap and present a vigorous, energetic opposing stance. Ex: Cutting one's genitals off is not a gold standard for commitment (!) that legitimizes an idea of "true trans"; it's just a gold standard for fetishism. If he'd cut his leg off and identified as disabled and was demanding wheelchair ramps be built for him, would you still have coddled him this way? All he's legitimized is the fact that he's so mentally disordered that he needs to be committed to an asylum.
Why not bring up the fact that the treatments and surgery he got on the public dime are cosmetic. If he calls it suicide prevention then that's further evidence that he is mentally disordered and belongs in an asylum, not a school.
When he confirmed he is sexually attracted to women, why not ask about the visible impact his transition had on his wife and kids?
Why bother talking about feelings in relation to making public policy if you're going to sidestep following up about his historical lobbying to use the female students' bathroom at school and the impacts it had on minor students and public policy precedent?
Why not define the terms "gender" and "sex" in writing for each other and challenge their use (and conflation). Why not talk about how these terms were conflated societally in the past and whether they should be conflated?
Endless pitches coming in right over the plate and you just wouldn't swing. Low hanging fruit everywhere. Fish in a barrel! What's going on? What happened?!
You can behave or dress any way you like, but you can't lie about your sex and force us to believe you. Sex and gender are different. We will let you define gender as behavior. You can't redefine sex.
"transwomen" -- compound words like "crayfish" which ain't.
And transwomen who cut their nuts off no longer qualify as males, nor as adult human males, i.e., as men.
You might actually consider starting with the biological definitions for the sexes by which to have a sex is to have functional gonads of either of two types, those with neither being sexless.
You aren't intelligent. Stop writing. You think a dictionary definition means anything nowadays? The same idiots who came up with this wrote that nonsense. It's cultural, social, psychology, behavior---everything, anything, nothing. You don't know what you're talking about. Just shut up.
If "Debbie" knows that he's a man, then what is the point of anything that he is doing? Why does he call himself Debbie? Why did he grow out his hair? Why is he calling himself a "trans"woman at all? How can he KNOW that he's a man, and then claim that he has some kind of condition where he FEELS like he's a woman? If he knows that, what's the point of any of this? Call yourself David, get a haircut, and stop with all of this.
These men are even worse than a full-on delusional troon like WIll "Lia" Thomas. At least he's consistent. He claims he's a woman, which means he should play women's sport. These men are inconsistent. They act like they're one of the "good ones" (I'm a "cool" tr@nny, not like the regular tr@nnies!), meanwhile they have no point.
Tell Mr. Hayton to stop it then. What's the point of his existence? Well, actually I know--he's a Trojan horse to lull people into a false sense of complacency.