It is a well-known fact that the moment one steps out of line in their social group, consequences will inevitably occur.
However, in this age of social media, coupled with an increasingly aggressive progressive politics, “stepping out of line” now simply means speaking realities and truths that cause the slightest discomfort to the “group.” Consequences can often be dire.
Without question, a modern social line that is absolutely not to be crossed is that of sex and gender. Anything from expressing concerns about the safety and future of children being pressured into hormone therapy, to simply asserting the biological reality of differences in sex are met with immediate hostilities and extreme abuse.
Even being transgender or experiencing gender dysphoria is not a protection from the imminent cancellation that follows expressing a dangerous opinion such as “women are adult human females.”
Debbie Hayton, a high school teacher from Birmingham, England – and person who also happens to be transgender—was recently the subject of an extreme slurry of abuse from so-called “trans rights activists.”
Like apostates from religious cults, transgender people who speak sense and reason are often harassed, intimidated and abused.
While this certainly is not the first time Hayton has faced such treatment, Hayton’s most recent crime was calling into question BBC’s platforming of notorious British transgender activist Stephanie Hayden.
Like Jessica Yaniv, Hayden has a ready appetite for litigation when they do not immediately get their own way. As a self-styled lawyer, they have used their knowledge of the law to frighten and intimidate opponents who have settled out of court to avoid the stress of a hearing in front of a judge. The writer, Graham Linehan—creator of Father Ted and the IT crowd —was subjected to this treatment last year when he shared a Facebook post from a previous victim of Hayden’s behaviour.
To this, Linehan wanted to lend his voice. “Hayden is the perfect example of a fraudster using trans rights as a cover for their activities, and to escape scrutiny of their past. [Hayden is] also a frightening example of what happens when one group is said to be beyond criticism.” He says. “If self-ID ever passed, it would be a charter for opportunists like him to take advantage of the vulnerable and unwary.”
In a recent criminal case where a mother of two was arrested in front of her children and put on trial for misgendering and insulting Hayden, Hayden’s criminal past became public knowledge. Hayden had been before criminal courts on 11 occasions for 21 offences and had spent six months in prison for obtaining property deception. In 1999, Hayden had been convicted of an affray with a golf club.
Considering Hayden’s history of abusing the rights of others, Debbie Hayton took a view that Hayden was not a suitable guest to represent the transgender community and said so:
In normal society, that would be quite unremarkable. But it seems that we do not live in normal times.
In response to the conflicting opinions on guest selection, the BBC decided not include any transgender voices on the programme, and Hayden went on to threaten further legal action towards Hayton.
While Hayden is content to continue to chip away at whatever legitimacy the courts might have by using it as a personal nanny and emotional support system, others take to the dark underbelly of the internet to bark viciously.
Operating though anonymous profiles, they latch on to such action and take the threats to new levels. Unsolicited emails are the new poisoned pen letters – sinister in the extreme. After Hayden was deplatformed from BBC, Hayton began to receive disturbing emails from those who opposed Hayton’s opposition to Hayden’s appearance.
Others ditch the anonymity. However they choose to advertise themselves, the message is loud, clear, and proud: Conform or suffer the consequences.
The supreme irony is that the demands for conformity in the arena of trans rights come in the name of tolerance and progressivism.
But does this sound like a community that is open and inclusive, or one that is fearful and hostile? A community that not only shrieks #nodebate but actively tries to silence those who disagree?
By Anna Slatz and Debbie Hayton
* This article was first published by The Post Millennial on 5 March 2020: The mobbing of Debbie Hayton.
4 replies on “The mobbing of Debbie Hayton”
Oh. Poor you.
The unquestioning praise for Linehan shows where you come from. Linehan, who compared himself to those fighting the Nazis when he mocks and belittles harmless trans people.
There is no one trans view, and there are lots of abusive people on line- consider the vile abuse Lisa Nandy has suffered for standing up for trans people.
Here’s some of the abuse I suffered recently:
“That you have mis-shapen pseudo-breasts, swollen anomolies on a man.
You maybe have a mangled coercion of flesh to ape the natural wonder of vagina that nature has bestowed on women.
Or perhaps you still have your cock. Taped back uncomfortably, doubtless, in all of those Buffalo Bill-style posings with which you filled your days, and perhaps still do.”
What do you think of that?
Possibly, rather than attacking trans people seeking to preserve our rights under the Equality Act, you could seek peace between trans people and the haters that you meet with. But no. Instead you inflame the situation, with articles like this. You have seen the abuse your allies share behind your back, calling you a TIM, “Like a too eager puppy. Somewhat cute but has annoying habits, like humping your leg. I am a cat person.”
Another thought- you complain of being mobbed, yet what you wrote was “I am available tomorrow if you need someone who is trans”. What would that mean? If the BBC or another platform “need someone who is trans” rather than someone with a particular point of view on trans rights, that really should be someone with a mainstream trans view- that, for example, trans rights under the Equality Act, allowing trans women in women’s spaces, with a right to exclude individual trans women in exceptional circumstances, should not actually be reduced. That is not your view, or you would not associate with The Spectator and WPUK. You really can’t complain when that is pointed out, even if it is in strong language.
Clare, you seem to be very angry with me but launching an ad hominem attack on my blog isn’t going to help that. I suggest that rather than add to the abuse directed at me you campaign positively for the things you believe in.
I do have to warn you that should you continue to leave comments of this nature then I will block you from accessing my blog. I am far too busy to engage in a war of words with you here.
I read your article and point out its inconsistencies. You claim to speak as a trans woman then find people object to you proposing to speak for us. If you imagine that is ad hominem, I am not sure how to explain ad hominem to you. The attacks come from the people on your own side, objecting to your “Womanface”. You make so much of your PhD: I thought you were cleverer than that.
I am not angry with you. Perplexed, more. Has Linehan said nothing objectionable, in your eyes? The idea of forming a bridge with gender critical feminists was a good one, originally.
LikeLiked by 1 person