Yeah, I’m in there at the start, if it’s the clip I think it is. I haven’t watched the whole thing yet (well, because I was there) but I will because I was at the back and couldn’t see. You might recognise a few others in the crowd who didn’t speak, such as Keira Bell, Debbie Hayton…. lots I’m sure I didn’t recognise.
“In Glasgow, I heard lots of […]: ‘Debbie Hayton, you’re such an inspiration! Can I have a selfie with you! It’s so great, he knows he’s a man.’ Debbie Hayton was wearing a sun dress. Debbie Hayton was paid by The Spectator to attend a women’s event about women’s rights, and he chose to wear a knee-length sun dress. Every woman there, pretty much, was wearing something where she could sit on the floor comfortably, just in case she had to sit in the park and have a picnic. And the fawning over Debbie Hayton — there were many women, such as myself, who were absolutely annoyed that he was there. […] I did speak to him; I basically said […] that he is shameful. […] Debbie Hayton was sort of loitering in the pub. He did stand, and then sit on the floor. […] And I just say, did he feel that it was very ironic that he was there, paid by The Spectator to come to a women’s event, where women were meeting about women’s rights. And he said: because we’re sex (?)? And I said: Kind of. And he said: What about James Kurkov (?)? And I said: James Kurkov doesn’t wear a woman costume. And he said: Neither does he; why does that have to be a woman? And I said: Because you walk around the world wanting people to think that you’re not a man, think that you’re a woman, and I believe the reason you admit to people that you are a man is because you’re self-serving and entitled. And I think that if you say to people “Well I am a monster, I genuinely know I am a monster”, they’ll go: “Oh well, he knows he’s a monster”. Then I said that I felt that he embodied everything that the women who attended that meeting stood against, and I thought it was absolutely shameful that not only did he come today, but he also freely takes column-inches away from women, in that he, a non-journalist, takes column-inches away from women who are journalists. I’m not talking about myself, who could probably muster together an article; I’m talking about women not getting paid to write about women’s rights, because Debbie Hayton has taken those jobs. He literally is the embodiment of things that women are fighting for; he’s an interloper.”
I’m gurious to hear what others here think of Posie’s Parker’s point. I do think that “gender-critical trans person” is a bit of an oxymoron (though of course it depends how one defines “GC” and “trans”.)
Yeah, I’m in there at the start, if it’s the clip I think it is. I haven’t watched the whole thing yet (well, because I was there) but I will because I was at the back and couldn’t see. You might recognise a few others in the crowd who didn’t speak, such as Keira Bell, Debbie Hayton…. lots I’m sure I didn’t recognise.
What’s the mauve, white and green flag?
Suffragette colours.
Look at all those nooses!
Posie Parker has a piece here where she talks about Debbie Hayton’s presence at the event:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mdP1g9UA-Bg&t=445s
“In Glasgow, I heard lots of […]: ‘Debbie Hayton, you’re such an inspiration! Can I have a selfie with you! It’s so great, he knows he’s a man.’ Debbie Hayton was wearing a sun dress. Debbie Hayton was paid by The Spectator to attend a women’s event about women’s rights, and he chose to wear a knee-length sun dress. Every woman there, pretty much, was wearing something where she could sit on the floor comfortably, just in case she had to sit in the park and have a picnic. And the fawning over Debbie Hayton — there were many women, such as myself, who were absolutely annoyed that he was there. […] I did speak to him; I basically said […] that he is shameful. […] Debbie Hayton was sort of loitering in the pub. He did stand, and then sit on the floor. […] And I just say, did he feel that it was very ironic that he was there, paid by The Spectator to come to a women’s event, where women were meeting about women’s rights. And he said: because we’re sex (?)? And I said: Kind of. And he said: What about James Kurkov (?)? And I said: James Kurkov doesn’t wear a woman costume. And he said: Neither does he; why does that have to be a woman? And I said: Because you walk around the world wanting people to think that you’re not a man, think that you’re a woman, and I believe the reason you admit to people that you are a man is because you’re self-serving and entitled. And I think that if you say to people “Well I am a monster, I genuinely know I am a monster”, they’ll go: “Oh well, he knows he’s a monster”. Then I said that I felt that he embodied everything that the women who attended that meeting stood against, and I thought it was absolutely shameful that not only did he come today, but he also freely takes column-inches away from women, in that he, a non-journalist, takes column-inches away from women who are journalists. I’m not talking about myself, who could probably muster together an article; I’m talking about women not getting paid to write about women’s rights, because Debbie Hayton has taken those jobs. He literally is the embodiment of things that women are fighting for; he’s an interloper.”
I’m gurious to hear what others here think of Posie’s Parker’s point. I do think that “gender-critical trans person” is a bit of an oxymoron (though of course it depends how one defines “GC” and “trans”.)