Overlap of those who are GC on social media and are also Russell Brand supporters.

One of those you mentioned, you explicitly said had spoken about the issue on TV. I have not listened to anything there because I have hearing issues that make TV a disproportionate amount of effort. Given your own difficulties with reading comprehension, you can hardly judge. On the subject of judging, Phillimore is a lawyer. They're usually very keen on respecting the legal system. It's a job pre-requisite. It's surprising if a lawyer doesn't advise caution.

Rosetta's general attitude is rather more tilted to your side of things than mine. She's frequently criticised for centring the wishes of men and male people who don't identify as men, so it will totally fail to surprise me if she takes a position I disagree with on anything, including Brand.

If you're not claiming responsibility for her tweets, then why should I?

People each have their own position/ persepctive. I think tryin to tar everyone with the same brush is a pointless and futile activity. Just the same as with suggesting everyone who has a major issue with gender identity theory is rabidly right wing. They are not. In fact most Briotish people with such an issue, have that isssue becaue they have come from left activist circles, or from the women's movement. But even if they are naturally socially conservative, or have become more so with age -so what?

it was the subheading, not the lede, and it was unambiguous, sweetie.

Did you read the contributions of the other feminist identifying gender critical people I mentioned? I’m informed you always have to read the full thread before responding.

Maybe it's because gender critical, rather than being a belief, is an absence of belief in a particular ideology. People from all across the political spectrum can have that absence of belief.

In a healthy society we should see a range of views.

I have seen GC twitter accounts be fully supportive of Brand, have a nuanced view that it shouldn't be trial by media because that undermines justice (but are fervent pro-women getting justice), other nuanced views which say that it's not about Brand and actually about institutionalised attitudes to women and don't expect Brand to face any justice (and tend to be ok with that in the wider interest) and I've seen accounts be full on Brand is a rapist and should go to jail and the BBC / ITV should be abolished as a result of the revelations because they all support Jimmy Saville.

So I don't think there is an issue.

You should be following a range of accounts with lots of different perspectives (including ones that sometimes aren't as great as you'd like). If you are only seeing a narrow selection of views you need to adjust your follows.

And that's it for me. It's about your follows rather than 'what GC people think about Brand'.

Update:

Nah uh! You don’t have to read any more than the headline of your aim is to post fuckwittery on a feminist chat thread!

Sweetie, headlines don't normally reflect the writing, especially not on the internet.

You always have to read the full article before you respond.

The point about letting the criminal justice system do its business is an approprite one. Nobody is suggesting that Brand has not done abusive things to women. He clearly has, and has plenty of form for actually telling people what he has done. His time has come and he will now have to face the consequences.

What people are objecting to, from what I can gather, is the trial by social/media and the endless people virtue signalling their new found contempt - when only a few years ago they were all over him. It forms part of the same pattern of villification which is meted out to anyone who finds themself suddenly "on the wrong side of history". And peole should be wary of that; very wary of that.

No, it was Phillimore's numerous tweets which lead me that view. Stock's comment "Depending on who you ask, the comedian is either a criminal or a martyr. The least popular position of all is that we should wait for the courts to decide." if it accurately reflects the writing suggests she shares that position, unless the article takes a real swerve.

Don't suppose you have the text of what Stock said available, do you?

I can tell already that you don't. Her article behind a paywall, and your whole post is built around the headline.

For those slow of thought, the full text is not pro-Brand in any way, shape or form.

To be fair most GC people who claim to be feminists oppose Brand. A handful of prominent ones are not condemning him, where they would absolutely condemn a trans women accused of the same thing.

They seem to be going for "let the courts decide", despite there being 1% conviction rate for rape in the UK. That's instead of believing a multitude of plausible accusations. "Hold any judgement until they are convicted" is not a good argument.

Examples include Sarah Phillimore (who is defending Brand on GB News and said women were upset because he didn't call them back), Stock, and EJ Rosetta (who says that her "predator-radar" didn't go off with Brand.)

Some of Phillimore's critics are criticising her for saying she'd defend Brand in court, and conflating that with defending Brand full stop, but she has absolutely belittled Brand's accusers.

Has anyone read Kathleen Stock's paywalled comments on this? https://twitter.com/Docstockk/status/1705576492401365496

Well luvvies will be luvvies. But he cant enter the US and I doubt he would be seen in public here.

Well what a surprise. Petition created by Harvey Weinstein!

And they seem more upset that the Swiss police did their job and acted on a European arrest warrant (same as Assange) and is a fugitive from justice. Seem to think that even though the police acted within the law, it was really horrid of them to spoil his day in the spotlight. Filmmakers apparently shouldn't have to give up the high life on some silly legal technicality when they are so creative!!

I hope the Swiss police questioned the festival organisers as to why they invited a criminal fugitive to speak at a festival.

The list of celebrities who have publicly defended Polanski includes Emma Thompson, Tilda Swinton, Jeremy Irons, Harrison Ford, Martin Scorsese and many other US and British luminaries.

Sorry if this has already been said but Meghan Murphy and others, such as Julian Vigo, who on first reading appear to be gender critical etc., are in fact far more into the ideology of if not conspiracy theories, then definitely the concept that the establishment / government and the media manipulate us.

So presumably if the media and Government were totally pro GC politics and women's sex based rights they, would start writing posts about how we were being manipulated and men were being hard done by.

Their position of us (except them of course) all being unwitting victims of false narratives mean that many who claim to be feminists support Assange.

In one way I have found this quite useful, so once Meghan Murphy started going on about Covid being a government conspiracy, I felt more than easy about not bothering to read her any more!

Although of course there are some who think that this is against natural justice.

Funnily enough I haven't seen anyone worry about this in terms of Huw Edwards being taken off air.

re. Polanski being lauded, that is only in France, and some other european countries. I cant see him being reinstated in the US or UK.

IG = Instagram

GC = Gender Critical; i.e. critical of gender and gender ideology. So the whole reason for this board existing.

Cas Anvar - Wikipedia

This covers it in barest outline.
"In June 2020, Alcon Entertainment hired an independent firm to investigate over 30 allegations of sexual harassment and assault made against Anvar.[16][17] In November 2020 Alcon announced that Anvar would not be returning for the sixth and final season of The Expanse.[18]"

Cas Anvar was in The Expanse (Sci fi series on amazon prime). Maybe 2020 ish for him being written out.

I'm seeing many people defending proper legal process rather than RB himself. I am one of these. I'm also GC.

Who is that and when was that?

That's how it should have been dealt with.

But it wasn't, that's half of the story here.

When actor Cas Anwar was accused by several women of predatory behaviour, the following happened.
The production company brought in an outside independent agency to investigate.
He was written out between seasons when it became obvious that the accusations were true and part of a long term pattern of abusive predatory behaviour.
He was never again mentioned by cast or production. It was all dealt with and no more to say.

I haven't, but I'm not a follower of Brand's content so maybe I'm not aware of it.

I think it's been really well laid out in this, and other threads, why many people who are GC might be concerned about other things that come up in relation to this case. There are huge downsides to media and social cancellation without, or even sometimes before, crimes are addressed in law.

There are also serious questions about the right way for employers and media platforms to deal with people accused of things. Probably there isn't a simple answer to this.

But I would also say that a lot of people who questioned the narrative about gender ideology are people who question narratives in general, have a scepticism about mass movements, and don't care, or at least are willing, to say unpopular things.

Agree with all of that. You can believe RB is very likely an abusive twat, but still be uncomfortable about him losing his livelihood on the basis of unsubstantiated accusations (though personally I believe his accusers). It's so arbitrary too - Roman Polanski raped and sodomised a child, but continues to get acclaim and awards.