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

Initially I was surprised by this too OP, people who I thought held sensible views apparently supporting RB. But when I looked more closely at what they were actually saying they weren't supporting him, they were just saying 'trial by Twitter' is a really bad idea and something we should all be worried about.

If believing that humans can't change sex is now a right wing position and believing that they can (or at least that a person's subjectively experienced gender identity, and not their biological sex, is what makes them a man or a woman) is now a left wing position, that does not mean that having the former point of view means you are endorsing the political right or that you agree with the political right on any other issue.

It is, as you say, common sense versus nonsense.

Sadly, too many people on the political left seem to believe that in order to stay on the political left you need to adopt the latter point of view even if it is nonsense, because that is what the political left believes.

I am beyond furious that the political left have put women in a position where we either have to agree that our rights are less important than those of male people who believe they identify as women, or occupy common ground with people whose politics we otherwise deplore, including, in some cases, people who would deny us the right to have an abortion.

I also find it extraordinary that people who insist, apparently sincerely, that it is not possible to neatly divide all humans into "male" and "female" in a binary manner seem to believe that we can and should neatly divide all humans into "good people who agree with us about everything" and "bad people who disagree with us about everything".

It means I find myself up against people I otherwise respect and agree with about most things who insist on dismissing my point of view because really, when has Suella Braverman ever been on the right side of history? Maybe never. Maybe this is the first and last time Suella Braverman will ever be right about anything. But that doesn't make her wrong on this issue.

And I fear that there are only two potential outcomes here. Either the gender ideologues win, and women lose their language, their single sex spaces and their sports permanently (helped along by the women who passionately disagree but ultimately decide they can't afford to let the Tories remain in power any longer), or the political left sees the way the wind of public opinion is blowing, quietly backs down, and we all have to forgive them and forget it ever happened because they're not the Tories. Obviously I hope it will be the latter, but they absolutely do not deserve to be forgiven.

That's a bit of a tangent from Russell Brand, sorry, but I'm struggling to care all that much about Russell Brand. Obviously it's terrible if he hurt women, but to me it's just another day, yet another man behaving as though women are just resources to be exploited. And unfortunately there are people on both sides of the gender debate who think female people only exist to serve male people.

The modern British Left has been taken over by american style identity politics, basically. Momentum and the Jeremy Corbyn crowd are behind much of it, and yes, they are often young.

The much maligned 'right wing people' are often people like Kemi Badenoch, Miriam Cates, Jackie Doyle Price and so on....who absolutely do reject the underlying concepts behind gender identity theory........

These are not stupid, complicit women......they absolutely do get it.

If there is any over-lap it will be based on issues around trial by media and cancellation - whereby as soon as 'something' comes out about someone then everyone piles on, disassociates themselves in order to not be seen as complicit, and so on. Income is cut off; banned from social media platforms; contracts cancelled ,and so on.

So many of us involved in the push-back aganist trans ideology have experienced just the same.Also, because so many of us have had similar types of experience as a result of voicing our perfectly legitimate views, we've grown very ware of the culture which gves rise to such cancellation.

This culture is now commonly referred to as 'woke' culture - originating from three U.S university campus related theories: Intersectionalism; Queer theory; Critical Race Theory......these three now having morphed into a general 'social justice' mind-set which is authoritarian and prone to all of the above.

I doubt right wing people are actually gender critical.

Rather, they share the view that gender identity shouldn't supercede biological sex.

And I doubt they are motivated by it, "fits with the rest of their stuff". Yes, they may not have the social pressure that a leftie could be under, and the social pressure may even go in the other direction. And it may fit their politics in the sense that they were, and still partly are, against lesbian and gay activism. So it's natural that they don't like the expansion of this activism to transgender.

But the obvious reason why a conservative would deny that TWAW, or not want them in women’s sports, is just because it's a common sense position.

And you don't need to be into women’s rights to genuinely see an unfairness in males competing against women.

Point is, we need an explanation for why the left is going along with this, because it's so bizarre.

You don't need so much of an explanation for why the right wing rejects it. You just say it's a sincere belief. Is that not possible for right wingers?

Beastlyslumber said it better:

He has to have those rights, because otherwise we can't claim those rights for ourselves or anyone else.

FWIW, I don't think Brendan O'Neill is defending RB. He's just saying it's a bad idea to let companies like YouTube completely remove someone's income on the basis of allegations alone. I comepletely agree with him there, despite thinking Brand is guilty.

And encouraged to defund by a sitting MP! We all understand that he is guilty of being a sleazy sex-pest/ took advantage of his position to groom young women/ very likely can be charged with rape. If Youtube were to take action against him it should have been to demonitise his videos that he put out AFTER the allegations when everyone was lapping up whatever they could of his content (and he knew they would, he's not stupid)-- it could be argued that those videos were "profiting from his misdeeds." But removing all the income from someone who is being piled on by social media before they have had an opportunity to be found guilty :) in the normal way, whoever they are, is a bit terrifying.

And is anybody pointing out that the media created the monster that was RB. The BBC hired him specifically to be WHO HE WAS, to draw in younger viewers/ listeners. They wanted him outrageous, rude, hyper sexualised, unhinged. He was encouraged in his role as a sex pest and worse by the very people who are vilifying him now.

I do too.

It's the concerning current fashion for people being either all good or all bad, and it being ok to ignore usually unacceptable or illegal things if they're 'good' and to go for them with no morality and no holds barred if they're 'bad'.

Good and bad generally being judged from a political pov and tribalism. As opposed to there being set standards applied impartially and equally to all.

Hence the idea that it's fine at this point to go nuts on Brand because he's now officially a bad person. (And so is KJK, tear her to bits in a park, and JKR with her house papered with death threats). And police hate crimes units being set up to terrorise women for standing up for their rights and equality as the weapon of very dysfunctional people, while standing by and accepting crimes happening right in front of them, so long as they're being committed by 'good people' against 'bad people'.

It is all part and parcel of the same big problem.

I haven't seen this but I suspect it might have something to do with how you are defining gender critical.

To me, gender critical doesn't just mean you believe humans can't change sex. It means you believe sex is immutable AND that gender is harmful.

The way I've seen it described is as follows:

Gender critical feminists:

Accept the reality of biological sex
Reject the legitimacy of gender

Proponents of gender identity theory:

Reject the reality of biological sex
Accept the legitimacy of gender

Right wing conservatives:

Accept the reality of biological sex
Accept the legitimacy of gender

So someone like Matt Walsh, for example, falls within the third category. I agree with Matt Walsh about the reality of biological sex and I think that he often expresses his ideas about biological sex versus gender identity very cogently. For this reason I might follow him, I might occasionally like a social media post of his that I agree with or a clip from his film. But there are lots of things I disagree with him about, in particular gender roles. Matt Walsh and trans activists both believe passionately in performing gender roles; they just disagree on what roles people should perform. Matt Walsh thinks people should perform the roles associated with their sex whereas trans activists think people should be defined according to which roles they choose to perform. Gender critical feminists just think the gender roles are bullshit.

Russell Brand bends gender norms in terms of how he dresses and presents, but he behaves in a very male way, particularly when it comes to his interactions with women. And his sexually predatory behaviour is deplored by feminists of all varieties, but excused by anti-woke types who think this is all just political correctness gone mad and you can't do anything these days without being cancelled.

So it doesn't really surprise me that there are some people out there who overlap with gender critical feminists in terms of their views on biological sex and gender identity, who also consider themselves anti-woke in general, and who also support male people behaving in a male way with male privilege and male entitlement, which is what Russell Brand has done.

Are these alt righter types? In which case, no not surprising at all.

Just because someone is GC, doesn't mean they aren't also a massive twat. The two aren't mutually exclusive.

A key part of GC views is simply commonsense statements to the effect that sex is real, material, and for some social purposes relevant.

Naturally since those statements are so basic and so uncontroversial they are going to be shared by a very wide range of people, including people who also have some abhorrent views. I'm sure that many Rusell Brand supporters also believe, as I do, that Aberdeen is in Scotland and that the Earth's gravity is what makes unsupported objects fall to the ground. That doesn't give me any angst

I don't know about MM but I read what Brendan O'Neill wrote and he was not supporting Brand at all. He was saying there has to be due process, that RB should see the inside of a courtroom. Which I agree with.

I think that RB is almost certainly guilty and it's right that these allegations have come to light. But punishing him before the verdict is in (through demonetising his channel, the government intervention etc) is only going to give succour to those who think this is all an unfair conspiracy.

And it sets a very, very scary precedent. If simply being accused of a crime is enough to warrant punishment for said crime, then that's a very frightening situation.

I don't object to Brand's crimes being exposed by the media because in this case he has the financial means to pursue a libel case, and I think there's probably good grounds to say it's in the public interest for him to be exposed this way. (Maybe I'm wrong about this. There's a lot to consider.) But he has to have the right to defend himself in a court of law. He has to have the right to a fair trial. And no matter how much we know or believe him to be guilty, he has the right to the presumption of innocence in court.

He has to have those rights, because otherwise we can't claim those rights for ourselves or anyone else.

Interesting article from Brendan O'Neil there. I've seen people defending Russell Brand on both sides, of the GC/TRA divide as well as condemning him and pointing fingers at the other side for having the wrong opinion.
He's becoming the online equivalent of 'No, you're the Nazi' and that's just lazy.
Personally, it seems extremely likely that Brand is a serious offender and that is exactly why I don't like trial by media. It should be a police matter.
I think trial by mob is a serious problem and I would say this about JK Rowling whom I love or Brand whom I detest or every trans activist with whom I completely disagree, including those I think are dangerous.
When it comes to serious charges, then what takes Brand down shouldn't be which online mob shouts loud enough, it should be the police and the courts based on evidence and rule of law. Anything else is just mob rule.

Ah I see other people have already made this point, but better 😁

She is GC, but in a different way to most GC women I know, in that she fully endorses gender stereotypes and is hugely homophobic (being gay is for other people, not us - as she told her dc).

She's not Gender Critical at all then, is she!

I think the problem is that people on both sides have started using the term GC as a catch all term for anyone who opposes gender identity ideology.

I can't quite believe I'm defending Brendan O'Neil who I generally think of as a bit of a dick, but here we go.

This was the most relevant article I could find from him on Russell Brand

https://www.spiked-online.com/2023/09/17/russell-brand-and-the-crisis-of-scepticism/

To say he is defending Brand is to misunderstand it rather I'd have said.

He's saying rushing to judgement and trial by media are not good ways of getting to the truth. Having seen what happened to Kelly Jay Keen in New Zealand and Australia I agree.

Maybe I lack scepticism because based on what I've heard, I 100% believe Brand is a serial sex offender and a rapist. However given that he is still an innocent man in the eyes of the law, it is a legitimate position to be sceptical about that I think.

You are falling into precisely the trap the article refers to

I think we all need to be sensitive to what's going on.
This hounding of a person, pile on from all angles of the media, the directing of opinion and cancellation is not fair or right without proper process.
Isn't this how some GC people have been treated?

I have no love for RB but I agree with this.

This is down to the frankly odd use of "gender critical" to include anyone who is a realist about biological sex. Whether or not they are critical of gender in the sense of being critical of gender roles, stereotypes, societal norms etc etc.’

See for example, the 3rd post on this very thread, where @MrsTwartle says her family member: "is GC, but in a different way to most GC women I know, in that she fully endorses gender stereotypes"

Someone who 'fully endorses gender sterotypes' is exactly the opposite of GC.

I think we all need to be sensitive to what's going on.
This hounding of a person, pile on from all angles of the media, the directing of opinion and cancellation is not fair or right without proper process.
Isn't this how some GC people have been treated?
Of course, I'm not likening the two to each other but commenting more on the power that media has. So much so that Parliament has got involved too.
If people don't stand up against this, then where do we go next?

I've seen a lot of this too, OP. Sarah Phillimore and ripx4nutmeg are notable examples on Twitter, but I've seen a few on Facebook too. They seem to take the view that women sharing their stories with journalists constitutes "trial by media".

Are you conflating two issues here?

I've seen some GC people express disquiet about the government intervention and the trial by social media aspect. That doesn't mean they support Russell Brand but are intelligent enough to be able to think about the wider implications.

You need to be able to speak up when you see injustice even if that is happening to people that you think are vile.

I haven't seen any gc feministssupporting RB

This. The thing that frustrates me is the conflation of GC feminism with any sort of scepticism about self ID or even overt transphobia.

FWIW, I don't think Brendan O'Neill is defending RB. He's just saying it's a bad idea to let companies like YouTube completely remove someone's income on the basis of allegations alone. I comepletely agree with him there, despite thinking Brand is guilty.

Not seeing that myself, one GC person I follow raised concerns ref the cancellation on him via social media but then did apologise and make it clear they should have been more sensitive to victims - but that's one out of all the GC people I follow I would say I've seen lots of condemnation of Russell brand from GC people