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

I don't think people who know sex is real but want women back in the kitchen are gender critical. They're actually supportive of gender stereotypes. As a PP pointed out, it's TRAs and MRAs who tried to reframe the meaning of gender critical to mean everyone who knows what sex is.

And to add, I haven’t even see if she did like the video or anything he has said about this.

Has she?

I agree. I also have no idea why Meghan Murphy like his video. I was merely pointing out a motivation she might have. There are many reasons to ‘like’ something and I have never really considered the action to be one of direct support of the person’s content as a whole.

I don’t believe at all that her situation is remotely similar to his.

Is there a link to what Meghan Murphy said?

It depends what you mean by “supporting”Brand. I mean I’m guessing none of these people has the view “Russell Brand should be allowed to rape as many women as he likes.” What they’re probably saying is “trial by media is a bad idea” or “conflating Brand being a sleazy motherfucker with him being a rapist is stupid” or “it’s funny how it’s Brand they’ve picked on when there are a number of comedians with pretty much identical records on treatment of women. Coogan springs to mind.”
Being GC is questioning the existing narrative. It’s asking awkward questions, questions you’re not supposed to ask.
It’s hardly surprising that someone should apply these ideas to something other than gender.

There's a skit on youtube by Ryan Long called when woke and racists actually agree on everything. Its pretty funny and highlights how extremes of anything double back on themselves and how important intention is.

I wouldn't align with GC views but I think interesting and important issues are being raised and ignored and to move forward we have to engage in these very real questions rather than dismiss everyone with a TERF which is so deeply unhelpful. But I can see that there is a stark range of people who could choose to call themselves GC. From the eloquent women posting on here highlighting cognitive dissonance and flagging important issues around safety and legal implications to the reactionary, far right people obsessed with what's in everyone's knickers and want women to go back in the kitchen, gays to go back in the closet and back to the good old days where white men controlled everything.

There are interesting people on this topic so maybe this is a good point to evaluate who you follow.

I don't suppose there will be any feminists who support Brand's behaviour, alleged and otherwise. But given the ease with which women are cancelled for stating reality, they might be sensitive to the issue of cancellation in general.

Men bending over backwards to appear scrupulously balanced about the bad behaviour of other men, is no surprise.

Considering she has been on the end of some very grim behaviour from people wrongly accusing her of things.

I have noticed that many on social media who are not U.K. based are basing their ideas of RB around this rather than what's been going on within the bbc and C4 for decades with him.

They're not as aware of his longer term career and previous issues.

Birdy, though U.K., was coming from this perspective online; they all seem to forget how rich he is and how many times he appears to have used threats of litigation against anyone who dared to criticise him for how he treated women.

This has also been the results of several years of investigations into him following many years of people knowing he was an issue and quietly warning each other about him.

London Hughes even said her manager or someone similar said never to be alone with him (iirc they shared the same management or media rep??)

He's in an entirely different context to people like Meghan etc.

It's also the grooming that's been involved, people's eyes open slowly to the whole picture.

Sorry, maybe my turn of phrase was wrong. You don't expect people to hold the two views, but you're surprised that they don't.

People who you perceive as GC and pro-Brand possibly don't think those views are conflicting, insofar as they aren't seeing them as being on the same axis? Perhaps they are looking at it from a different angle e.g., due process vs concern for harm against women. Or maybe they aren't GC, they just believe that humans can't change sex.

Are their comments open? Can you ask them?

Feminists and women's rights campaigners have always been critical of gender stereotypes which is basically where the term GC originates.

She could have been liking the first video because it was him saying he was being persecuted and it wasn’t true and that it was all because of political reasons and him being loudly anti- whatever. Considering she has been on the end of some very grim behaviour from people wrongly accusing her of things.

The question then is, has she supported him outright or just liked that first video?

There is a very good post by someone on a thread that is one of those that should be archived for reference - yes, there's a lot around here - but is in essence the explanation that when you follow a standard, normal, widely held view such as 'reality exists' and 'biology matters' you are going to be standing with a very large and diverse section of the population who will hold many other views on other things. And you won't agree with all of them, and that's not really an issue.

If you want to stand with a group of people who hold all the exact same views as you and all of which you approve of, the group size is going to be very small and non-diverse.

It's a bit 'Hitler was a vegetarian, therefore all vegetarians are Nazis'. Society likes the words diversity and tolerance, but has got madly afraid of both, and currently seems to lack capacity to cope with the idea that you may intersect with one person by sharing one view with someone and no other views at all, and this is not a cause for panic. Society's also going through a rather snobbish and classist phase in some fashionable political circles of believing that someone holding a view you disagree with renders another person beneath you, a la Margot Leadbetter looking down her nose at some lower class person who drops their 'h's.

‘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.’

A great point, Jimmy Saville would be described as GC, so would Hitler, Stalin and Chairman Mao. I certainly don’t share other views held by these monsters.

Absolutely. The term ‘gender critical’ has become meaningless now that extreme trans activists have detached the feminist component from the term.

Like ‘woman’, ‘girl’, ‘man’, ‘boy’ ‘tolerant’ and ‘compassion’, the term now includes a meaning that is the opposite of the original intention. Most people lazily use the term to include people who simply don’t agree that people can change sex, who are not doing so to support the rights of women and girls. Or for people
who do support women and girls but not from a feminist perspective.

That’s more what I’d expect to see from right wing/anti woke people who happen to be GC because it fits with the rest of their stuff rather than because they actually care about women’s rights.

I suspect I'd fit your description (altho right wing seems to be an infinitely flexible descriptor on here) and I regard myself as a feminist. Brand I regard as unbearable and obnoxious and I'm very glad that all this has emerged and is being investigated.

*Sadly being GC (or any other set of views, really) does not insulate people from having stupid or insane opinions on other issues.

This is why it's always a bad idea to divide people into binary good/bad categories (not saying the OP does this!*

This, really. Being GC doesn't mean a hive mind that has one set of beliefs in common with everyone else who's GC.

See I wouldn’t describe Brendan O’Neill as being a GC commentator, IMO he’s a libertarian first and foremost who holds GC views.

Hadn’t seen that from Megan Murphy, but because she sometimes comes across as contrarian, I suspect she can have a tendency to take a position based on who is taking the opposing position.

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.

I haven't seen a single feminist friend of mine or anyone I follow online who supports RB. Because they're feminists.

I wouldn't worry about this too much. You'll find that most people are gender critical so it will cross all views.
I don't think it's fair to label people as rape apologists if they legitimately don't believe he's a rapist seeing as no trial has taken place. They're probably distrustful of the media as a whole.

Also 'liking' stuff isn't a show of support. Lots of journalists/writers/researchers/academics 'like' stuff they vehemently disagree with simply so they can find it again. It's why lots of people have the disclaimer that likes and retweets/reposts aren't endorsements.
I've never seen a gc feminist trying to police likes before 🤔

I haven't seen this. But I tend to ignore the right wing GC idiots anyway and stick with the feminists.

This is why I have issues with the term GC as a label.

It doesn't mean much when describing groups of people.

Wouldn't these people be seen as anti woke types who absolutely would hold these views at the same time.

The feminists I know who stand for women's rights have not been at all supportive of RB.

Sadly being GC (or any other set of views, really) does not insulate people from having stupid or insane opinions on other issues.

This is why it's always a bad idea to divide people into binary good/bad categories (not saying the OP does this! if you're GC for feminist reasons it's natural to be disappointed when you realise that other GC people are coming from very different places).