GC Ultra / GC Lite?

OK. But that's not what this is, I don't think. It's an extreme and extremely unpleasant reaction to people pointing out the problems with a puff piece about an AGP who writes about his sexual fetish. When that person is a teacher.

If a teacher said he had any other fetish, he'd not be being lauded by the paper of record, nor would be be invited for any other media interviews, at the very least. Wouldn't happen.

I saw a claim about a tweet from somebody in the Doyle stramash who either claimed to be a radical feminist or was assigned the label.

However, although I don't recall the wording, it read more like the comment of a misanthrope. (Somebody helpfully looked at the TwiXer's general stream which seemed to be at odds with most of humanity. I'm not confident if there were any comments about the relative soundness of any other life forms.)

There are some radical feminists who dislike all men. That would include men claiming to be the women. This is not startling new news.

I don't think Janice Turner is the sort of person who wants to call women TERFs but can't. Maybe she has a point worth listening to, she usually does.

Great post.

All of this is simply a new way of shutting women up. "GC ultra" is the new "TERF".

It's as vile as it is devoid of evidence.

Imo the "dark element" that AD alludes to appears to include many women I follow and admire.

I don't think he's talking about all GC people that disagree - he's talking about a particular faction. Aggressively noisy online posters that brook no debate.
I thought that was what JT meant by GC Ultras too. I've certainly seen those types on the Internet myself.

I also think those are the GC feminists that Stella O’Malley included as those being determined to denounce women through guilt by association.

This is true. There was no evidence proffered apart from some confusing association between nuns supporting the Nordic model.

My experiences this week have certainly alerted me to a dark element within gender-critical circles, one that has become a source of considerable concern for many women in the fight....[I] hope that I may continue these [GC] conversations with those who are able to remain civil even while robustly disagreeing.

AD has his own experience of a "dark element" and perspective on that.

I remain surprised that such terms are used to describe those of us who disagree. That said, I don't explicitly know the components of the "dark element" that are giving "considerable concern" to which "women in the fight".

I know, in vague terms, who the women are who have contributed to and/or maintain a 'sin page" about a woman who attracts their opprobrium. Similarly, those who contributed to an entire issue of Radical Notion that attributed remarkable affiliations and motivations to women with whom they disagree. To me, they have been contributed to fissures and led to an unthinking reputational harm that has damaged overall progress. I know that those women would prefer me to defer my judgment to theirs. And conform my language to theirs.

For the latter part of the AD quotation, afaict, that would include the discussion threads on MN. As ever, I may be wrong.

Oh those small shadowy naughty people again. Who all go to another school.

Like the article by JCJ about the racism shadowy naughty GC people of whom no one could find any evidence beyond a few vague aspersions and nit picking.

The accounts calling others "ultras" are claiming that people are attempting to stifle their free speech when in fact they are just prominent accounts furious that the little people are daring to disagree with them.

The same little people that dug deep for crowd funding, Keira Bell should have chosen her words better for instance.

I found Andrew Doyles article helpful in describing the type I would term "GC Ultra"

I have learned that many of them [GC friends] are exasperated by the “intolerant elements” within their community who seek to destroy anyone who does not conform to every single aspect of their worldview, even if it means that the cause is fatally undermined. They describe a “civil war” being waged by a small but intimidating minority who maintain that any slight point of disagreement is a form of heresy, that language has the capacity to shape reality, and that those found guilty of wrongspeak ought to be publicly shamed and alienated.....this kind of sociopathic behaviour is far from typical in the gender-critical movement......My experiences this week have certainly alerted me to a dark element within gender-critical circles, one that has become a source of considerable concern for many women in the fight....[I] hope that I may continue these [GC] conversations with those who are able to remain civil even while robustly disagreeing.

https://unherd.com/2024/02/caught-up-in-the-gender-critical-civil-war/

<gets out knitting needles>

(I'm shit at knitting and it’s likely to end up looking like a windsock with some random holes in it, but the thought is there…)

Social psychologists claim that many of us have a tendency to double down when one of our core beliefs is under attack.

I don't know JT. I wonder if one of her core beliefs is in the value of friendship and loyalty and she feels these are under attack and these influence her language choices.

That and the drive to be consistent, to follow up on commitments, and to reward those whom we like (see Cialdini).

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/312916528_You_dont_have_to_be_a_fool_to_be_fooled_An_Interview_with_Robert_Cialdini_about_the_similarities_of_persuasion_tactics_between_cults_and_terror_groups

That’s what the word “ultras” means to me too. It definitely comes across as an insult and for me not really a mild one as in my mind the word is linked with violence when used as a noun instead of an adjective.

Could we all just call ourselves Sex Realists?

Balaclavas in suffragette colours?

So you can't have it both ways. I have a lot of respect for journalists like JT, but it seems that when it comes down to it, her and others are making up the rules to suit themselves at perhaps awkward times.when eyeball to eyeball with someone like Hayton.

I suspect JT thought the interview would go down a lot better than it did, and is digging in against the fallout.

It has a paramilitary tint to it, to me. Shades of those who thought the militant suffragettes had gone too far.

She certainly cannot see the hypocrisy in her published opinions recently. By that I mean the articles and tweets.

It is very clear, yet she doesn’t seem to see it at all.

I respect Rose and Fionne and would call them ‘she’ if they wanted.

This is the sort of coercive comments that undermine free speech and actually does lead to compelled speech. PP might not have meant it that way but it is exactly the same as JT; that it is ‘respectful’ to use wrong sex pronouns, ergo it is ‘disrespectful’ to use correct sex pronouns. This then becomes the discourse from those in power - that is disrespectful and therefore abusive/hate speech to call men he/him. And suddenly we don’t even have the choice. You only need to look at MN guidelines to see we now have compelled speech.

And if anyone thinks you can use ‘she/her’ and not have to also call a man a woman then you are extremely naive.

But I reject all compelled speech."

This is a little difficult to believe, to be honest. I just don't get it.

It's not 'compelling speech' to point out that you're pandering to a paraphilia, as an influential journalist writing for The Times!

What's the opposite of your rejecting compelled speech? Reserving the right to give a bloke a hard on by calling him she?

Knock yourself out.

But don't think it will just pass people by!!

I do feel very uncomfortable that men can ‘behave’ their way into preferred pronouns being used. This isn’t good logic and wouldn’t help make good laws.

I’d forgotten about that - it’s part of it, isn’t it? We’re all making ground together, which is really levelling, so rank and a pecking order needs to be reinstated.