GC Ultra / GC Lite?

🙈🙈🙈 She's just supported compelled speech by calling women that won't use preferred pronouns under any circumstances 'ultras'.

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.

Thanks. Seen JT's tweet now. Looks like she's using 'ultra' as a mild insult. To me, it means Italian football hooligans, and fascists.

It's not only that. "Cry traitor" has horrible echoes of "cry rape". What the fuck was she thinking? It's such a nasty comment piece. Despicable, in fact.

It was Janice Turner.

Last time I looked the comments under her rebuttal column were a huge amount of polite disagreement with her pronoun using position.

Certainly sensitivity to the kinds of women not in their immediate circle has not always been strong. There also seems to be real shock that those who are usually so supportive of them are not coming along on this, and are explaining in unfortunately clear detail as to why.

I’m an older working class woman, and I’m sure I’ve seen this before

It feels rather Meg John Barker.

Good Practice Guide, British Association for Counselling and Psychotherapy
(extract)
2.6 Gender identity: woman
Definitions
"Whether trans or cisgender, intersex or not, many people identify as
women. However, what this means varies a great deal depending on their other intersecting attributes…Being a woman in a British cultural context often means adhering to social norms of femininity, such as being nurturing, caring, social, emotional, vulnerable, and concerned with appearance.
However, of course, not all women adhere to all these things. For example some neurodiverse women (on the autistic/aspergic/ADHD spectrums) may struggle to express emotions, or with social situations. In some northern working-class contexts femininity is associated with strength and aggression

www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/3339137-BACP-Gender-Sexual-and-Relationship-Diversity-by-Dr-Meg-John-Barker

Ugh, let's resist this. For a start, 'ultra' has very unfortunate connotations. Who came up with it?

I might be way off, but it feels quite classist to me. Lovely GC feminists are able to write their articles and books and, of course, they only know jolly decent types. Meanwhile, the working class, anonymous women are taking it all a bit far by refusing to call men women. I’m an older working class woman, and I’m sure I’ve seen this before, or maybe it just feels like a lecture from my betters 🤷🏻‍♀️

I am at this point, extremely cynical and hope it is just all a misunderstanding or the impact of an extremely plausible male with a lot of skills in getting people to do what he wants. Who appears very nice when it works for him.

However I still think that this is to whatever extent, a group of very committed Labour voters who are reaching panic that Posie in a position of further influence and voice, and uncontrolled women here, will share information that risks making Labour unelectable. And encourage others to turn away from Labour until they sort their policies and misogyny out. Creating a nice 'middle ground' that might just be in touching fingers distance of Starmer's Labour and monstering women who don't obediently stand on it, is a way to paint the public opinion in a way that serves Labour.

It does not serve women.

There is also an element here of academic superiority and the feeling of 'knowing best' which has long since hung around this group, with some voiced derogation such as 'domestic zombies' for other women outside of the group, particularly those who will not follow their leaders. Someone brilliant the other day said that this was like the Deptford Project letter played out on another stage, and I think they had a very shrewd point.

But it's not necessary to agree with each other 100%. Women aren't a hive mind or a gang. Wanting rights and equality and not to be used in a man's sexual and psychological issues because some kind of born duty to special men? As extremism goes, it's barely getting its feet wet unless you are basing on deeply sexist core beliefs.

Thinking even harder on the insult, I actually can't believe she got that wording past the layers of sign off at The Times and into the paper. It's hideous.

"Likewise, I will use female pronouns for some trans women. My rules are personal. I will call no male who commits a sexual or violent offence “she”. But those who respect women, like Debbie Hayton, or those I meet in real life, I will respect. This will win me abuse on both sides: Stonewall would say the choice should not be mine; gender-critical ultras will cry traitor. But I reject all compelled speech."

full of educated rational people.

Gurwinder Bhogal: When intelligent people affiliate themselves to ideology, their intellect ceases to guard against wishful thinking, and instead begins to fortify it, causing them to inadvertently mastermind their own delusion, and to very cleverly become stupid.
9:45 PM · Nov 9, 2018
https://twitter.com/G_S_Bhogal/status/1061011900278980608

Contribution to that thread: Intelligent minds can certainly be furiously good at maintaining confirmation bias because they have so much more information and cleverness with which to justify their beliefs.

I wonder if the use of courtesy pronouns is indicative of an empathy bias that overlooks the competing needs of others who aren't in the room at the time (so to speak).

Thanks for this thread. I have felt extremely discombobulated by the twitter discussions and it is a relief to see the issues laid out clearly above.

I don't see my position as extreme at all, quite the reverse and am baffled by JT and AD being so cross about being disagreed with. I rate those two individuals so highly but do not understand where they are coming from here.

Absolutely.

Cults are full of educated rational people.

Why?

And why not the next person?

Personally I absolutely don't think anyone is immune from manipulation. And some people are very charismatic and persuasive.

Although I've never found Debbie Hayton either of those things, but then maybe he hasn't tried very hard with me!

What I don't get, is how manipulative, or charismatic, or charming does someone have to be, to persuade a hardened journalist to not only participate in their fetish, but to have a dig at women who think it's not on!

Which is why, I have to think, she's not actually seeing it, for some reason. There's a mental process that has concluded in her demoting it to something that doesn't really matter.

Referencing MK Ultra is pretty rude though, she's basically saying that those of us who refuse to use wrong sex pronouns are trying to brainwash and psychologically manipulate those who choose capitulate to trans demands. If anything it's the opposite way around!

It seems to me that Hayton has done a good job of trying to look like “the reasonable one” by admitting the AGP etc. Originally when I read the Mail article about DH, I thought it was reasonable but, on thinking about it, felt like - yet again - a male had wormed his way in somewhere he really wasn’t wanted, this time to the GC argument. It felt…undermining and manipulative. Which, in the context of a paraphilia, is hardly surprising.

Fair play to Janice Turner for writing on the subject, letting DH have his say etc and she (JT) is, of course, entitled to her view. But everyone else is entitled to disagree and labelling that disagreement as the work of “ultras” is quite disrespectful, not least to the women who’ve dealt with unending shit to get us to a point where this is being discussed openly.

Ultras/Lites also smacks of “divide and conquer” - the Ultras are hardened, shrill extremists whose hyperbole and fear-mongering could be ignored, and the Lites have their “reasonableness” championed and could possibly be tempted back to the “Be Kind” side if they’re frightened of being labelled an Ultra. That splitting of feminist solidarity is just not on.

I think it's sad to be slurred within your own faction.
Ultra? I feel being gender critical is akin to atheism. And I much prefer 'gender atheist' actually. Within this there is no extremism or 'ultra'.

You wouldn't expect an atheist to get fuzzy about their belief in God around certain people.

It boils down to me that even some GCers think that referring to someone's natal sex is actually an insult. But how can it be an insult? Pronouns for GCers refer to sex right? Why is this so delicate?

I agree at least there is proper debate going on and I welcome this conversation, but I'm surprised at where it's come from.

I do think we are all vulnerable to manipulation from others, not always the same others. I might be immune to manipulation from person A but susceptible to it from person B. Intelligence really has nothing to do with it and I believe it is dangerous hubris to believe that we will never be taken in by a manipulative personality type, perhaps someone with an undiagnosed or well hidden cluster B personality disorder or temporarily exhibiting some of the traits thereof.

This happened to me once, a man who I thought seemed very affable and a decent bloke. His wife seemed rather cold and stand offish. Turned out he was abusing her, after she became free of him, not without him nearly succeeding in manipulating professionals that she was abusive and unstable, (DARVO), she has been completely transformed as a person. Free at last from the psychological, emotional and physical abuse. The point being I was completely taken in by him and didn’t suspect anything until I was explicitly told the truth of the situation. There are other situations where I have spotted “Red Flag People” a mile off. I always reserve my judgement now and keep an open mind on who is aloof and odd and who is friendly and safe.

I find it a little weird that JT and AD (and all other free adults who comply with wrong-sex pronouns without risks to their livelihood / safety if they don't) are such willing participants in DH's AGP. He has made it really clear this is where he's coming from, but that's seems to be their decision, much as I don't understand it.

I'm sorry I used the word "fool". Not sorry I used the word "naive". I was frustrated at the mischaracterisation of less naive women.

As PPs indicate, this is not an issue for women to resolve.

Women have organised into an array of groups and activities from attending events dressed as dinosaurs to policy making.

I don't understand why TWs haven't set up a schedule of several of them visiting male public facilities and using them. Normalising that they use them without exciting comment or more.

I suggest a pairing of Grrl Alex and Izzard (let them expand the bandwidth of what it means to be a man which might be far more powerful).

Other suggested pairings?

I think in terms of the 'be kind' thing, Hayton has pulled the wool over the eyes over a lot of women. Women are by nature willing to be kind and accommodating because they aren't inheritantly evil and had sympathy for people who they thought were traumatised by something.

What Hayton has done has demonstrate that the compromise option isn't about being nice to men who has some sort of dysphoria. He's highlighted that you can't distinguish between men who have dysphoria and men who who have a sexual kink.

That's troubling. Especially as this is a man who has been involved with guidelines on toilets in schools. It's got safeguarding red flag bunting.

It think it highlights that the whole concept is being exploited and misused against the understanding women had and contrary to what they have sympathy for. That's dishonest. Again dishonesty is a red flag.

And all of this is against the interests of women and kids.

All of it keeps piling up with evidence of harms and the only benefit being to males, with a high percentage of males with a sexually motivated element to their identity - some who stay within the law and some who don't. But either way, not with the consent of women and even the most mild mannered with a disregard to the impact on women. Women are support humans to their desires however you cut it.

It raises the question of how FEW cases of 'genuine' dysphoria there are. And yet we are trying to rearrange society around this utterly tiny number, in the process exposing women and children to scenarios they don't consent to, may not be aware of and in a small number of cases may be at risk of harms from. Why?

Where is this model poster trans-woman who hasn't got a dubious history, which we raise eyebrows very high about if they didn't have this cloak of trans? Every single high profile transwomen seems to have 'a lot going on'.

We get deleted and chastised for mentioning the extreme cases of sex offenders because that's transphobic and they aren't 'real' trans. We get a whole lot of 'well they deserved it' in response to threats and violence from TRAs. Somehow they aren't representative yet for some reason women have meetings cancelled and get booted / constructively dismissed from work. And that's somehow ok and politicians aren't vocal about how damaging it is to democracy and women's freedom.

These more moderate cases do a good job of making a good show of how they aren't like these extreme cases whilst simultaneously undermining women's rights and single sex provisions. And get a free pass for it because 'well they aren't as bad as that other lot of extremists'. They aren't 'the good ones'. They are still males who don't have the interests of women at heart and are very much willing to throw women under the bus if it suits their interests.

This is an attempt to try and suggest there is also an extremist element to be gender critical. When all women are saying is 'no I don't want to be second class and to be put into situations which I am exposed to indignity to serve the desires - not needs or wants - of males who freely admit they do it for sexual gratification'. It's false equivalence and yes absolutely is about trying to shut down the conversation and try and make women sound unreasonable.

It is NEVER extreme or unreasonable to say, no I don't consent to being a tool and complicit in your sexual fetishes. Let's be crystal clear on this.

vile! bigot! witch! hysterical! TeRF! ULTRA! Disappointing to see a woman doing it to be honest.

Incidentally, the only other place I've heard the tem 'Ultras' used recently is in football hooliganism. A section of the Crystal Palace supporters for example are known as The Ultras

I didn't know that about Crystal Palace.

The first part puts me in mind of Shonagh Dillon's PhD title: ‘#TERF/Bigot/Transphobe’ – ‘We found the witch, burn her!’ A contextual constructionist account of the silencing of feminist discourse on the proposed changes to the Gender Recognition Act 2004, and the policy capture of transgender ideology, focusing on the potential impacts and consequences for female-only spaces for victims of male violence.

https://www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/4287881-Congratulations-Shonagh-Dillon-for-Defending-Your-PhD-TERF-Bigot-Transphobe-We-found-the-witch-burn-her?

One of the disturbing aspects of the thesis, amongst others, is the reality that it's a substantial number of women using such language to silence other women in service of harming some of the most vulnerable women.

“Ultras” is a European term, perhaps originating in France, for organised groups of hard core football hooligans.

There were fun and games when Parisian Ultras decided to follow their women’s team when they played Chelsea. They would not have been allowed to buy tickets for a men’s equivalent, but no one thought to check applicants for women’s tickets.

This is exactly what I thought and why I was surprised to see JT come up with this sort of lazy hyperbole to try and paint people comcemrd about the erosion of women's and children's rights bought about by TIMs and organisations like Stonewall. Its straight out of the TRA/ misogynist playbook, with the constant use of hyperbole to try and indicate extremism, when it's just disagreement and holding a different viewpoint - vile! bigot! witch! hysterical! TeRF! ULTRA! Disappointing to see a woman doing it to be honest.

Incidentally, the only other place I've heard the tem 'Ultras' used recently is in football hooliganism. A section of the Crystal Palace supporters for example are known as The Ultras. Interesting attempt at equivalence I thought.

And you know what, I don't much care if people cave and use female pronouns for males in the moment, sometimes you might have to, so what, doesn't fundamentally change your position that men can't be women. I'd try and avoid it wherever possible but who knows in reality if I came across an AGP male at work, quite likely in IT, especially at a customer site, I'd probably have to.

I'm still GC though, still a feminist and still a TERF, under the made up definition, and proud of trying to protect women and children and wanting my boys not to grow up to be coercive men. If that makes me an ULTRA under someone's silly made up point scoring ideology, then so be it.