GC Ultra / GC Lite?

Indeed. And Twitter.

Megan Murphy got banned from Twitter purely for writing 'that's him' (about Jessica Yaniv)

The constraints that women were under on Twitter are difficult to perceive if you weren't aware. So many women banned.

Pronouns must be important to the Trans extinction of women, otherwise they wouldn't be so keen on them being policed at all times.
if they didn't matter , they wouldn't matter.

Yeah, when TRAs try every trick in the book, including threats to your family to stop you using correct pronouns, it's a little odd to maintain they're irrelevant.

I realise that it is difficult for people who've perhaps encountered FWR under the most recent set of guidance have no experience and therefore little understanding of what has happened and how draconian the first few versions were. Nor the influence it has on how posters write, what posters can reference and particular topics.

MNHQ and FWR is a case study in resisting or working around Lifton's Eight Criteria for Thought Reform in order to maintain a platform where we could communicate at all.

I await the book on this at some point or at least a chapter in a book.

ETA: does anyone recall when the first set of guidelines for FWR (and nowhere else on MN) were posted?

And how many of us are accused of misgendering and transphobia for referring to individuals as male or female people?

There is a very constant effort from either extreme trans activists or well meaning allies to enforce pronoun usage or to enforce the belief that a male person should be affirmed as a female because that male person desires it.

You have to be reported to get deleted. It's not the gender critical women doing the reporting. It's transactivists.

Most women here very much want to be able to use correct sex pronouns, as evidenced by the Debbie H threads. Or those about Eddie Izzard, where every other post says, he doesn't mind he/him, HQ!

And most transactivists desperately don't want them to. They monitor these threads constantly and report relentlessly every time someone has been misgendered.

It's difficult to imagine all goals being achieved, when one of the goals is not to be relentlessly targeted for correctly identifying the male sex.

I don't want us to be raising a generation of children who feel that it's rude to identify men as men.

And transactivists do.

Therefore, for many, the issue of pronouns is somewhat key.

You only have to look at the holes in so many threads where posters have tried to use sex based pronouns to know that pronoun usage is absolutely an issue.

Perhaps what is meant is that women pretzeling their language to fit into the posting guidelines means we can still get our message across. Oh course, that then leads to the point that we are using compelled speech to remain active on the board. Many have been banned for pronoun usage in the past and many of us remember this. Hence it is compelled.

But, yes. We do the mental work to make our posts fit so we are not deleted or banned. It is indeed a huge communication issue on this board, isn't it?

You're aware that there is a standard article on this topic that can't be named (far less linked) without deletion?

It was written by someone who used to be a regular poster here (Barracker).

I'm not sure I've understood your reply but are you saying you don't think it's been a huge communication issue on this board?
Do you know how many posters have been suspended for contravening the rules?

"f pronouns aren't regarded as key, why has so much energy gone into enforcing them, even on this board?"

On this board, I think it is because people can communicate all of there points without using them, that many think the battle for single sex provision can be won without using them, and because of this, it isn't necessary.

" don't think most of the people who think the 'some women have penises' is nonsense, see calling a female colleague 'he', or vice versa, a key determinant of women's rights to single sex provision."

Weird to be quoting myself but clicked too soon!

I get that those who see preferred pronoun use as being a gateway or facilitator to stealth mixed sex provision that claims to be single sex feel passionately about arguing the case for this. If this was me, I know I'd be infuriated by people's 'naivety' about the issue.

I have t been convinced by the arguments that pronoun use is key, and so perhaps that is why I imagine the masses won't be won over. In addition (and this is an addition not the main point of reasoning for me), it does come across as 'nasty' and 'unkind', which is where I think the arguments will be difficult to be heard. Again, I would find this infuriating if it were my argument to try and win, because I don't think it is driven by a motive to be unkind or nasty.

I have ongoing experience of being considered bigoted, unkind, nasty etc. for my GC views. I really do get the frustration and anger!

If pronouns aren't regarded as key, why has so much energy gone into enforcing them, even on this board?

I agree that people are aware of the issues you raise and I think the majority support provision of single sex provision and access being determined by sex not identity.

I thought we were discussing pronoun use. I think, in general, people get less animated about this.

As I understand it, the current, highly charged debate on social media boils down to differences in opinion about how significant using preferred pronouns is to securing single sex provision.

I don't think most of the people who think the 'some women have penises' is nonsense, see calling a female colleague 'he', or vice versa, a key determinant of women's rights to single sex provision.

I've spent a lot of time in this board and I've only ever heard or registered Kathleen Stock and KJK and to be honest it's KJK s message i remember

I don’t know about that brainworm. While most of my friends are not actively involved, I know of none of my friends who are not aware of the issues with sports, prisons or children. I have also leafleted in the streets in busy town centres and most of those going past know something about it. I have been very surprised at how knowledge some people were. Particularly parents.

" For what it is worth, I agree with KJK's position. It seems logical and measurable and I think public opinion is moving in this direction"

I disagree, but could write the same if I replace KJK with KS. I expect confirmation bias could be at play with how we think opinion is moving.

I think it's fair to say that a lot more of the population are aware of the women's rights issues thanks to the end of the 'no debate' era. Still, there is a huge proportion who don't care and zone out. Amongst those who do care, I think it is a very small proportion who are aware of or interested in the ultra/lite wars. Very few have heard of CW let alone his girlfriend.

Interesting to me that it's all women who are getting censure for their posts. Men are either being ignored or lauded in the conversation.
Plus ca change.

We have long said here that there are many people who have been wedged into the term ‘GC’ now that have similar macro level objectives but who have different motivations to feminists. I look at Christina’s tweets and think that they are very much an example
of that. The term is meaningless for me now. Far better to describe people’s priorities than stick them under one label, imo.

She has made it clear that she doesn’t hold feminism in high regard. That is fine. It is good to know. if Colin joins in deriding feminists, then it will be good to know where his motivations lie too. ie. That the only intersection of interest is that sex is immutable and binary (as in there is only two sexes but within that a huge number of body types and that children shouldn’t be put into irreversible medical pathways) This is good to know so that people don’t assume that he has feminist’s interests at heart.

How much of it is Christina posting what she is genuinely happening vs her interpretation that Colin is laughing along with her? That is hard to know. It looks like he might be friendly with people like Benjamin Boyce and Helen Pluckrose. They are known to be in the fight for their own reasons and have mocked feminists before.

And I understand laughing when people make absurd accusations. sometimes I laugh because people cross over into such hyperbole that it feels surreal. They may or may not be laughing at the issue which may be serious. I think Christina has shown she doesn’t respect feminists though, and seems to misrepresent feminism without seeking to understand more.

@UtopiaPlanitia I hear you. I was very shocked by her tweets/exes. Christina views things through her own lense. That’s fine. She’s playing her own game. People have platforms and behave how they will. It is really sad that she’s used JTs angry words to pull other women down.

Buttons is doubling down on insulting other prominent GC campaigners. Today, in response to Joe Burgo of Genspect advocating not engaging in or with ad hominem attacks, Buttons insulted Zach Elliott (of the Paradox Institute video series) and Elliott’s partner tweeted about it and included a screenshot of the behaviour:

Cynthia Breheny (Elliott’s partner):
You know, I wasn't going to say anything because I don't like putting people on blast publicly

But being this way to someone I love - to the father of my daughter who is never anything but respectful and measured, really doesn't sit right with me

There are 1000 nasty things I could say. I won't because I don't like being like that. It sickens me to adopt that mindset

I will say, I hope you heal from whatever makes you such a toxic, insecure person who attacks everyone who politely disagrees with you

You accuse everyone of being exactly what you are @ buttonslives

I'm sorry for whatever made you that way

Get well soon

https://x.com/PTElephant/status/1757596310952186010?s=20

https://twitter.com/PTElephant/status/1757596310952186010/photo/1

I know I shouldn’t but I think less of Colin Wright for associating with a woman who engages in adolescent shitposting behaviour. But, by her account, he finds it hilarious to laugh at other GC people the way she does so they’re obviously a great match 🤷‍♀️ I am also less mystified by his recent rudeness spree with regards the pronoun debate.

I’m not sure what the impact or the reasoning is. There are several threads that have holes in them because posters used sex based pronouns that someone didn’t like. How do we say NO? If we are willing to say YES to people we agree with? Do we say NO to the Scottish rapist because “HE” is a rapist even though “HE” insists he is a woman? There is a line. It has nothing to do with labour or conservative, it is about women, vulnerable women that need us to hold the line. If people think feminism is about coaxing left voters over to our way of thinking they need to re read the definition of feminism. One woman. All women.

I'm curious as to what people think will be the impact for women's and children's rights from this disagreement. Is this a set back? Are the goals of the ultras different from the goals of the lites or is it just a question of tactics? For what it is worth, I agree with KJK's position. It seems logical and measurable and I think public opinion is moving in this direction.

They are at the thick end of the wedge. Lucky them! The thin end are women who can’t choose pronouns. Think prisons or transwidows. I won’t be handing pronouns out like sweets because I have respect for those that are at the thin end. If that makes me an Ultra then it’s another badge I will wear with pride. I also won’t be chucking anything out to invite “leftists” to think it’s safe because the leftists have already kicked me out of their politics on my choice of words.

JT et al’s position could be the result of them failing to spot that Hayton is not GC.

I think it's the other way round. JT is still treating him as if he has a feminine gender identity that needs to be appeased, when he's just told her that, on the contrary, he's a man whose extreme GNC serves a sexual fetish and has no other purpose or meaning.

Seems pretty GC to me. (And, IMO he wants extreme GNC to be exclusive to castrated men.)

This comparison is better.

What we are talking about when we talk about compelled speech is merely about social etiquette and general consensus on the 'right way' to do things or to be polite.

Compelled speech comes from Authoritarianism. Authoritarianism is about being forced and there being this concept of punishment if you fail to comply. It's about fear of authority imposing itself on you.

Thus walking the dog and not saying hi, would still be a choice. You can choose to be a dick and be impolite and there aren't any real consequences to it. No one is going to report you to an authority or power and make you explain your actions. You are free to be a dick if you want to. It's just most people aren't.

Authoritarianism and compelled speech is more about power from above being used against you to punish you in some way. It's top down and hierarchical rather than by consensus. Liberalism is driven by social consensuses which we choice to participate in or stick two fingers up at and doesn't have this element of punishment in the same way.

Where there is an element of law, liberal laws tend to reflect the accepted and widely recognised consensus and you don't have to constantly 'prove' that something has popular support. It's just 'understood' as something almost invisible in our society. It's viewed universally as 'just'. They are logical.

Whereas as an illiberal law or authoritarian law is feared, doesn't have this state of invisibleness in society as it jars with our understanding of justice and doesn't have popular support. It will have to be constantly justified as having legitimacy as it doesn't have public consent. Punishments are also disproportionate to the level of the offense because there is often an element of making an example of someone and to create this fear. The consequences of none compliance are significantly higher. They are

If you walk the dog and don't say hi, you aren't in fear of the authorities tracking you down and arresting you with a possible 29 year sentence, because you (for examples sake) didn't fold the washing in the correct manner.