What Am I Missing?

Conversely, if you prohibit the man from wearing fake boobs because it makes women uncomfortable, what's to stop men in the office policing womens clothes because a low cut top makes them uncomfortable?

The word "uncomfortable" is doing a lot of heavy lifting here. It's a very vague word. Women often use it to minimise much stronger feelings that they are afraid to express - anything from disapproval or disgust to feeling afraid or insulted. And "uncomfortable" is not a word men use much at all.

The kind of "discomfort" a man might feel seeing a woman in a low-cut top - which could mean "embarrassment" or "disapproval" but perhaps means "arousal" - is not likely to be the same "discomfort" as a woman might feel around a man wearing fake breasts.

So what you need to do is to unpack that word "uncomfortable" and decide which real feelings are likely in which situations, and then you'll probably find the answers.

Yeah. I never understood the need to attempt to label sub groups. Because there i am not sure there are distinct sub-groups.

As you say Amaryllis, there are differing views on a range of the issues. Him introducing it seems to be lump everyone together. And it perpetuates the division.

However we need to use some term if we want to be able to discuss the views the author outlines in the essay

False. We need to discuss each view that he outlines as a separate point. Lumping them all together and then labelling the people who hold some of those views (but often not all of them) is a highway to straw man arguments.

I know there is an argument to be made about "performing fetish"

For me it's a form of sexual harassment which contributes to a hostile environment for women and girls.

My experience to date has been one of being unable to discuss whether 1) such a group of views exists and 2) where they are different to other groups of GC views,because people fixate on the term "ultra" and whether it's offensive.

I started a thread about this (basically asking what so called ultras want that's different from what the rest of us want). I'd be interested in your views, as I know you've thought about this a lot.

The last part of the essay is a mess, not just because he introduces the mysterious ultras, but also because he underhandedly attacks 'them' by shifting between two different meanings of 'gender critical' without saying so.

Meaning One (Forstater Judgment) = sex is binary, immutable, and meaningful.

Meaning Two = sceptical of imposed cultural sex norms.

Yeah. I don't disagree. However we need to use some term if we want to be able to discuss the views the author outlines in the essay. Personally I don't care what term it is. My experience to date has been one of being unable to discuss whether 1) such a group of views exists and 2) where they are different to other groups of GC views,because people fixate on the term "ultra" and whether it's offensive.

I like the essay because there's points I there to work with and discuss, outside whether or not "ultra" is the right term to use.

And this whole discussion of 'chicken fillets' also misses a segment of women who might be wearing prosthetic breasts after reconstruction.

That is your choice.

However, it is pertinent to the discussion, it is part of the article. And as far as I are concerned, it is an issue to be discussed as it forms part of this writer's position.

Gary doesn't get to redefine the term and use it how he wishes and nor does anyone else who chooses to use the term.

You can discuss whatever you want.

Padded bras are not 'chicken fillets' though.

I'm not engaging in this. I'd rather discuss the nuance of the essay.

“A working assumption of this essay has been that those of us who are gender-critical value a liberal, pluralistic society, and are happy for people to believe, live, and present how they want as long as they don’t harm others or expect the rest of us to join in. It must be noted that some who reject transgender ideology and who consider themselves to be stalwart gender-critical types very explicitly reject this. Some members of this group refer to themselves as “Ultras” but some get very angry if you refer to them as “Ultras.” However they characterize themselves, they maintain that, even in the absence of any requirement that the rest of us believe in/act on transgender ideology, when males present with stereotypically feminine dress, wigs, makeup, breast prosthetics, etc., they engage in conduct that must be excoriated because that behavior necessarily represents an expression of contempt for or mockery of women.”

He uses the term. So, either he isn’t aware of the background and has not bothered to find out more, which is odd considering he mentions that some people object to being called this, or he is misusing the term.

It is a derogatory term and you, Cassie, have been in those discussions. Just because this person uses the term and defined his use of it doesn’t change what its origins are.

And discussion of this is relevant. Because it also is part of the wider discussion about how this person views it. So, it is not derailing to discuss the purpose and the user of that term at all. It shows part of the wider picture.

Yeah that is an interesting take on it and I can see what you mean and agree.

Conversely, if you prohibit the man from wearing fake boobs because it makes women uncomfortable, what's to stop men in the office policing womens clothes because a low cut top makes them uncomfortable? And is that OK? I've heard men talk about clothes being worn by professional women who are more voluptuous in those terms.

I think the answer is a dress code that applies to all. But even that is difficult e.g.

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2020/feb/25/black-pupils-excluded-hair-discrimination-equality-act

We are talking about an article where the author clearly defines his terms so it's not fully relevant and has the potential to derail the discussion.
I'm happy to use whatever term you prefer for the group he describes

Didn’t the term ‘ultra’ come about because of the division around use of pronouns?

And if that is the case, then yes, the positioning of refusing to use someone’s preferred words as so extreme that people should be shamed by being labeled as ‘ultra’ is derogatory. It is not an extreme position to have. It should not even be controversial.

Yeah I agree with all that.
I think that's why his line "believe, live, and present how they want as long as they don’t harm others or expect the rest of us to join in" is so important.

Lots of men are creepy and do creepy things every day. Creepy man wearing creepy fake boobs is another example of that.

I think focusing on that element is treating the symptoms. Creepy man will still be creepy, we just won't as explicitly see it.

I'd prefer (probs overromanticised) to treat the causes and not give the creepy man any more attention than I have to.

c'mon. 3 things

1. women have tits. men don't. if a man's got tits you're already in uncanny valley

2. chicken fillets are intended to increase a woman's sexual attractiveness. I cannot think of another reason for wearing them. chicken fillets on a woman are discreet. chicken fillets on a man are not. indiscreet displays of sexuality are offensive

3. what people do is more important than what they think or say. I can't stop men thinking creepy things, but i'd sure like to be able to stop them doing creepy things at work (and for the avoidance of doubt, a man wearing chicken fillets to work is creepy)

I don't think in this case "ultra" is being used as a "denigration". I think its being used as a label for a certain mindset within the GC movement that he is trying to explore.

And I think his point is less about "is it reasonable to use pronouns" and more about trying to tease out elements of that mindset.

A working assumption of this essay has been that those of us who are gender-critical value a liberal, pluralistic society, and are happy for people to believe, live, and present how they want as long as they don’t harm others or expect the rest of us to join in. It must be noted that some who reject transgender ideology and who consider themselves to be stalwart gender-critical types very explicitly reject this. Some members of this group refer to themselves as “Ultras” but some get very angry if you refer to them as “Ultras.”

So he's talking about people who explicitly don't think men should be allowed to present in a stereotypically female way under any circumstances and goes further to say that its about "excoriation" rather than "objection".

I can see exactly what he's getting at, it's a discussion I've had many times on here too.

He then goes on to explore why he personally finds the "ultra"/"illiberal" position inconsistent (and I'll cut him some slack for the terms because it isn't immediately obvious how to refer to that subsection of beliefs in GC)

In a nutshell he's saying he thinks if women can wear chicken fillets/padded bras to work if they like, why can't men? And if one believes in sex based equality, logically there is no reason men can't.

it would be difficult in any case to formulate a limiting principle that would identify in a tidy way that would satisfy everyone what presentations are acceptable and what presentations are not acceptable. That is, the line between an acceptable gender nonconforming presentation and what some regard as an unacceptable instance of “womanface” may be very difficult to draw

Agree with him on this.

The motivations of why people choose to present as the do is not really what he's considering, and I would guess (based on how he's explained it) he would think that bit is less relevant because it's personal to the individual involved and wrapped up in the "believe, live, and present how they want as long as they don’t harm others or expect the rest of us to join in".

For me that line is really important because that's where the crossing point is into authoritarianism. If society decided to ban men from presenting as women at work (as an extreme example) that would set a precedent that "believe, live, and present how they want as long as they don’t harm others or expect the rest of us to join in" doesn't always apply and could open the door to other authoritarian action passing off as for the greater good, such as imposition of state religious beliefs, or restrictions on the actions and freedoms of women.

If one thinks that "believe, live, and present how they want as long as they don’t harm others or expect the rest of us to join in" is a fundamental human right (I do) then one has to tolerate others behaving in ways that one doesn't personally like.

I know there is an argument to be made about "performing fetish" but for me that one doesn't hold much water because I think plenty of men are inappropriately fantasising about women all day and so it's not something we can ban or police. Just an aspect of male behaviour (NAMALT) that women have to navigate in a patriarchal world. Preventing trans identified males from being referred to as women will have little to no impact on the bigger issue.

Agree, Helle.

Was Ultras derogatory? I suppose it was supposed to be. We've got in the habit of reclaiming slurs so fucking fast these days, they just roll off for the most part.

I also understand that some people will use preferred pronouns when they feel they have to when they understand the people they are communicating with will ignore what is important information because they shut down if they feel ‘unsafe’. They do this to get their message across whereas they otherwise would not use that language or those pronouns.

This is a valid point as far as I am concerned. I would prefer people like Dr Hilton to be included in a discussion for instance, rather than her avoided because of the language she uses. It is hard enough for her to get an invite. I know that she will only use that language if she feels it is necessary to be heard by those who become deaf when they don’t like the pronoun being used.

I also understood Helen Joyce’s position when she said people trying to police her language could fuck off. I think she is another who I would trust to only use pronouns if she really needed to get a message heard. And being told to fuck off for language policing is fucking different from creating a derogatory label such as ‘ultras’.

One is stating boundaries, the other is making a new derogatory label to pin on people who might disagree with you.

Well, it's arguing padded bras from the pov of the male gaze, assuming women only dress for men's pleasure. Clearly the author is incapable of even imagining that women may dress for their own comfort.