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

[FunViolet]

I'm feeling quite discomfited by the number of people I follow on IG due to their GC content who have also now revealed themselves to be RB supporters/defenders.

I can't get my head around how I can so passionately agree with their beliefs on gender bollocks yet be so opposed on the Brand issue when both issues boil down to protecting the rights and safety of women and children.

Of course I don't expect anyone to share all my beliefs but it's just such a stark contrast. I hate feeling in some way aligned with conspiracy theory-spouting rape apologists 🤢 .

Anyone else noticed this?

I haven't seen any. Are these people men or women?

I’ve seen precisely zero, but the GC people I follow are GC feminists so I wouldn’t expect them to be RB excusers. 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.

The only one I’ve seen is a family member who has become a raging anti vaxxer, anti covid, free speecher, who fully believes everything she’s told as long as it’s in line with “covid is just a cold, the vaccine will kill you”.
She is GC, but in a different way to most GC women I know, in that she fully endorses gender stereotypes and is hugely homophobic (being gay is for other people, not us - as she told her dc).
She fully supports RB because he was telling the truth, and the elites don’t like it.

Edited to add:
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.
^^ this.

People accepting sets of pre-packaged beliefs, without applying their own critical thinking to each individual belief, is one of the reasons we're in this 'gender' mess.

If it's important to you that GC people share your views on other topics, I'd ask you why that is.

@BelindaBears no I don't follow those kind of people.

Brendan O'Neil is one. Megan Murphy, while she hasn't afaik spoken out about RB, I saw that she'd liked his first video after the allegations which is a show of support. The others are surprisingly also GC feminists who have liked his video or are joining in with the 'mass media are setting him up narrative'.

Not loads of them but enough to make me 🤔.

Not seen that at all

@JacquelinePot I literally said in my OP that I don't expect everyone I agree with on one issue to agree with me on everything.

I just find it hard to process how someone can hold these two, hugely conflicting to me at least, beliefs at once.

I haven't seen any gc feminists supporting RB.
Lots of people know biological sex is real, not all of them are gc or/and feminists. You must have noticed that before now.

How many are raising concerns about due process for the upcoming court cases? I have seen some discuss whether a continued trial by media could harm the court cases.

Some people are also reluctant to have things like YouTube pull monetisation based on media reporting without criminal charges or convictions yet being laid. It has been a discussion about precedence and symmetry. About the fact we want to stop women being deplatformed and having YouTube channels removed or demonetised while supporting YouTube’s actions around this man.

I think some people have then attempted to portray that as somehow supporting Brand when they are clear that they find his actions deplorable and vile. And that some people then use that as a tool to discredit those people or to somehow twist it as those people are hypocrites or whatever accusation they choose.

I also think that here is another instance of the harm detaching the feminist component of the original term ‘gender critical feminist’ has done. This was done by extreme trans activists who wished to then leverage any person who doesn’t believe that people can change sex. They did this to support their accusations of guilt by association with ‘right wing’ people.

Yet, that ‘gender critical’ label is now very clearly falsely used for people who seek to uphold gender stereotypes and gender roles while not believing humans can change sex. They are not critical of gender and have their own political aims, but some extreme trans activists use the term so all people they disagree with are under one umbrella.

So. Are those people you are talking about actually ‘gender critical’ in belief or are they simply people who don’t believe humans can change sex? Yet have been leveraged into an umbrella term falsely by people who want to discredit feminists and feminist discussion?

As always OP, I recommend that you read widely and fact check all you read while applying your critical thinking skills to analyse what the truth is.

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).

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

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

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

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

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

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 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.

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.

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.

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.

‘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.

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.

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?

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

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?