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?

It's also the grooming that's been involved, people's eyes open slowly to the whole picture.

Considering she has been on the end of some very grim behaviour from people wrongly accusing her of things.

I have noticed that many on social media who are not U.K. based are basing their ideas of RB around this rather than what's been going on within the bbc and C4 for decades with him.

They're not as aware of his longer term career and previous issues.

Birdy, though U.K., was coming from this perspective online; they all seem to forget how rich he is and how many times he appears to have used threats of litigation against anyone who dared to criticise him for how he treated women.

This has also been the results of several years of investigations into him following many years of people knowing he was an issue and quietly warning each other about him.

London Hughes even said her manager or someone similar said never to be alone with him (iirc they shared the same management or media rep??)

He's in an entirely different context to people like Meghan etc.

I don't suppose there will be any feminists who support Brand's behaviour, alleged and otherwise. But given the ease with which women are cancelled for stating reality, they might be sensitive to the issue of cancellation in general.

Men bending over backwards to appear scrupulously balanced about the bad behaviour of other men, is no surprise.

There's a skit on youtube by Ryan Long called when woke and racists actually agree on everything. Its pretty funny and highlights how extremes of anything double back on themselves and how important intention is.

I wouldn't align with GC views but I think interesting and important issues are being raised and ignored and to move forward we have to engage in these very real questions rather than dismiss everyone with a TERF which is so deeply unhelpful. But I can see that there is a stark range of people who could choose to call themselves GC. From the eloquent women posting on here highlighting cognitive dissonance and flagging important issues around safety and legal implications to the reactionary, far right people obsessed with what's in everyone's knickers and want women to go back in the kitchen, gays to go back in the closet and back to the good old days where white men controlled everything.

There are interesting people on this topic so maybe this is a good point to evaluate who you follow.

It depends what you mean by “supporting”Brand. I mean I’m guessing none of these people has the view “Russell Brand should be allowed to rape as many women as he likes.” What they’re probably saying is “trial by media is a bad idea” or “conflating Brand being a sleazy motherfucker with him being a rapist is stupid” or “it’s funny how it’s Brand they’ve picked on when there are a number of comedians with pretty much identical records on treatment of women. Coogan springs to mind.”
Being GC is questioning the existing narrative. It’s asking awkward questions, questions you’re not supposed to ask.
It’s hardly surprising that someone should apply these ideas to something other than gender.

Is there a link to what Meghan Murphy said?

I agree. I also have no idea why Meghan Murphy like his video. I was merely pointing out a motivation she might have. There are many reasons to ‘like’ something and I have never really considered the action to be one of direct support of the person’s content as a whole.

I don’t believe at all that her situation is remotely similar to his.

And to add, I haven’t even see if she did like the video or anything he has said about this.

Has she?

I don't think people who know sex is real but want women back in the kitchen are gender critical. They're actually supportive of gender stereotypes. As a PP pointed out, it's TRAs and MRAs who tried to reframe the meaning of gender critical to mean everyone who knows what sex is.

Not seeing that myself, one GC person I follow raised concerns ref the cancellation on him via social media but then did apologise and make it clear they should have been more sensitive to victims - but that's one out of all the GC people I follow I would say I've seen lots of condemnation of Russell brand from GC people

I haven't seen any gc feministssupporting RB

This. The thing that frustrates me is the conflation of GC feminism with any sort of scepticism about self ID or even overt transphobia.

FWIW, I don't think Brendan O'Neill is defending RB. He's just saying it's a bad idea to let companies like YouTube completely remove someone's income on the basis of allegations alone. I comepletely agree with him there, despite thinking Brand is guilty.

Are you conflating two issues here?

I've seen some GC people express disquiet about the government intervention and the trial by social media aspect. That doesn't mean they support Russell Brand but are intelligent enough to be able to think about the wider implications.

You need to be able to speak up when you see injustice even if that is happening to people that you think are vile.

I've seen a lot of this too, OP. Sarah Phillimore and ripx4nutmeg are notable examples on Twitter, but I've seen a few on Facebook too. They seem to take the view that women sharing their stories with journalists constitutes "trial by media".

I think we all need to be sensitive to what's going on.
This hounding of a person, pile on from all angles of the media, the directing of opinion and cancellation is not fair or right without proper process.
Isn't this how some GC people have been treated?
Of course, I'm not likening the two to each other but commenting more on the power that media has. So much so that Parliament has got involved too.
If people don't stand up against this, then where do we go next?

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.’

See for example, the 3rd post on this very thread, where @MrsTwartle says her family member: "is GC, but in a different way to most GC women I know, in that she fully endorses gender stereotypes"

Someone who 'fully endorses gender sterotypes' is exactly the opposite of GC.

I think we all need to be sensitive to what's going on.
This hounding of a person, pile on from all angles of the media, the directing of opinion and cancellation is not fair or right without proper process.
Isn't this how some GC people have been treated?

I have no love for RB but I agree with this.

I can't quite believe I'm defending Brendan O'Neil who I generally think of as a bit of a dick, but here we go.

This was the most relevant article I could find from him on Russell Brand

https://www.spiked-online.com/2023/09/17/russell-brand-and-the-crisis-of-scepticism/

To say he is defending Brand is to misunderstand it rather I'd have said.

He's saying rushing to judgement and trial by media are not good ways of getting to the truth. Having seen what happened to Kelly Jay Keen in New Zealand and Australia I agree.

Maybe I lack scepticism because based on what I've heard, I 100% believe Brand is a serial sex offender and a rapist. However given that he is still an innocent man in the eyes of the law, it is a legitimate position to be sceptical about that I think.

You are falling into precisely the trap the article refers to

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's not Gender Critical at all then, is she!

I think the problem is that people on both sides have started using the term GC as a catch all term for anyone who opposes gender identity ideology.

Ah I see other people have already made this point, but better 😁

Interesting article from Brendan O'Neil there. I've seen people defending Russell Brand on both sides, of the GC/TRA divide as well as condemning him and pointing fingers at the other side for having the wrong opinion.
He's becoming the online equivalent of 'No, you're the Nazi' and that's just lazy.
Personally, it seems extremely likely that Brand is a serious offender and that is exactly why I don't like trial by media. It should be a police matter.
I think trial by mob is a serious problem and I would say this about JK Rowling whom I love or Brand whom I detest or every trans activist with whom I completely disagree, including those I think are dangerous.
When it comes to serious charges, then what takes Brand down shouldn't be which online mob shouts loud enough, it should be the police and the courts based on evidence and rule of law. Anything else is just mob rule.

I don't know about MM but I read what Brendan O'Neill wrote and he was not supporting Brand at all. He was saying there has to be due process, that RB should see the inside of a courtroom. Which I agree with.

I think that RB is almost certainly guilty and it's right that these allegations have come to light. But punishing him before the verdict is in (through demonetising his channel, the government intervention etc) is only going to give succour to those who think this is all an unfair conspiracy.

And it sets a very, very scary precedent. If simply being accused of a crime is enough to warrant punishment for said crime, then that's a very frightening situation.

I don't object to Brand's crimes being exposed by the media because in this case he has the financial means to pursue a libel case, and I think there's probably good grounds to say it's in the public interest for him to be exposed this way. (Maybe I'm wrong about this. There's a lot to consider.) But he has to have the right to defend himself in a court of law. He has to have the right to a fair trial. And no matter how much we know or believe him to be guilty, he has the right to the presumption of innocence in court.

He has to have those rights, because otherwise we can't claim those rights for ourselves or anyone else.

A key part of GC views is simply commonsense statements to the effect that sex is real, material, and for some social purposes relevant.

Naturally since those statements are so basic and so uncontroversial they are going to be shared by a very wide range of people, including people who also have some abhorrent views. I'm sure that many Rusell Brand supporters also believe, as I do, that Aberdeen is in Scotland and that the Earth's gravity is what makes unsupported objects fall to the ground. That doesn't give me any angst

Just because someone is GC, doesn't mean they aren't also a massive twat. The two aren't mutually exclusive.

Are these alt righter types? In which case, no not surprising at all.

I haven't seen this but I suspect it might have something to do with how you are defining gender critical.

To me, gender critical doesn't just mean you believe humans can't change sex. It means you believe sex is immutable AND that gender is harmful.

The way I've seen it described is as follows:

Gender critical feminists:

Accept the reality of biological sex
Reject the legitimacy of gender

Proponents of gender identity theory:

Reject the reality of biological sex
Accept the legitimacy of gender

Right wing conservatives:

Accept the reality of biological sex
Accept the legitimacy of gender

So someone like Matt Walsh, for example, falls within the third category. I agree with Matt Walsh about the reality of biological sex and I think that he often expresses his ideas about biological sex versus gender identity very cogently. For this reason I might follow him, I might occasionally like a social media post of his that I agree with or a clip from his film. But there are lots of things I disagree with him about, in particular gender roles. Matt Walsh and trans activists both believe passionately in performing gender roles; they just disagree on what roles people should perform. Matt Walsh thinks people should perform the roles associated with their sex whereas trans activists think people should be defined according to which roles they choose to perform. Gender critical feminists just think the gender roles are bullshit.

Russell Brand bends gender norms in terms of how he dresses and presents, but he behaves in a very male way, particularly when it comes to his interactions with women. And his sexually predatory behaviour is deplored by feminists of all varieties, but excused by anti-woke types who think this is all just political correctness gone mad and you can't do anything these days without being cancelled.

So it doesn't really surprise me that there are some people out there who overlap with gender critical feminists in terms of their views on biological sex and gender identity, who also consider themselves anti-woke in general, and who also support male people behaving in a male way with male privilege and male entitlement, which is what Russell Brand has done.