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 really do wonder if any woman is going to really think 'oh - so wanting equality with men and the right not to be forced by law to be used by men, and to lie for men, is right wing now? Ok, here are my rights, I embrace my slavery'.

If that's the left wing for you.... well I'll gladly fund the freedom programme for escapees but count me right out.

I do find the endless attempt to make anything even remotely distasteful right wing very amusing.

Same.

I don't think they support the rights of women and protecting children as much as they say they do.

It's made me reassess all of them.

No

I have seen a few women I know personally, who don't believe you can change sex, defend Brand and call it a conspiracy to shut his voice down etc, but I wouldn't call them feminists. They wouldn't call themselves feminists either.
Like pp have pointed out, the opinion that you can't change sex is going to be held by a great proportion of the public, but that doesn't mean they give a fig about their fellow women, sadly.
Or rather, believe women/a woman over a man in these circumstances.

Why does everyone speak in acronyms on mumsnet. I don’t understand what they’re talking about! What does IG and GC even mean? 😂 why can’t people just type out the full word so we all understand. Maybe I’m too old for this forum…

IG is Instagran where older women compare cardies and GC is Granny Critical where older women are complained about for being old and out of touch.

Presumably it hasn't made you question whether you're right about humans not being able to change sex though?

So what does it matter if some people you think are right about humans not being able to change sex are wrong about Russell Brand?

Odd if true, inasmuch as Brand is himself very TRA. Or used to be. Or pretended to be. Who knows anymore?

Imo, people may be more sympathetic to the (without evidence) conspiracy theories that it's targeting Brand because he is talking about pharmaceutical companies or whatever, because there is real evidence elsewhere of dubious censorship by social media companies, including in cooperation with government.

So you get banned for saying, "TWAM", which shows how questionable "hate speech" censorship is. I don't care if they are a "private company"; if major platforms are suppressing the truth out of political bias or other reason, it's a genuine "free speech" issue regardless of whether they can legally do it as a private business.

Or they suppressed the Hunter Biden laptop story as, "looks like Russian disinformation", when the content was real. Or people got censored for supposed, "medical misinformation".

Agree with all of that. You can believe RB is very likely an abusive twat, but still be uncomfortable about him losing his livelihood on the basis of unsubstantiated accusations (though personally I believe his accusers). It's so arbitrary too - Roman Polanski raped and sodomised a child, but continues to get acclaim and awards.

I think it's been really well laid out in this, and other threads, why many people who are GC might be concerned about other things that come up in relation to this case. There are huge downsides to media and social cancellation without, or even sometimes before, crimes are addressed in law.

There are also serious questions about the right way for employers and media platforms to deal with people accused of things. Probably there isn't a simple answer to this.

But I would also say that a lot of people who questioned the narrative about gender ideology are people who question narratives in general, have a scepticism about mass movements, and don't care, or at least are willing, to say unpopular things.

I haven't, but I'm not a follower of Brand's content so maybe I'm not aware of it.

When actor Cas Anwar was accused by several women of predatory behaviour, the following happened.
The production company brought in an outside independent agency to investigate.
He was written out between seasons when it became obvious that the accusations were true and part of a long term pattern of abusive predatory behaviour.
He was never again mentioned by cast or production. It was all dealt with and no more to say.

Who is that and when was that?

That's how it should have been dealt with.

But it wasn't, that's half of the story here.

I'm seeing many people defending proper legal process rather than RB himself. I am one of these. I'm also GC.

Cas Anvar was in The Expanse (Sci fi series on amazon prime). Maybe 2020 ish for him being written out.

Cas Anvar - Wikipedia

This covers it in barest outline.
"In June 2020, Alcon Entertainment hired an independent firm to investigate over 30 allegations of sexual harassment and assault made against Anvar.[16][17] In November 2020 Alcon announced that Anvar would not be returning for the sixth and final season of The Expanse.[18]"

IG = Instagram

GC = Gender Critical; i.e. critical of gender and gender ideology. So the whole reason for this board existing.

Sorry if this has already been said but Meghan Murphy and others, such as Julian Vigo, who on first reading appear to be gender critical etc., are in fact far more into the ideology of if not conspiracy theories, then definitely the concept that the establishment / government and the media manipulate us.

So presumably if the media and Government were totally pro GC politics and women's sex based rights they, would start writing posts about how we were being manipulated and men were being hard done by.

Their position of us (except them of course) all being unwitting victims of false narratives mean that many who claim to be feminists support Assange.

In one way I have found this quite useful, so once Meghan Murphy started going on about Covid being a government conspiracy, I felt more than easy about not bothering to read her any more!

Although of course there are some who think that this is against natural justice.

Funnily enough I haven't seen anyone worry about this in terms of Huw Edwards being taken off air.

re. Polanski being lauded, that is only in France, and some other european countries. I cant see him being reinstated in the US or UK.

The list of celebrities who have publicly defended Polanski includes Emma Thompson, Tilda Swinton, Jeremy Irons, Harrison Ford, Martin Scorsese and many other US and British luminaries.

Well luvvies will be luvvies. But he cant enter the US and I doubt he would be seen in public here.

Well what a surprise. Petition created by Harvey Weinstein!

And they seem more upset that the Swiss police did their job and acted on a European arrest warrant (same as Assange) and is a fugitive from justice. Seem to think that even though the police acted within the law, it was really horrid of them to spoil his day in the spotlight. Filmmakers apparently shouldn't have to give up the high life on some silly legal technicality when they are so creative!!

I hope the Swiss police questioned the festival organisers as to why they invited a criminal fugitive to speak at a festival.

Has anyone read Kathleen Stock's paywalled comments on this? https://twitter.com/Docstockk/status/1705576492401365496

To be fair most GC people who claim to be feminists oppose Brand. A handful of prominent ones are not condemning him, where they would absolutely condemn a trans women accused of the same thing.

They seem to be going for "let the courts decide", despite there being 1% conviction rate for rape in the UK. That's instead of believing a multitude of plausible accusations. "Hold any judgement until they are convicted" is not a good argument.

Examples include Sarah Phillimore (who is defending Brand on GB News and said women were upset because he didn't call them back), Stock, and EJ Rosetta (who says that her "predator-radar" didn't go off with Brand.)

Some of Phillimore's critics are criticising her for saying she'd defend Brand in court, and conflating that with defending Brand full stop, but she has absolutely belittled Brand's accusers.

Don't suppose you have the text of what Stock said available, do you?

I can tell already that you don't. Her article behind a paywall, and your whole post is built around the headline.

For those slow of thought, the full text is not pro-Brand in any way, shape or form.

No, it was Phillimore's numerous tweets which lead me that view. Stock's comment "Depending on who you ask, the comedian is either a criminal or a martyr. The least popular position of all is that we should wait for the courts to decide." if it accurately reflects the writing suggests she shares that position, unless the article takes a real swerve.