Stock leaving x, what have I missed?

[antigome]

Not sure what I've missed as I've been away from socials for a couple of weeks.
But what's Happened? Stock is leaving twitter, KJK posted about the disappointment of your generals giving away what you e fought for.
Is this about pronouns?

I've never felt the animosity towards Hayton that some do. I accept that there are quite a number of men who are AGP and there probably always will be. It seems to be a condition which males are susceptible to. It doesn't mean i 'approve' of it, or like it.

What is most important to me in the short to medium term is that he is challenging the notion that TW are women or that they are female; and is is revealing the fact that AGP is what motivates many men to transition. Plenty of the public are unaware of this. It is important that this is known that AGP has roots in eroticism and the sexualisation of women.

we should not now be relying on the DBS to do its job as it is now a compromised system.

And even if working perfectly, it is not a magic wand. Its job is - and has always been - only to show past convictions. It is not a risk assessment. It doesn't assess someone's suitability or capability for any position. It only tells you whether they have been convicted of a crime (I think in some cases also cautions, which involve admitting a crime rather than being convicted).

I agree with your take on this. And I am tired of the Inquision-like looking for reasons to divide the political coalition that's made GC successful. We need both our open-minded head girls and our traditionalist street fighters. Of course we're not always going to agree on everything, but it's been a fruitful alliance when we have.

There’s a similar discussion on this issue taking place on Ovarit, thought people here might like a link:

https://ovarit.com/o/GenderCritical/534609/thought-experiment-re-janice-turner-s-use-of-she-her-as-courtesy

I agree with your statement but DH keeps being invited to major GC events (or turns up anyway) and is often involved in media debates (rather than a woman) as the designated GC person.

What I’m trying to say is that Hayton is a source of discord in the GC movement because Hayton’s beliefs are not gender critical; Hayton believes that 'true trans' should be allowed to claim womanhood. This discord caused by Hayton attaching onto the GC movement hasn’t in any way damaged his ability to make a living from journalism/media appearances, or to have a platform as a 'GC commentator' but pushing his own particular version of how he wants things to be.

And, frustratingly, many prominent GC campaigners seem determined to fight tooth and nail to protect his prominent place (as someone media outlets consider to be part of the public face of the GC movement) rather than listen to women (and men) who object to any man with AGP having this outsize influence on the debate largely based on the fact that Hayton cultivated friendships with prominent GC campaigners.

I think cuckoo in the nest sums up how I feel about Hayton; I accept others feel differently but I see Hayton as an irreconcilable issue for many GC people and therefore, sadly, there will be more disagreements which won’t harm his ability to campaign for what he wants but will undermine solidarity in GC campaigning and the fight to improve the situation for women, children, and gay people negatively affected by gender ideology.

It's useful that Hayton is open about his autogynephilia but that's even more reason to not call him "she" or "her".

To be honest he creeps me out and I am surprised that so many purportedly gender critical feminists fawn over him.

I think 'peaking' is not a single event. You think you've reached the top and possibly don't even see the next rise, and the one beyond that.

If other people wish to use female pronouns for the likes of Hayton, I might inwardly roll my eyes but they're still on their journey. Or perhaps they've gone as far as they mentally can. They're still on the mountain with us and they've come a long way, against the odds with a big chunk of society, possibly family members, their colleagues, standing in their way and trying to drag them back.

They've been told, they know, they shouldn't suffer abuse if they haven't got their yet or ever. There's still more that unites us.

I really wish Janice Turner had begun that article by saying, 'I like Debbie Hayton and so have chosen to use 'she / her pronouns'. I'd have understood that. Yes you could still have argued it was inconsistent, especially given the content of the interview, but I think we all have inconsistences and blind spots over people we like - well I do - and I regard other people's friendships as none of my business.

But by describing what she did as 'a courtesy' she used a value judgement and thereby positioned herself on the moral high ground, above anyone who disagreed with her. That's what rankled with me, and that was even before we got to the 'ultra' accusations.

None of which means I'll never read or listen to her again. I still rate her and I'd still work with her. Likewise Kathleen Stock.

Beautifully said.

Please, please, we must stop the infighting. State your stance on pronouns and why, and then let it sit for others to consider. Don't harangue journalists or philosophers or women's rights campaigners when they don't perfectly match your stance. Infighting exhausts the movement and every dig, even small, should be used for our real opponents.

Infighting exhausts the movement and every dig, even small, should be used for our real opponents.

This is why the right succeeds. They are a broad church, ironically accepting of the differences and foibles and want power more than purity.

We're closer to the Judean People's Front.

On the plus side, this level of public infighting, proves that GC is very clearly a left rather than right wing movement.

Sorry, yes I'm being facetious.

Cui bono from the infighting?

“What I’m trying to say is that Hayton is a source of discord in the GC movement because Hayton’s beliefs are not gender critical; Hayton believes that 'true trans' should be allowed to claim womanhood. This discord caused by Hayton attaching onto the GC movement hasn’t in any way damaged his ability to make a living from journalism/media appearances”

That’s a really interesting insight.

It hadn’t occurred to me that JT might mistakenly be categorising Hayton as GC or a GC ally. When instead, Hayton is campaigning for special treatment for males involved in erotic cross dressing.

On your “tooth and nail” point I suspect part of it is that those who want to be well thought of in certain circles are keen to have undeniable proof of their ‘non-transphobic’ credentials by publically supporting certain individuals with a profile. Although in KS’s case it would be consistent with her previous position of having argued for a non-judgemental / sympathetic attitude to males with kinks - it was in her book, although I can’t remember exactly how she phrased it.

In JT’s case, what I find disappointing is her use of misogynistic language, which she used before anyone criticised her on pronouns. She was already subtly mud-slinging and undermining the women she disapproved of before the pronoun debate started. She just escalated into non-subtle mud-slinging once she’d been criticised.

DH himself worked with his union to get himself and any boy who wanted it, access to female spaces in schools

For what it's worth, I saw Graham Linehan say on X that DH had tried to get the guidelines reversed but the union refused.

I would be interested in what people consider 'in fighting'. Is it discussion around the inconsistencies that have led to discordant behaviour 'in fighting'? Or is it people who are flinging out insults and emotional manipulation? Is it merely acknowledging that someone has over stepped by contributing to a thread?

I understand that some people don't find it useful to look at what has happened and work out what is being said and how potentially this has come about, but I believe that others do find it useful. Because I am sure that many women are uncomfortable about what is happening this week and they may not be able to articulate it without reading someone else's analysis of it.

Who is the 'stop the infighting' comment meant for please?

And has DH then actively and publicly campaigned to get the result of DH's work reversed, Pixie? Did anyone say anything about this, do you know?

Indeed.

Or is it people who are flinging out insults and emotional manipulation?

Calling long-established feminists on X "Mussolini"

"Ultras"

It's that over the top, snarky, "look how clever I am" unnecessary infighting, not the civil disagreements like, "I won't do pronouns for DH and here is why."

Thanks for clarifying Delphinium. I am quite confused by some of the accusations over the past week. Because some of it feels like gaslighting and it has taken time to watch and see more to work out why.

Completely agree.

What rankled with me was her use of the word “screaming” in that very first Times article, about someone shouting out during an event. Her choice of the word “screaming” rather than “shouting” was not neutral. It was chosen to make that person seem unreasonable, emotional, irrational, abusive. That one word told us about her attitude to the women she disagrees with on this, and her writing since has been consistent with that.

She repeated that word in her follow up Times article and went further by introducing “extremist” as a way of casting aspersions on the women she disagrees with.

JT is not stupid: she’s seen the BTL comments, she knows how much hostility there is to women in general and feminists in particular; and she also knows that i) coining a new term or pushing a new excuse which can be used to justify attacking feminists and feminism will be embraced with enthusiasm, and ii) won’t be career-damaging in the publishing industry and the media, quite the reverse. She could have refrained from adding her own contribution to that particular ever-present phenomenon.

Personally, I don’t have strong views about her pronoun choice. I do have strong views on her using her platform to subtly, and not so subtly, denigrate and undermine women she disagrees with. She likely considers herself to be the high minded and rational person in all this. If so, she lacks insight. She responded to criticism with an act of sabotage - coining “ultra” was an absolute gift to the anti-women activists in political parties, institutions, and the media - which was hardly high-minded. It’s really affected my view of her.

Exactly, Hell. I think of how extraordinary Stock and KJK have been even though they have different approaches, different lines in the sand. I believe both are critical to fighting this insane ideology.

Pulling in diverse people to give a damn so they can peak is also critical. So, I try to imagine what it's like from an outsider's point of view to read our discussions. If their first taste of GC argument is mudslinging, I'm sure that would turn people off because a lot of humans can't stand controversy.

I look at my own evolution and how initially I adored KJK when I first heard her talk about the arrogance of Harry Potter actors. I was, right on, sister! Then, I soured on her because of her comments on US politics and tone deaf remarks about our abortion struggles. But then I grew more and saw how she's one more piece of the resistance, she doesn't have to fit all my American needs, so im back to "right on, sister."

We're all humans with different angles, coming to this place to find solutions and I'd rather we focus on what we can do collaboratively to stop this beast. Cause, like many of you, I have a personal connection to a child, now a man, who's been damaged (I fear seriously forever) by this. My own daughter lost placement on a sports opportunity because of a Teen boy who identifies as a girl. I'm pissed and I'm personally affected, but not everyone is at the same place I am.

I did say 'for what it's worth'. It was just one tweet in which he defended DH. I have no idea what the actual story is.

Agree.

But I would add that coining the phrase “GC ultras” is what has caused real damage here. Calling someone “Mussolini” makes the person saying it look silly and immature, the damage they do is to themself.

What JT has done is coined the new “Karen”. It’s already been enthusiastically embraced by one of the regular political party activist visitors on FWR, thrilled at the prospect of claiming that the only feminists who disagree with their political party’s position are those extremist feminists, those unspeakable GC ultras.

I hope JT thinks her friendship with Hayton was worth that particular achievement.

Janet Inglis posted quite an interesting tweet about The Recent Unpleasantness™️ - I think it addresses the idea of what exactly is expected from us by the GC names in the media: do they want unquestioning support, do they see the ‘relationship' as only running in one direction (from us to them), or do they fail to understand that we’re real people who are angry about being ignored by almost everyone in the establishment already and don’t want to be further ignored by those supposedly speaking in our name?

x.com/DieMadTerf/status/1756395937138946371?s=20

'What would have been considered the correct reaction from "women like me" to an article referring to an out AGP as a woman and an accompanying post explaining it was to be courteous?
Did they want us all to defer to their superior intellectual skills and willingness to defer to the men who pretend to be women at our expense?
Have none them seen our posts on this subject?
Did they really not understand our passionate and principled opposition to giving any man the 'courtesy' of the female lexicon?
Have they read nothing we've written on here?
You know what?
I don't think they have.
I don't think they GAF what we think.
They've got what they wrongly think is the high road of the middle ground and they're committed to no deviations, no matter the harms.
They're willing to "compromise" on behalf of all women, when we all know any "compromise" is fatal to the cause of women.

And most of them are men.'