GC Ultra / GC Lite?

[Catsanfan]

Hi all

I keep seeing these used on X. I'm not totally sure what they mean. Is it in a nutshell GC Ultra = Posie Parker GC Lite = people who think Debbie Haytons a decent bloke.

Or am I totally on the wrong page? So much terminology these days!

TIA

Perhaps this thread may help. It has the links that will help in it.

https://www.mumsnet.com/talk/womens_rights/4999528-4999528-janice-turner-interview-with-debbie-hayton-in-the-times?page=1

The term ultra was from Janice Turner.

We need to resist labels. That's what the TRAs do and why we have this situation.

We do need the reasoned discourse and the debate. Scrutiny and reflection, reasoning and evidence.

It will just become another pigeon holed cultural argument when this is a massive safeguarding nightmare and as much about disastrous medical malpractice and fake diagnoses as much as anything else.

Thank god the HOL had their debate last week.

Any moment now, I expect JT, SO'M, AD and a clutch of recent commentators to say that they consider some of the HoL speakers are arcing towards ultra vires.

We need to resist labels. That's what the TRAs do and why we have this situation.

We do need the reasoned discourse and the debate. Scrutiny and reflection, reasoning and evidence.

This. The growing popularity of being 'GC' in a very broad sense has attracted a lot of arseholes who just enjoy being rude, especially to women. I suspect some will even have been arseholes on the TRA side 5 years ago.

We made huge progress because of reasoned discussion and tolerance of different approaches. The people moaning about women who have done far more for women's rights than them because of pronouns are giving the TRAs what they want.

The people moaning about women who have done far more for women's rights than them because of pronouns are giving the TRAs what they want.

There may be some moans and a helping of exasperation. Overall, my impression is that there is a nuanced discussion about points of disagreement.

Is it not equally plausible that some of those who are disagreeing have a point? I see rhetoric that approaches creating an artificial schism from those who are paid for their media persona. I don't see that schism emanating from discussions on MN. I have seen a lot of podcasts and pieces along the topic of, "Have GC feminists gone too far," and the implication of ingratitude.

The reality that media people have a persona that isn't necessarily them: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-47648053

I will spare you the digression that this has its origins in women and privacy law more than a hundred years ago.

Exactly. It's just becoming another boxed off shard in the mish mash of culture wars and identity politics; which is a distraction from the key issues of safeguarding and capture.

Janice was lazy to label, or even, name call, those who challenged her pronoun decision "ultras" (if that's what happened- i didn't see that tweet. Saying the position those women took is ultra is a little different, but still lazy.)

And to be honest, it goes vice versa.

Barry Wall made a good video where he explains how all we can do is explain our positions with reasoning because that's how people learn and may move their thinking. Peter Boghossian too. And it's what the universities have been lacking. But also why mumsnet has been so good on this issue, most of the guidance is based on keeping to effective debate.

Ultimately there are some who are naturally only able to occupy authoritarian positions in their beliefs, this seems to be innate. And they exist on all sides. But the rest will change their minds when presented with enough reason and evidence.

Which the GI side really lacks.

(Exactly in relation to donquixotedelamancha's comment.)

Barry Wall made a good video where he explains how all we can do is explain our positions with reasoning because that's how people learn and may move their thinking.

I've just tried searching because I know it's on a thread somewhere but MN search is letting me down. Which one, please.

People who think Hayton is a decent bloke are naive fools, not "GC Lite". I would say "GC Lite" are people who want to compromise on some things, like pronouns, or who think Labour getting in is more important than women's sex based rights.

@WarriorN JT used the exact term "GC ultras".

x.com/victoriapeckham/status/1753740142156595471?s=46&t=SPorwN-mokktL467rcZ57g

Thanks Eresh

I don’t even like to call myself “GC” nor even a feminist anymore to be honest. I describe my views as believing in the reality and importance of sex, and I apply myself to the concerns of women and children in society through paid and voluntary employment.

I will go a very long way to avoid using wrong sex pronouns about a person but I won’t challenge those who do (outside of close friends and family) just as I won’t challenge anyone on their religious beliefs, I prefer harmonious working and social relationships and you can’t use reason to argue someone out of a position which they didn’t use reason to arrive at or however the quote goes. If I am challenged on my use of sex based language I hope that I will calmly and respectfully explain it. I haven’t been yet despite many of my colleagues using the language of gender identity, perhaps none of us want conflict about it which has to be an improvement on the time when using sex based language would have been cause at least for being sent on a re-education programme. We can allow each other our own beliefs. There are things I won’t say about Hayton in this post as I don’t want it deleted but clearly it is unfortunate that Stock, Turner and Doyle can’t see the danger there. However I think enough intelligent people do to make their lack of awareness not a major threat to reality. Stock is an expert in immersion into fictions and Doyle has written an absolutely excellent book about freedom of speech (well worth a read imo). So I am not too surprised at their actions and reactions.

The main thing is that society is run using reason and that laws and conventions are based on the observable material reality of sex not the invisible, unpindownable concept of gender identity.

As long as the Sex Matters crew and KJK’s new political party keep up their good work I have hope yet. There are women working everywhere underground in secret groups in organisations, workplaces, charities doing their best to be beyond reproach while quietly and efficiently getting the structures and networks in place to protect the interests of those who are genuinely most vulnerable in society, children, by defending safeguarding standards and the reality of sex in law, health, education and broader society.

We do need to resist labels. And labelling those who understand safeguarding as "ultra", is deeply, deeply offensive.

Any teacher writing a book about their sexual fetish should get the only interview that matters. With the police.

I think people are reacting to the logical inconsistencies of using preferred pronouns in numerous aspects of the overall campaigns for children and women’s rights and protections. And they are there and are quite obvious when you see them.

Things like, why is it that some people (and MNHQ) allow sex based pronouns for criminals of sex offenses but not for sex fetishists who by the nature of their sexual fetish involve non consenting people?

Another is agreeing that people cannot change sex, yet apparently pronouns are now based on gender.

Which leads into apparently we are not to teach our children that people can change sex, yet some people saying that then model that pronouns, which are sex based not gender based, can change if someone demands it. And that it is ‘respectful’ to use wrong sex pronouns because … reasons . Following that direction, it is quite fine if anyone is misled to believe that the person being spoken about is the opposite sex to material reality because they rely on a trusted person’s speech cues.

Separately, the use of preferred pronouns for an individual is then used collectively to progress changes to laws and policy that allow those male people access to spaces, sports and opportunities needed by women and girls. For female people.

These are just a few of the logical inconsistencies exposed with preferred pronoun use. these inconsistencies are not ‘harmless’. Yet women are now actively being policed by a group who use emotionally manipulative language such as calling women ‘ultras’ and ‘extremists’ to allow these inconsistencies to be unexposed. To remain hidden under that term ‘respect’.

No one should be abused and yet, it is just as important to not frame reasonable discussion and debate as abuse. Even when it might be overwhelming against you. Social media platforms allow a wave of people to react at one time. The magnitude of the reaction itself is not abuse though. And if a person cannot handle the size of the reaction their published words evoke, then they need to consider how they use social media. It may be not for them at all, it may be that they need to have a private account with only known people accessing it.

It's confusing because by the definitions I seem to be a bit Ultra and a bit Lite.

But Im also not really GC or a feminist but agree with lots of GC views.

I think Janice Turner, Kathleen Stock Andrew Doyle and Posie are all great.

It's almost as if the labels can't capture the range of positions or approaches reasonable people can take on a contentious topic... what to do?!?!?

Maybe we could accept reasonable good people can hold a range of views, some of which we'll agree with and some we won't. Then just engage in respectful discussion without personal attack and work together towards the goals we do share?

Radical I know.

It's why labels can be problematic MalagaNights

It's a binary and absolutist argument in itself.

Maybe I'm so averse to it as it reminds me of the Barbie / GI Joe mermaids scale and we are being asked to pigeonhole ourselves.

My post has an archive link. That someone was allowed to post yesterday. But I cannot post today??

Sometimes it does it automatically ? Cant work out the mn laws around archive links

The gist is Warrior.

JT has called women ‘extremists’ in the article I posted from
yesterday.

And yet the abuse Hayton, a physics teacher, received this week was from extremists on the “gender critical” side, who bombarded her head teacher with messages that she is a pervert.

Interestingly, the use of pronouns in this passage show just how harmful the use of those pronouns really are.

Anyway, JT has declared women ‘GC ultra’ and ‘extremists’ for pointing out the harms of allowing a male who has published a book about their sexual fetish, that being AGP, to teach children. While insisting on preferred pronouns being used. The emotive name calling is policing… all while claiming she is being policed herself.

The hypocrisy is being noticed and commented on.

Thanks Helle, hypocrisy indeed.

And very anti safeguarding.

Is it not equally plausible that some of those who are disagreeing have a point? I see rhetoric that approaches creating an artificial schism from those who are paid for their media persona. I don't see that schism emanating from discussions on MN.

Of course many have good points and most of the discussion is constructive but there has been an increase in name calling (see poster upthread talking about gullible fools) and aggressive rhetoric.

The idea that someone like Kathleen Stock is gullible or soft is laughable, as is the idea that any woman who won't use preferred pronouns is ultra. People are disagreeing about how to effect political change, thats all.

The name calling and no true Scotsman stuff needs to stop.

Eresh used the term naive fools. And she was using it in regards to Hayton being a ‘decent bloke’.

I think in light of our interactions with Hayton on MN in the past where Hayton told us that breast size was a measure of the social hierarchy (my paraphrasing) for women and all we have learned recently, I don’t believe that is an unfounded remark. The way Hayton dealt with Hayton’s family is documented already.

But people do seem to have been fooled by this nice AGP discussion that is being had right now. It is superficial and not based on a depth of review of the content that is out there published that people can access and see for themselves.

increase in name calling (see poster upthread talking about gullible fools)

YMMV, I'd very much dislike somebody calling me a "gullible fool". I can confirm it's profoundly irritating and I find it exasperating when it happens to me. It's an individual choice for engagement.

tbh, I'm more perturbed by otherwise thoughtful people who have pretty much established a brand as Key Opinion Leaders, categorising those who disagree with them as extremists and ultra. We don't need to consult Arendt, Applebaum, Havel, Solzhenitsyn or anyone else to know those words have connotations with substantial social and other consequences.

I've said elsewhere that I'm concerned at some point that if this language gains traction (and started by JT et al), it will be strengthened by the parallel language from Whittle (styling Transgender Trend and Sex Matters as "anti-trans hate groups"). We may be a GE away from finding that those of us with direct debits to those groups will have our bank account terminated with all the many problems that will flow from that.