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

The logical conclusion of working through all feminist concerns is that 'trans' doesn't exist.

DH was trying to find a middle ground for a long time.

Another transsexual who was giving a lot of active political support to women in Scotland and stated that he didn't access woman's loos has since detransitioned has he couldn't cope with the cognitive dissonance.

DH brings out a book on agp.

And Dh is a physicist. They're usually quite logical and he's very clever

I've missed all this . So I can't be arsed with DH , what does that make me ? An Ultra ? Don't like that . Reminds mw of fitba hoolie stuff 😂

This is really tricky though isn't it because we can only know if a man wearing normal rather than overly sexual women's clothes amounts to a fetish if they disclose the fact in some way.

How can we legislate for that distinction when it relies on an admission of the person in question? Otherwise it is just based on assumption. Or we are saying that strict gendered dress codes must be adhered to?

This has definitely happened as a result of overreach of the 2 Acts, but it is hard to see a way of dealing with it without a redefinition of both sex and gender reassignment under the Equality Act 2010. As I said up thread I don't think that gender reassignment was intended to cover cross dressing, and I doubt the legislators thought it would cover the increasing numbers of overt AGPs.

Except, that many of us have campaigned to get the guidance on the EA clarified and made absolutely clear. I remember discussing this while handing out leaflets to get people to get that petition over the line.

How is that not part of 'changing' the EA?

It is not necessarily changing the wording, but it most certainly is making clear that Stonewall's interpretation should not be challenged and rejected.

And since that has not happened, then yes. It is no major conceptual leap to have that clarity hard written into the law.

I don't agree that there has been no discussion about changes to the EA.

HR should tell him not to. If a man working in a school is telling you he's wearing fetish gear to work, you should be able to stop him. Also, as I keep saying this only works for the self confessed AGPs like DH. It doesn't work for the majority who are those who deny the agp and claim it's their special identity.

Do we just accept them with the fake boos, and womens clothes teaching?

It would then seem that we only object to agp if we know about it.
Solution: don't tell us.

How do you "clarify" the EA regarding cross dressing without specifying some clothes are "mens" and some are "womens"?
I'd be worried then that we would be seeing a situation where for example enforcing "modesty dressing" for girls would have legal protection?

Yes this is gets to the heart of the problem.

Otherwise we are legislating for gendered clothing.

Have there been proposals to remove GR from the EA?
.
Because I haven't seen any suggestions of amendments to the EA whihc would prevent covert agp men using it for their fetish.

How could it be amended to do this? Genuine quetsions btw, because I don't know and I'm interested in how this would work and what the proposals discussed have been?

karensalright

Just for interest, that Guidance document has been replaced by the NASWUT. The new version is very similar, but doesn't have Hayton's name on it. The site you saw it on is an archive site. This is a link to the new version

https://www.nasuwt.org.uk/static/uploaded/88965336-0820-4308-8a822f79a395e089.pdf

Kesstrel thanks

I'm not informed enough on how legislation works.

But personally I would remove gender re-assignment from the equality act. I absolutely believe it was inserted for exactly this reason (AGP normalisation).

I disagree, profoundly, with the entire concept of transgender ideology. I understand that the idea put across was to allow some men to cross dress, in order to salve their inner turmoil over being men, of course. But it's sexist. And should never have been written into legislation (and the equality act of all places).

In specific terms of HR at Hayton's school. They could write a school policy of no fetish gear at work. That would stop him in his tracks. Because he's told them that's what he's wearing.

And again, if there's pushback, let's bloody have it. The only way we get all of this nailed down, is to get it out in the open, examine the laws and what they mean, see if they're correct, fair, and based on evidence.

And I don't have much of an opinion about whether to reinstate the word transvestite. A lot of people understand it, yes, but it's my understanding that the two conditions aren't identical. AGP is an escalation of transvestitism.

But maybe in terms of recognition, it's a good idea to use it.

That I don't know. It is certainly an interesting discussion to be had and how to accommodate it.

Do we 'need' to remove it? Or do we need to make absolutely clear when sex matters and should be prioritised? And when 'paraphilia' should or should not be accommodated?

-I think this is an interesting point actually. Men acting out fetishes at work might make women uncomfortable generally.

I think it's an argument on our side as to why female toilets and changing rooms should be female only. Women have rights not to be sexually harassed in the workplace too.

It's achingly ironic.

Because transgenderism relies, every which way, that we maintain strict rules about men's clothes and women's clothes.

And in order to chip away at it, we'd have to agree!

The clarification guidance was around sex specific provisions I think?

Not around preventing covert agp men using GR as cover for cosplay? Or was this raised as well? and what was the suggested clarifaction or amendments that would address this?
I haven't seen this.

Not around preventing covert agp men using GR as cover for cosplay?

if you want this written out of the equality act, then we're going to have to start raising the profile of it.

And not Debbie Hayton's version of it.

But personally I would remove gender re-assignment from the equality act. I absolutely believe it was inserted for exactly this reason (AGP normalisation).

Datun, I'm really interested in this and why you believe this to be the case.

From what I recall about legal commentary at the time that the Act was introduced the legal profession believed it, not to be limited to necessary, but mostly for males who believed they were trapped in the wrong body/ looking to go onto medical transition.

My thinking is that the legislation then enabled the likes of Stonewall to widen the definition to cross dressers/ agps rather than it being the intention.

Either way we are in the same place.

Exactly!
Patriarchy is as Patriarchy does, whatever women come up with to protect ourselves will just be exploited.

Yes… the Hayton version of AGP doesn’t seem consistent to others. And certainly not sissy porn.

I'm not sure I do. I still can't see how it could be legislated for. I haven't seen any suggestions that seem workable.

I think it has be managed more thruogh social approbrium, but I'm a bit pessimistic about the culture to do that at this point.

But I'll keep talking about transvestites and do my bit to restore the obvious sexual link in all this and I'll keep following these discussins to see if I can grasp the legal suggestions for mananging this that are so far are escaping me.

Aren't we stuck because even if gender reassignment was removed from the equality act, the "gender dysphoria"/mental illness aspect would be potentially protected under disability and the "innate gendered soul" concept protected under religion or belief? AGP men would claim one or the other as many already do.

It's really come to something when we're suggesting schools need a policy which says: No Fetish Gear at work.

Oh for the days when that was such an obvious statement no one would ever have said it.

I can't see HR putting that into policies though. They'd then have to define fetish, and fetish gear and how they'll judge what is and what isn't. Minefield.

In the Sex Discrimination Act, where the wording of ‘hostile, degrading and offensive environment’ was borrowed and stupidly broadened in the EA, this crossdressing behaviour at work and in schools would have been covered under sexual harassment.

A man with fake breasts, wearing women’s lingerie, etc, would fall under the same threatening sexism as putting up pornographic pictures of women on the walls, or making intrusive sexual comments.

With this ridiculous inclusion of the ill-defined category or ‘gender reassignment’ in the EA, a man now can claim that objecting to his fetish wear or not going along with his fetish, or not pretending to go along with it is ‘harassment’ because this makes him feel that the environment is ‘hostile, degrading and offensive’ to him on the grounds of his ‘proposing to undergo a process of gender reassignment’.

It’s ridiculous, the EA has entirely turned the sex discrimination act on its head, in terms of protecting women from workplace harassment. It now protects men perpetrating workplace harassment- using the women’s toilets and showers, making intrusive comments ‘all girls together’, being inappropriately sexual, etc.

This absolutely must be reversed. I believe this outcome was the desired and deliberate one in the minds of the activists who pushed for GR to be included in the EA.

A man with fake breasts, wearing women’s lingerie, etc, would fall under the same threatening sexism as putting up pornographic pictures of women on the walls, or making intrusive sexual comments.

Thanks for this perspective @Metamorphosising it makes sense to me as this is how many women feel around these men. It's feels like a similar thing to being exposed to pornography.

If you have legal knowledge I'd be intersted in the proposal for an EA which reverses this. Would it just be removing GR from the EA?
Problem is I can't see that getting political or public support.