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

I'm dropping in the common observation that although there is lively discussion of the topics on this platform, there is a notable diversity of debate and perspectives that is far from Lifton's Eight Criteria for Thought Reform. I find this reassuring about resilience and a willingness to persist in understanding what is necessary rather than otherwise.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thought_Reform_and_the_Psychology_of_Totalism

1. Milieu Control
2. Mystical Manipulation
3. Demand for Purity
4. The Cult of Confession
5. The "Sacred Science"
6. Loading the Language
7. Doctrine Over Person
8. Dispensing of Existence

Yeah she is! She's in the "wrong kind of GC" bucket for many. It's mind blowing!

I think my stance has softened slightly over the years. I cannot see a workable solution that involves being "ultra GC" and there appear to be a lot of people in the movement now who don't call themselves feminist and don't appear to be motivated by what I would recognise as feminist concerns. It's made me a bit more skeptical. I'm still extremely anti self-ID but pronouns for other people, meh.
I won't play ball with the whole "pronouns in email sign at work" thing though. It's ridiculous.

I don't think I'd be able to soften my stance until every hint of compulsion disappeared. For instance, I could get a post deleted on here for using the "discourteous" pronoun. There is compulsion in many workplaces, which is more serious, particularly public sector.

People shouldn't be forced into a lie. They shouldn't be forced to profess what amounts to a religious belief that they don't subscribe to, and no-one should be given the power to dictate how others speak of them when they are not present.

In my view, the original courtesy extended brought us to this point.

I think being "compelled" is part of living in society. I have to do things I don't like or want to do every day. Paying taxes springs to mind. Forcing my kids to school when they don't want to go. Driving at the speed limit even though I'm late. Its just how things are.

Those things are not equivalent though. This is more akin to the Elizabethan era when not attending church was a fineable offense.
Laws and social norms should be logical and for the greater good - if they are not, we have every reason to push back and question. Shrugging our shoulders and going "oh well, just how it is" would never have led to any social advancement.
You're not bothered about pronouns and that is absolutely your right. Others are, that is their right and their reasons are vaild.

Another point of agreement between us Japan - "People shouldn't be forced into a lie. They shouldn't be forced to profess what amounts to a religious belief that they don't subscribe to, and no-one should be given the power to dictate how others speak of them when they are not present"

I disagree with people being forced to use language that makes them feel uncomfortable. I am against this.

I don't put 'my pronouns' in email signature or on anything. I also wouldn't use preferred pronouns in all instances (e.g a rapist). If I was a witness in court, I would just use the name and no pronoun. This is my approach when I don't want to use chosen pronouns.

I'm really enjoying your posts @RethinkingLife. I'm going to read your links later. I think they are right up my street!

Yes I agree completely. But laws aren't always for the greater good and sometimes are illogical (I used the example of Brexit on another thread as a law that changed my identity against my will)
I was thinking earlier I actually like the term "GC Lite" as that's probably where I sit.

AdamRyan
I think being "compelled" is part of living in society.

The examples you've given are laws, not social rules. Laws benefit the majority. Social rules are easier to manipulate using propaganda.

It would be easier if I didn't perceive a lot of transactactivists as being manipulative.

There's an element, in my opinion, of being conned. Conned into courtesy.

Because as others have noticed, if it truly was a question of courtesy, there would be little argument about it.

If everyone genuinely thought it was a question of manners, they wouldn't be this upset, either pro or against.

As I've said, I see this ideology on a spectrum - from profoundly sexist to blatantly misogynistic.

Buy the women arguing over the pronoun issue are all generally clever, and pro women.

So there will be a tipping point, in my opinion.

The only thing that might sway them after that, would be their political allegiance. For some, if there is a conflict, that will win out.

But again, it is because they are clever and pro-women. And they are going to choose a political stance on that basis. Whether you agree with them or not.

I really hope it dies down. I think it probably will. But if it doesn't, we're still all travelling in the same direction.

I’m probably not saying anything new but I do believe that if Janice Turner had disclosed a friendship or acquaintanceship with Hayton in the article, re the decision to use female pronouns, it would have irked me still but I would have understood it as her personal choice. I would still have been dismayed that a chance to model polite conversation with accurate pronouns had been lost but I wouldn’t have been too surprised because so many newspapers insist on using female pronouns for men even in reporting crime stories. I think what really made this an issue for a lot of people was Janice framing her decision in moral terms on Twitter - I think that is what gave the disagreement legs; people took sides on this 'moral' framing because they examined their own moral compass on this issue in response to her statement.

I think Andrew Doyle’s interview later that evening, also with female pronouns, was just the cherry on the bun on a day when people had had enough of Hayton being accommodated with female pronoun use in spite of his claims to be gender critical and that he doesn’t expect it.

I do think there will be personal values and loyalties at play too. I know #bekind is pilloried (unsurprisingly) but for a lot of people, they do want to be kind to those they know. Then getting into a pronouns debate probably triggers cognitive dissonance and noone likes that feeling.

Good summary.

I think with those journalists, using the wrong pronouns was weak as that was the perfect opportunity, both to push back on the social pressure we are currently under and at the same time, test Hayton’s word a little.

He claims he’s fine with the correct pronouns, so take him at his word and use them. He told his wife he would leave and then didn’t. This is a man we have been told doesn’t always tell the truth.

This was a missed opportunity to see if he was telling the truth this time. He put himself in that position and rather than taking him at his word, they chose to reward him for saying what they wanted to hear, without ever checking if he actually meant it.

Words are cheap. Following through on them less so.

From what I know about Christina 'Buttons' Berry, this type of aggressive online behaviour is her 'brand'. She previously worked for the Daily Wire and I believe, before that, she used to be a commentator more inclined to the TRA side of the debate. She very publicly left the Daily Wire because she disagreed with Michael Knowles CPAC speech and Matt Walsh’s various comments about Dylan Mulvaney.

She’s friends with James Lindsay too (another aggressive commentator who hates feminists) and she, in general, doesn’t seem to be keen on feminism or sympathetic to women complaining about sexism. She has a close friendship with a couple of trans activists who she thinks make excellent arguments about women overly panicking about maintaining strictly female only spaces.

I agree that her behaviour towards Edie Wyatt was uncalled for.

Yep. And Debbie H might well have offered the hand of friendship to Janice Turner.

Janice Turner went through a shit time with a transactivist a few years ago. She (or the times, I can't remember) made a complaint and it was upheld.

She was entirely vindicated, but it must've been very unpleasant.

Whether you think Hayton offering support to GC women, from his unique position, is calculated, or kind, might well inform what pronouns you believe are appropriate.

Social rules are easier to manipulate using propaganda.

Agreed. I'm about to make a very broad generalisation. Bad cases make bad law.

Social transgressions and repeated transgressions of Chesterton's fence can likewise be part of an inexorable process towards bad law or laws that remove rights and social protections from others. And they invariably lead to comments about unintended consequences but there are frequently people who predicted the consequences. (E.g., see the HoL debates prior to GRA 2004.)

I hope she doesn’t pull Colin Wright down with her. He’s always seemed patient and sensible and she is looking very much like a potential liability to the credibility of what he has built up.

I do think there will be personal values and loyalties at play too. I know #bekind is pilloried (unsurprisingly) but for a lot of people, they do want to be kind to those they know. Then getting into a pronouns debate probably triggers cognitive dissonance and noone likes that feeling.

I agree with this. I hate #bekind but in general I do want to actually be kind, I really don't like causing hurt to people. It is one thing pushing back against aggressive entitlement (eg the extreme type video clips we see of an angry person shouting "it's ma'am!!") but I guess quite another if there's a genuinely pleasant, likeable person in front of you whose feelings you have no wish to hurt, which is realistically far more likely to be what one would encounter in day to day life.
So I do genuinely understand the difficulty.

Though I'm a "GC ultra" in my beliefs, I do have an Twitter alt account where I'll post gender critical views but use gender identity pronouns. This is for the sole purpose of not having people I'm discussing this with disregard what I'm saying, just because they think I'm being rude by using sexed pronouns.

For instance when I was discussing Lia Thomas I'd say things about him like "don't you think it's wrong of her to be flashing her penis in the girls' locker room, we wouldn't accept this from any other male, cis or trans". I think it helped changed people's minds a bit or at least nudge them towards being more critical.

On my main account I use sexed pronouns, this alt account is just to play an about-to-peak-but-still-questioning character. It's a tactical decision, to expose some GCish views to people who support transgender ideological beliefs.

So I can understand where the "GC lite" people are coming from.

Be kind in using preferred pronouns often isn't very kind to the people being forced to use them.

I read a good article today that I think might interest this thread:

2024: the year we 'un-kind' ourselves.
https://aboldwoman.substack.com/p/2024-the-year-we-un-kind-ourselves

'I have no objection to being kind, but being kind is a personal act in individual circumstances. The instruction to “be kind” is not a blanket rule that can be arbitrarily applied to a group, just because it’s decided they fall under the umbrella of ‘marginalised and vulnerable’, as there are devious, dubious, and duplicitous people in every group. We can feel a general kindness and benevolence towards others from any walk of life, but to be told that we have to be kind to them all in our actions, even when it clearly disadvantages us to do so in some circumstances, is nothing short of coercion.

In the context of men who say they’re women, being ‘kind’ means, in brutal terms, giving them everything they want. It’s a one-way transaction, and a shite one for women. So, no - I won’t be doing that. This year I’m un-kinding myself from manipulative coercive tactics. The process began a wee while ago, but it’s progressing fast now.'

When I used preferred pronouns I am not calling men women or vice versa. When I do so, this doesn't cause confusion about the trans person's sex by me doing so. Their sex is very evident.

Someone's sex is not evident from your words though. "Jane is a fantastic programmer, she's the highest paid in the company". If I used those words you would think, and be correct, that I was talking about a successful woman. Knowing that you use pronouns out of politeness I cannot tell if you are talking about a man or a woman.

That's why the trans activists spend so much time trying to persuade people to use "be kind" pronouns, because they hide reality.

laws aren't always for the greater good

sorry couldn’t resist

I forgot to mention earlier that Emma Hilton had an exchange with her on Twitter and didn’t get much of a reasonable response either:

Christina hosted this poll asking:
POLL: Would you publicly use the preferred pronouns of a person who identifies as trans just one time in exchange for a 4,720 word op-ed in the New York Times that was extremely charitable to a cause of your choice?
https://x.com/buttonslives/status/1757100510329389352?s=20

And Emma responded:
I am not sure that is how principles work :)
https://x.com/FondOfBeetles/status/1757118475007336521?s=20

Christina responded:
It's not about principles; it's called being petty and ineffective when you're too stubborn to make small concessions that could help end policies and a medical model that inflicts real harm on people.
https://x.com/buttonslives/status/1757136826249150525?s=20

Emma’s response over the course of a few tweets was excellent:
Of course it’s about principles. Some people feel very strongly, for well-articulated reasons, that female pronouns should not be used to describe men.

You are playing with the idea that those people should concede their principles “for the greater good”.

You are, of course, free to describe their refusal to betray their principles for the greater good as “petty”, and argue they are therefore politically “ineffective” (I suspect you’d also argue obstructive?). You are free to argue they should make concessions.

But people are equally free to refuse to make those concessions because we cannot demand such in a plural, liberal democracy.

I would not state a belief in god in return for a Dawkins book. Would you? Dawkins should be able to manage his arguments without me, no?

Constructively, can you outline how your proposed concessions help end the medical scandal we are all fighting in our own ways?
https://x.com/FondOfBeetles/status/1757138731700486499?s=20

Colin then responded for Christina:
I'll outline how I see it, and it may or may not mirror Christina's view. Basically, there are a lot of different ways that gender ideology hurts society. The two big ones are males in female spaces (bathrooms, prisons, sports, etc.) and pediatric gender-affirming care. Both issues, though stemming from the same ideology, cannot both be remedies using the same tactics.

It makes sense that those who are predominantly focussed on preserving women's spaces would opt for a hardline position on something like pronouns. Using wrong-sex pronouns is seen as partly (or largely) what got us into this mess in the first place. People's kindness was exploited, and thus the feeling of "I'm done being nice" makes some good sense.

On the other hand, we have another very serious issue of gender-affirming care (GAC). This is truly abhorrent stuff, as it involved giving children irreversible hormones and surgeries based on the lie that you can have a "gender identity" that doesn't match your bodily sex. All the medical institutions and journals are captured by this insane ideology. It's in the medical and scientific journals. Major Left-leaning outlets like the NYT have been hesitant to touch the issue, or they outright downplay it.

Things aren't going to change unless we get the Left to understand what's going on. Gender clinic whistleblowers and worried doctors are hesitant to be associated with anyone they perceive as on the Right. In order for them to feel comfortable coming forward, they need to trust us. They need to know that we have real compassion. Some of these whistleblowers are married trans-identified people. If we applied a hardline stance to never using wrong-sex pronouns in every context, then some whistleblowers might never come forward.

If we are trying to talk to the Left and gain their trust so we can enact change, we need to deploy a context-specific strategy of pronoun use so that they don't just shut down and run away.

My main issue in this whole recent conflict is that while I am willing to admit that a hardline stance on pronouns is probably the best strategy for protecting women's sex-based rights, many of these GC radfem activists are trying to police my language in other contexts where I believe a hardline strategy will not be optimal, and is actually likely to be detrimental to achieving my goals.

I am deeply involved in helping change policies regarding gender-affirming care. I know what's going on behind the scenes. I know what strategy regarding pronouns is best for what I do.

I have no problem with women's rights activists using the strategies they think are best for the issues and goals they're deeply involved in. But if they're going to insist I adopt their hardline approach for dealing with GAC, then the answer is no.

Anyway, those are my thoughts.
https://x.com/SwipeWright/status/1757148809946190273?s=20

Christina’s eventual response:
Thanks for taking over while I was at my appointment. Seeing as we share 99% of the same views, yes, it mirrors mine.

Except, I think the bathroom issue is a non-issue because it's based on a moral panic. (Note: I say “bathroom,” as distinct from a changing/locker room).
https://x.com/buttonslives/status/1757170277887222018?s=20