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

"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"

There are many situations where I am disinterested in someone sex and/or gender identity.

In the above example, if we were talking about whether a pay strategy effectively rewarded skill, I think pronoun use is irrelevant. If the focus was on sex discrimination, I would address this head on - that Jane shouldn't be included in the female category.

I don't want people centring my sex in their interactions with me when it is irrelevant. This is one of the reasons I object to highlighting my pronouns. Unless my sex is significant to the context, I would rather been seen as a person rather than woman. I feel my use of preferred pronouns aligns with this. I don't always use them- it depends on context.

So a reasonable and reasoned explanation from Colin, then a false claim from Christina to having the same views, which she then directly contradicts by making it clear that she has no respect for women fighting against men in their spaces.

I hope his rose-tinted glasses quickly demist.

While I respect his view, I’m not convinced by his argument though. I’m not convinced they are going to have s direct impact on the corrupt doctors who are pushing this medicine. I think change will come when the negligence cases start to pile up and not before.

100% agree

I found another thoughtful exchange (that belies the argument that only offensive or unkind or 'keyboard warrior' women refuse to compromise on pronouns):

La Scapigliata:
Not only have I lost every bit of support from GC figureheads over my logical position re. language and medical analysis of this awful scandal, I’ve been thrashed and my work ostracised and misrepresented. I and my work have become unmentionable in circles that received my dedicated support and input for years. This kind of punishment is now out in the open and being meted out to anyone who refuses to toe the so called middle ground which is nothing other than alignment with an early TRA position. The hostility coming from that camp is directed not at “mobs” “trolls” and “extremists” but at women with cogent, logical, calmly delivered analysis.
https://x.com/lascapigliata8/status/1757010963054678300?s=20

Baroness Nicholson responding to La Scapigliata:
Honour is given to those like yourself who reject mass hysteria and offer reality.

Yours is the light that will always shine. I profoundly admire you,
Emma Nicholson
https://x.com/Baroness_Nichol/status/1757286195514478607?s=20

The thread continues as a discussion among a few other users and is interesting.

One issue in the Colin exchange is that Christina and maybe Colin have used the label "rad fems" - this is the issue with labels again.

Another smear on women/ feminists.

Second issue is that America is very different to the U.K., very binary in its politics, also US feminism's roots are very different.

I can fully understand Christina's pov, in the context of the us, and who they're working with, bar the rad fem smear.

The issue with Janice was that DH doesn't insist on pronouns and instead of explaining her personal position and context she smeared women with these derogatory labels. As per the whole of history when women say no.

And Colin blocks ffs.

La scap has been treated horribly too by the sounds of it.

Explain your position and quit the smearing and name calling!

I personally haven't been able to hold the line in real life with pronouns and that was a measured risk assessment I had to make and I'd do it again for very particular reasons. At the same time, I think preferred PN are very problematic.

As an aside, I note that Fionne has changed back to male on ID docs and is considering changing to fionn. Possibly gone back to male pronouns? I don't think he was ever that bothered about them.

"It's not about principles; it's called being petty and ineffective when you're too stubborn to make small concessions..."

How very ironic that Christina is characterising those who stick to reality-based pronouns as 'pettily refusing to concede', rather than the TRAs who are demanding coerced speech

Can I just refer you back to your original comment?

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.

You are now saying that you do not want yours or others sex to be evident in conversation. That's a perfectly fine position to hold.

It is inconsistent with the idea that using wrong-sex words for people doesn't cause confusion "because their sex is evident". It absolutely does cause confusion because unless the person is present the evidence of their sex is hidden by your words.

You can have clarity and truth in words or confusion about the sex of people being discussed. You can't have both at the same time.

Boghossian has filmed some street doodah with Menno and Stella:

x.com/mrmennotweets/status/1757467812761628978?s=46&t=A2fpFNgDRyXF2d6ye97wEA

I can't see but is it more in the series of Spectrum Street Epistemology (as with Helen Joyce and Eric Kaufmann?

Just checked and didn't realise there are more videos on YT. One of them is with the Triggernometry chaps from 3 months ago and a more recent one with Laurence Fox and Francis Foster.

Yet again, I need to sit down for serious study and note taking of these videos.

https://www.youtube.com/results?searchquery=spectrum+street+epistemology

Video with Mr Menno and Stella O'Malley.

"You can have clarity and truth in words or confusion about the sex of people being discussed. You can't have both at the same time"

I think context is everything. If sex is important to a given context I am likely to choose language that is unambiguous about a person's sex. Where it isn't, I more flexible about the language I use. I know for a fact that my use of preferred pronouns hasn't influenced others to wrongly sex the trans people I have been referring to using their preferred pronouns.

I don't think that using preferred pronouns amounts to me calling a male a female or vice versa and where it makes sod all difference, I will usually use them. Where it does matter, I won't, in case this does mislead.

I understand that for a range of reasons, some people never want to use preferred pronouns, and I don't think they should be compelled to do so.

In short, I am happy in some contexts to use preferred pronouns but not in others. Also, i understand that some people aren't regardless of context, and I don't think they should be compelled to. Similarly, I don't think I, or others, should be compelled to use preferred pronouns.

Why do you sometimes refer to me using female pronouns?

Sorry Saffron, I don't understand your question. I think you are asking me why I have referred to you as 'she', but I'm guessing this is a misinterpretation, as I haven't referred to you at all.

Sorry, missing ‘n’ - why do you sometimes refer to men using female pronouns?

I don’t mean generally, I mean specifically. What drives you to use wrong sex pronouns?

In short, I am happy in some contexts to use preferred pronouns but not in others. Also, i understand that some people aren't regardless of context, and I don't think they should be compelled to. Similarly, I don't think I, or others, should be compelled to use preferred pronouns.

I think we can agree that no-one's speech should be compelled.

loving saffron's typo

I use people's preferred pronouns, when I do, because I have been asked to don't have a reason not to. When at work, I rarely accidentally 'misgendering/use sex based pronouns' with service users, but I do tend to slip a bit otherwise. This is because/when I am not attending to my words in the same way as I do with clients.

Slip ups haven't, to date, been met with hostility or aggression. The minority haven't said anything, and I tend to let it pass, and switch back, rather than correct myself in the moment.

My general manner/style is one that puts people at ease. Unintentional misgendering is evidence that I too am at ease. If my slip up is noted or corrected this doesn't stress me out. I think this may be a contributory factor in me not finding it difficult to meet the request in the first place. If it made me anxious I think I would be reluctant to try.

In general, gender non conformity and people having trans identities doesn't make me feel ill at ease - which is why I slip up if I stop paying conscious attention. I don't feel at ease around people who are agitated or dysregulated, and I tend to go in to 'work mode' on these occasions, and become more vigilant about my behaviour, including the words I choose- not just pronouns.

I typically encounter people with trans identities a couple of days a week at work and, maybe, once or twice in work-adjacent contexts. In my private life, a couple of my wider circle have relatives who have trans identities and very poor quality of life. It is very rare for me to see these relatives, but the friends talk to me a lot about them.

I rarely encounter trans activists IRL

Thank you Brainworm. So basically you are using wrong sex pronouns because you feel compelled to and don’t feel you have a strong enough argument to object? I see you say you use wrong sex pronouns because you don’t feel you have a reason not to even though it is not natural for you so you may slip into natural speech when not attending to your words. You mention aggression and putting people at ease - fear and fawn.

I don’t mean this in a nasty way. Most people are using wrong-sex pronouns for the same way.

How did you take that from what she said? I read it as she is happy to use people's preferred pronouns because she's relaxed with trans identities and trans people. That's not the same as compelled speech at all. She's choosing to do it.

You don’t need to have a gun to your head in order to feel compelled to ‘choose’ a certain course of action. Most of the time that compelling force is much more subtle eg societal opprobrium or, especially for women and girls, being taught that you must ‘be kind’. Rarely are people’s choices completely free.

Well this is all getting a bit meta!
When I'm walking the dog and another dog walker greets me, so I say morning back even though it's pissing it down and I don't want to speak, is that "compelled speech"?
When I'm polite to the dickhead at work, despite wanting to call him a dickhead, is that "compelled speech"?

Adults don't get to say exactly what they want all the time.

Adults don't get to say exactly what they want all the time.

Quite. Speech is rarely ‘free’. How often on Mumsnet do women have to be told that they can say ‘no’ and that ‘no is a complete sentence’ because they have always felt compelled to say ‘yes’?

Well this is all getting a bit meta!
When I'm walking the dog and another dog walker greets me, so I say morning back even though it's pissing it down and I don't want to speak, is that "compelled speech"?

No, but if you had been reading for years about other people who didn't say hello to fellow dog walkers, who were then ostracised, or arrested, or taken to a tribunal, or threatened, or had their family threatened, then you might think otherwise.

Yes I agree datun but that's not what saffron was saying. She was implying another poster was compelled to use pronouns even though that poster said she was doing it out of choice.

I think it's up for question how much choice you really have, when you're perfectly aware of what can happen when you pick the wrong one.

I mean it's the entire reason for this schism.

If it was genuinely a matter of each person's individual choice and there were no implications, no one would care and this thread wouldn't exist.

OK, here is my compromise:

If nobody gives me shit for using sex based pronouns, I won't give anybody shit for using preferred pronouns.

I wonder what that would even look like?

Because anyone writing about this issue simply cannot unsee eg J. K. Rowling saying she's had enough threats to re-paper her entire house (and you just know it's a big one), or Maria McLachlan being told by her judge that her compensation is now to be reduced because she wouldn't lie in court, or the fact that Maya Forstater had to spend hundreds of thousands of pounds clarifying that it's not actually a crime!

And even then, hordes of militant, threatening, motivated transactivists said she could think it but not say it.

I can't even imagine what total neutrality over pronouns would ever look like.