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

Thoroughly enjoyed that video Rethinking, thanks for posting the link 👍 Very interesting contrasts in the views of Menno and Stella, as well as some areas were they were more aligned. My initial feeling after one watch, is that Menno is firmly in the mode of protect women, children, lesbians from male imposition and inappropriate behaviour and Stella is coming from the understand/accommodate 'Trans' feelings (AGP included) side of the argument. Very useful to see both views in contrast with explanations and exploration.

But then does it follow that you are just compelling language in the opposite way?
Surely jane has it right, everyone can choose for themselves without castigation?

I do think that if people make a particular choice, and discuss it in the public sphere on a place like X, people will obviously have opinions on that choice. Some of those may take the form of castigation, but that is still not compulsion.

Oh yes. But that's not where we're at.

everyone can choose for themselves without castigation?

Not on Mumsnet. Here if we use third person pronouns to refer to an individual we ARE compelled through censorship and removal from the platform.

Have now watched, really good discussion .

It was.

I was wondering if it's possible to do something like that on a thread, "Mumsnet Thread Epistemology", if you will, but it would take a sort of Boghossian discussion leader that doesn't seem practical in text form.

That would be the next big Christmas 'how to start a family row' game. A virtual game in which we have avatars, the spots on which to stand, and we have to answer, switch positions, argue for other sides etc.

There'd be blood on the floor in many households but Peter B manages it with what he manages to make look like effortless grace and equanimity.

That is intetesting. Especially when compared with an xtweet quoted later in the thread.

“not making a distinction between what Hayton is actually campaigning for and what they themselves are ostensibly campaigning for”

I can’t remember who or which thread but someone observed that JT et al’s position could be the result of them failing to spot that Hayton is not GC. I found that an insightful comment.

Thanks for the screenshot Prion. The xtweet where he says that “our main priority is reaching people on the left” and therefore choosing language carefully “is everything” is revelatory.

I wonder if he considers that coining pejorative expressions like “GC ultra” constitutes careful choice of language.

The xtweet where he says that “our main priority is reaching people on the left” and therefore choosing language carefully “is everything”

I wouldn't mind if that worked. But it doesn't! The left are nowhere, other than some women have penises.

When is it gonna work???

Considering what I have seen Christina post, is he talking about him and Christina ? Or someone else? Because Christina’s interactions don’t reflect this at all.

It’s a series of tweets where he is purporting to describe Christine’s position or his position that she shares. As I understand it anyway. There are screenshots of it in prions post from a couple of days ago.

I’m not on xtwitter and have no idea who these people are.

It seems to me that by coining her “GC ultra” term, JT has lobbed a massive hand grenade that has done a lot of harm and only benefits i) those who’ve consistently been defaming and denigrating any women standing up for women’s rights and ii) those political party activists who’ve been deploying the “extreme positions on both sides” misrepresentation to excuse their own male sexual entitlement campaigning.

It’s pretty depressing.

I have agreed with a lot of what Colin posts in the past. However, Christina seems to have a mistaken view of radical feminists. So if he honestly think that her current tweets about radical feminists will ‘reach left wing people’ he is going to be sadly disappointed. But I guess he will learn through the experience.

This comparison is better.

What we are talking about when we talk about compelled speech is merely about social etiquette and general consensus on the 'right way' to do things or to be polite.

Compelled speech comes from Authoritarianism. Authoritarianism is about being forced and there being this concept of punishment if you fail to comply. It's about fear of authority imposing itself on you.

Thus walking the dog and not saying hi, would still be a choice. You can choose to be a dick and be impolite and there aren't any real consequences to it. No one is going to report you to an authority or power and make you explain your actions. You are free to be a dick if you want to. It's just most people aren't.

Authoritarianism and compelled speech is more about power from above being used against you to punish you in some way. It's top down and hierarchical rather than by consensus. Liberalism is driven by social consensuses which we choice to participate in or stick two fingers up at and doesn't have this element of punishment in the same way.

Where there is an element of law, liberal laws tend to reflect the accepted and widely recognised consensus and you don't have to constantly 'prove' that something has popular support. It's just 'understood' as something almost invisible in our society. It's viewed universally as 'just'. They are logical.

Whereas as an illiberal law or authoritarian law is feared, doesn't have this state of invisibleness in society as it jars with our understanding of justice and doesn't have popular support. It will have to be constantly justified as having legitimacy as it doesn't have public consent. Punishments are also disproportionate to the level of the offense because there is often an element of making an example of someone and to create this fear. The consequences of none compliance are significantly higher. They are

If you walk the dog and don't say hi, you aren't in fear of the authorities tracking you down and arresting you with a possible 29 year sentence, because you (for examples sake) didn't fold the washing in the correct manner.

JT et al’s position could be the result of them failing to spot that Hayton is not GC.

I think it's the other way round. JT is still treating him as if he has a feminine gender identity that needs to be appeased, when he's just told her that, on the contrary, he's a man whose extreme GNC serves a sexual fetish and has no other purpose or meaning.

Seems pretty GC to me. (And, IMO he wants extreme GNC to be exclusive to castrated men.)

They are at the thick end of the wedge. Lucky them! The thin end are women who can’t choose pronouns. Think prisons or transwidows. I won’t be handing pronouns out like sweets because I have respect for those that are at the thin end. If that makes me an Ultra then it’s another badge I will wear with pride. I also won’t be chucking anything out to invite “leftists” to think it’s safe because the leftists have already kicked me out of their politics on my choice of words.

I'm curious as to what people think will be the impact for women's and children's rights from this disagreement. Is this a set back? Are the goals of the ultras different from the goals of the lites or is it just a question of tactics? For what it is worth, I agree with KJK's position. It seems logical and measurable and I think public opinion is moving in this direction.

I’m not sure what the impact or the reasoning is. There are several threads that have holes in them because posters used sex based pronouns that someone didn’t like. How do we say NO? If we are willing to say YES to people we agree with? Do we say NO to the Scottish rapist because “HE” is a rapist even though “HE” insists he is a woman? There is a line. It has nothing to do with labour or conservative, it is about women, vulnerable women that need us to hold the line. If people think feminism is about coaxing left voters over to our way of thinking they need to re read the definition of feminism. One woman. All women.

Buttons is doubling down on insulting other prominent GC campaigners. Today, in response to Joe Burgo of Genspect advocating not engaging in or with ad hominem attacks, Buttons insulted Zach Elliott (of the Paradox Institute video series) and Elliott’s partner tweeted about it and included a screenshot of the behaviour:

Cynthia Breheny (Elliott’s partner):
You know, I wasn't going to say anything because I don't like putting people on blast publicly

But being this way to someone I love - to the father of my daughter who is never anything but respectful and measured, really doesn't sit right with me

There are 1000 nasty things I could say. I won't because I don't like being like that. It sickens me to adopt that mindset

I will say, I hope you heal from whatever makes you such a toxic, insecure person who attacks everyone who politely disagrees with you

You accuse everyone of being exactly what you are @ buttonslives

I'm sorry for whatever made you that way

Get well soon

https://x.com/PTElephant/status/1757596310952186010?s=20

https://twitter.com/PTElephant/status/1757596310952186010/photo/1

I know I shouldn’t but I think less of Colin Wright for associating with a woman who engages in adolescent shitposting behaviour. But, by her account, he finds it hilarious to laugh at other GC people the way she does so they’re obviously a great match 🤷‍♀️ I am also less mystified by his recent rudeness spree with regards the pronoun debate.

@UtopiaPlanitia I hear you. I was very shocked by her tweets/exes. Christina views things through her own lense. That’s fine. She’s playing her own game. People have platforms and behave how they will. It is really sad that she’s used JTs angry words to pull other women down.

We have long said here that there are many people who have been wedged into the term ‘GC’ now that have similar macro level objectives but who have different motivations to feminists. I look at Christina’s tweets and think that they are very much an example
of that. The term is meaningless for me now. Far better to describe people’s priorities than stick them under one label, imo.

She has made it clear that she doesn’t hold feminism in high regard. That is fine. It is good to know. if Colin joins in deriding feminists, then it will be good to know where his motivations lie too. ie. That the only intersection of interest is that sex is immutable and binary (as in there is only two sexes but within that a huge number of body types and that children shouldn’t be put into irreversible medical pathways) This is good to know so that people don’t assume that he has feminist’s interests at heart.

How much of it is Christina posting what she is genuinely happening vs her interpretation that Colin is laughing along with her? That is hard to know. It looks like he might be friendly with people like Benjamin Boyce and Helen Pluckrose. They are known to be in the fight for their own reasons and have mocked feminists before.

And I understand laughing when people make absurd accusations. sometimes I laugh because people cross over into such hyperbole that it feels surreal. They may or may not be laughing at the issue which may be serious. I think Christina has shown she doesn’t respect feminists though, and seems to misrepresent feminism without seeking to understand more.

Interesting to me that it's all women who are getting censure for their posts. Men are either being ignored or lauded in the conversation.
Plus ca change.

" For what it is worth, I agree with KJK's position. It seems logical and measurable and I think public opinion is moving in this direction"

I disagree, but could write the same if I replace KJK with KS. I expect confirmation bias could be at play with how we think opinion is moving.

I think it's fair to say that a lot more of the population are aware of the women's rights issues thanks to the end of the 'no debate' era. Still, there is a huge proportion who don't care and zone out. Amongst those who do care, I think it is a very small proportion who are aware of or interested in the ultra/lite wars. Very few have heard of CW let alone his girlfriend.

I don’t know about that brainworm. While most of my friends are not actively involved, I know of none of my friends who are not aware of the issues with sports, prisons or children. I have also leafleted in the streets in busy town centres and most of those going past know something about it. I have been very surprised at how knowledge some people were. Particularly parents.