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've spent a lot of time in this board and I've only ever heard or registered Kathleen Stock and KJK and to be honest it's KJK s message i remember

I agree that people are aware of the issues you raise and I think the majority support provision of single sex provision and access being determined by sex not identity.

I thought we were discussing pronoun use. I think, in general, people get less animated about this.

As I understand it, the current, highly charged debate on social media boils down to differences in opinion about how significant using preferred pronouns is to securing single sex provision.

I don't think most of the people who think the 'some women have penises' is nonsense, see calling a female colleague 'he', or vice versa, a key determinant of women's rights to single sex provision.

If pronouns aren't regarded as key, why has so much energy gone into enforcing them, even on this board?

" don't think most of the people who think the 'some women have penises' is nonsense, see calling a female colleague 'he', or vice versa, a key determinant of women's rights to single sex provision."

Weird to be quoting myself but clicked too soon!

I get that those who see preferred pronoun use as being a gateway or facilitator to stealth mixed sex provision that claims to be single sex feel passionately about arguing the case for this. If this was me, I know I'd be infuriated by people's 'naivety' about the issue.

I have t been convinced by the arguments that pronoun use is key, and so perhaps that is why I imagine the masses won't be won over. In addition (and this is an addition not the main point of reasoning for me), it does come across as 'nasty' and 'unkind', which is where I think the arguments will be difficult to be heard. Again, I would find this infuriating if it were my argument to try and win, because I don't think it is driven by a motive to be unkind or nasty.

I have ongoing experience of being considered bigoted, unkind, nasty etc. for my GC views. I really do get the frustration and anger!

"f pronouns aren't regarded as key, why has so much energy gone into enforcing them, even on this board?"

On this board, I think it is because people can communicate all of there points without using them, that many think the battle for single sex provision can be won without using them, and because of this, it isn't necessary.

I'm not sure I've understood your reply but are you saying you don't think it's been a huge communication issue on this board?
Do you know how many posters have been suspended for contravening the rules?

You're aware that there is a standard article on this topic that can't be named (far less linked) without deletion?

It was written by someone who used to be a regular poster here (Barracker).

You only have to look at the holes in so many threads where posters have tried to use sex based pronouns to know that pronoun usage is absolutely an issue.

Perhaps what is meant is that women pretzeling their language to fit into the posting guidelines means we can still get our message across. Oh course, that then leads to the point that we are using compelled speech to remain active on the board. Many have been banned for pronoun usage in the past and many of us remember this. Hence it is compelled.

But, yes. We do the mental work to make our posts fit so we are not deleted or banned. It is indeed a huge communication issue on this board, isn't it?

You have to be reported to get deleted. It's not the gender critical women doing the reporting. It's transactivists.

Most women here very much want to be able to use correct sex pronouns, as evidenced by the Debbie H threads. Or those about Eddie Izzard, where every other post says, he doesn't mind he/him, HQ!

And most transactivists desperately don't want them to. They monitor these threads constantly and report relentlessly every time someone has been misgendered.

It's difficult to imagine all goals being achieved, when one of the goals is not to be relentlessly targeted for correctly identifying the male sex.

I don't want us to be raising a generation of children who feel that it's rude to identify men as men.

And transactivists do.

Therefore, for many, the issue of pronouns is somewhat key.

And how many of us are accused of misgendering and transphobia for referring to individuals as male or female people?

There is a very constant effort from either extreme trans activists or well meaning allies to enforce pronoun usage or to enforce the belief that a male person should be affirmed as a female because that male person desires it.

I realise that it is difficult for people who've perhaps encountered FWR under the most recent set of guidance have no experience and therefore little understanding of what has happened and how draconian the first few versions were. Nor the influence it has on how posters write, what posters can reference and particular topics.

MNHQ and FWR is a case study in resisting or working around Lifton's Eight Criteria for Thought Reform in order to maintain a platform where we could communicate at all.

I await the book on this at some point or at least a chapter in a book.

ETA: does anyone recall when the first set of guidelines for FWR (and nowhere else on MN) were posted?

Yeah, when TRAs try every trick in the book, including threats to your family to stop you using correct pronouns, it's a little odd to maintain they're irrelevant.

Pronouns must be important to the Trans extinction of women, otherwise they wouldn't be so keen on them being policed at all times.
if they didn't matter , they wouldn't matter.

Indeed. And Twitter.

Megan Murphy got banned from Twitter purely for writing 'that's him' (about Jessica Yaniv)

The constraints that women were under on Twitter are difficult to perceive if you weren't aware. So many women banned.

I would love to unpretzel my posts. I spend so much effort to fit into the guidelines that I make too many typos. I would really love to use the words that I would like to use and call men men.

Ahah I saw the irony there, the trans cry of they don't want trans people to exist is actually what they want to do to women

I don't even let myself call rapists 'he' even though I know that MNHQ allows it. Because the other thing we have learned, via Lang, is that arguing your innocence with MNHQ gets you banned anyway. So, I don't even use sex based pronouns then.

It is remarkable.

Yeah, when your ideology has achieved the leader of the opposition not even being able to define what the word woman means, the hypocrisy of claiming we don't want trans people to exist is rather stark.

@RethinkingLife
The new guidelines were introduced around 2018;

https://www.mumsnet.com/talk/womens_rights/3305954-FWR-more-unpleasant-than-ever

Yes, I think many women realised quite how scary this issue can be when, if you don't self censor your opinion, you lose your voice entirely.

I swear this is why posters might embrace an AI Assistant that would take the text we type and then edit it with a set of rules before we post it.

a) thank you for this
b) I've a wave of grief for all the familiar names in that thread that are no longer posting here for reasons…

The experience, wisdom, minds and contributors lost to this discussion are legion.

2018! So I've spent 6 years parsing every sentence and proofreading every post to try and ensure it's intelligible but not deletable. I'm kind of astonished to hear it's not even a key issue.

Bloody hell. It just goes to show.

From the OP on that thread

The Talk Guidelines have done little to improve things. The majority of threads are about trans matters and very few, if any, positive. Misgendering is increasingly rife. "They" for a trans woman is as bad as "he".

There is post after post that trans women are not women and that sex is biological and cannot be changed

Then increasingly material from elsewhere which is anti-trans is being linked.

Intersex women are also repeatedly disrespected with frequent posts that women are XX or are those with female reproductive capacity. It is hugely offensive.

It's difficult to believe how many women were banned over disagreeing with posters like this. But they were.

Then there was that awful day when HQ told transactivists on Twitter they don't have to be a member of this site to report posts.

But, it should be pointed out this was all as direct result of TRAs targeting mumsnet advertisers.

They tried to bring down the site, the entire site.

Because "They" for a trans woman is as bad as "he".

Then there was that awful day when HQ told transactivists on Twitter they don't have to be a member of this site to report posts.

That was going to be my follow-up. Does anyone recall when that happened? I have a feeling it must still have been around that time.