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 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

Yep. And this narrative continues across MNHQ. It is constant. Nothing but complete capitulation is acceptable to the extreme activists. This is when I do resort to laughing. Because it is very surreal.

Using 'they' is hate. Using 'male person' for a male person who has declared they are trans is hate. The only discussion that is allowed is affirming and positive.

Thankfully, due to court cases, this is becoming less common. But it is still out there. And the guidelines still enforce pronoun compliance.

yes, we can make our arguments and we can present our evidence. It is false to say that restrictions on pronouns on this board has no effect on us.

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

I remember denial of service attacks.

We didn't passively accept it. Remember this;

https://www.mumsnet.com/talk/site_stuff/4267223-Any-chance-of-a-review-of-the-FWR-moderation-rules-in-light-of-Maya-Forstaters-success-in-court-please

Actually that's thread is gold.

That was the one where the OP said sports were designed for men, and women's sports should be redesigned to accommodate their physicality, and recommended bar ducking.

Ducking under a bar.

That went down exactly as you would expect. For paaaages 🤣

Crikey.

A poster was deleted and this was in the email from HQ.

That was in the days when you couldn't generalise. But also you couldn't be specific...

We consider the phrase, "males who identify as women" to be uncivil and a breach of the Talk guidelines so we deleted the post

The censorship is also, I realise, responsible for me peppering my posts with, 'in my opinion', and 'personally', and 'from my point of view'.

You couldn't say this ideology is totally sexist. You had to say it's my opinion that this ideology is totally sexist.

Even if you could back it up, with reams of evidence, it still just had to be your own opinion.

Which would indicate to me that transactactivists were using things like defamation to get posts deleted.

HQ were usually quite tight lipped about the shit they were getting, but I bet it was pretty damned comprehensive.

IMO we need a reminder of how bad it was because if self ID ever gets in, this is what it will be like.

If you've seen any of my accounts of some of my meetings, yes, this what it's already like in some sectors.

https://www.mumsnet.com/talk/womens_rights/4988632-another-gc-employment-tribunal-roz-adams-vs-edinburgh-rape-crisis-centre-2?reply=132392795

The guidelines also don’t allow you to paint a negative picture of trans people. That might see reasonable except it extends to posting too much information about anything that paints them in a bad light. So crime statistics. Sporting medals taken from women. Information about transactivist groups.

I better not say more or I will likely be censored.

Oh yes. I was deleted often and warned for being too specific or making generalisations. This was the time of Michael, I believe. So we could only be non-specific AND only if we used 'some'. Hence, I still do. And I sometimes use 'some' with scare quotes because that exact action from MNHQ.

Even now you cannot be direct in 'some' instances. Yet, 'some' posters are allowed to claim they are being abused and other accusations but it is not the regulars who are allowed to do so. I think it is a remnant from that time. We were, and I believe still are, deleted for being 'uncivil' if we claim we are being attacked on a thread. Yet, others get away with it all the time still. And too often they are the ones attacking others and using emotive language. We get deleted and emails sent saying 'we are watching your posts'. The lack of symmetry still exists in the moderation. But apparently, we have freedom on this board. According to 'some'.

Didn't the rules come about because one man who said he was a disabled woman was posting and ONE post said something disrespectful about said person/disability? [literally a one line response] And then the man who said he was a woman started legal proceedings?

I remember the man who said he was a woman had a twitter photo of a man walking a dog? I've got it somewhere on my old hard drive. He was boasting about it on Twitter [when it was twitter] and how he took down the TERFs.

And if you questioned the rules you were told that perhaps Mumsnet was not for you and to 'go well'?

Meanwhile there was years of 'why did you delete me' and the response was 'we will discuss if you have broken a rule at the next meeting' and never get back to anyone, thus proving the rules were completely incomprehensible, and easily misunderstood, particularly by the staff?

I'm not actually sure what the rules are these days. I don't remember MNHQ ever stating that they were withdrawing or modifying them, I just noticed one day that they weren't pinned to the board any more.

The last couple of pages hit hard. That's basically it - if pronouns weren't important, why would some people feel the need to compell them?

Schrodingers pronoun conundrum apparently. Yet, supposedly dismissible and not impacting women's rights.

So we could only be non-specific AND only if we used 'some'.

Which may well have given a bizarre impression of the poster's knowledge and communication competency to an onlooker who had no idea of the constraints put on that poster.

It had more than a hint of Harrison Bergeron and Diana Moon Glampers at times.