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

We wanted debate. We are starting to get debate. This is good.

Obviously people will have different views. Approach is to listen and counter. Accept there are different experiences, a desire to ‘be kind’ and across society at large a lack of familiarity with the detail. These things normally end up with a form of societal fudge where no one is completely happy. A lot better and more sustainable than the Stonewall ‘no debate’ and do as we say.

Yes , imo the point is to disagree and back up your points and positions with reason and evidence.

Twitter is the worst place ever to attempt to conduct debates but it's where an awful lot of debates happen these days.

Also there's definitely an innate mental shut down that occurs as soon as a name is used against someone who holds a polar position to yourself.

Tra rhetoric relies primarily on name calling and labels.

This is true.

Except calling women who disagree reasonably ‘extremists’ and ‘ultra’ stifles debate not encourages it.

Hayton is exceptionally clever.

I was definitely naive in the past.

Discourse and debate helped move me forward.

We wanted debate. We are starting to get debate. This is good.

I don't just want debate. I want to win. I want self ID dead. I want the affirmative medical pathway for kids dead. I want the policy of putting men in women's sports and prisons dead.

We will only get that if: we focus fire on the people pushing those policies: we argue with nuance and evidence; we win people over. We need constructive debate not name calling.

Those engaging with labour or working with DH are not being fools they are just making a difficult choice.

Except calling women who disagree reasonably ‘extremists’ and ‘ultra’ stifles debate not encourages it

Maybe some will recognise that and still bring out the polish for the golden bridge? And still set out the best tea set and comfiest chair?

If it's not possible to build relatively short golden bridges to people to whom some of us may be in largely raging agreement then I don't know how we'll construct the ones needed for much larger groups with whom there are more profound disagreements.

And I still disagree with the language and on this fundamental issue. And I'm genuinely concerned about what would happen to us as a family if my banking rights were terminated.

Is it being extreme to be uncomfortable who admits in a national newspaper that he gets his rocks off pretending to be a woman and took a lead in actively campaigning and drawing up guidelines for the removal of single sex toilets in schools?

Or is it naive to to think this man has the best interests of women and kids front and central in his mind? A man who freely admits his wife and children has suffered as a result of his choices.

Hmm. Let me think about this...

I said something similar to this on another thpread, but this ^ is exactly why mumsnet so damned useful.

It forces you to think logically, not emotionally. It forces you to consider what you're going to say, before you say it. Because you know damned well any assertion you make will be picked apart.

Since posting on mumsnet, I've had chapters of a masterclass in language construction, argument definitions, safeguarding, psychology, narcissism, paraphilias, women's rights, party politics, and critical thinking.

When formulating my comments, I've learnt all about ad hominems, sea lioning, DARVO, projection, strawmen and the need for citation.

And the absolutely crucial importance of language.

And it's come from hundreds of women. (and the odd chap).

The education you get here is second to none.

It should be required reading for any journalist.

Because other thing it teaches you is that people will disagree with you or hand you your arse, and they will upset/annoy you.

And a knee jerk response, or article, is something to be avoided.

I really dislike labels. Like PP I am interested in protecting children and women's rights.

It does piss me off that people with power are framing robust disagreement with their position as 'authoritarianism' and 'compelled speech' and shows a woeful lack of intelligence and ability to think logically. Copying a post from a another thread (by me) on this which sums it up IMO:

I'd really like to know how anyone is 'compelling' Janice Turner or Andrew Doyle's speech.

Women disagreeing is not 'compulsion'. They both have far more power and a public platform than those disagreeing with them. They can and do (obviously) ignore those saying wrong-sex pronouns is a safeguarding risk.

The people who are offended by this don't understand safeguarding and how - if you're a student in school - you really DON'T have any power and if teachers are modelling wrong-sex wrong-grammar wrong-part of the language pronouns to you (which will be linguistically and educationally confusing before you get to obvious safeguarding risks of telling children they need to 'not see' sex) then THAT'S compulsion. It's really hard to go against what a teacher says.

They have a lot of public power and freedom and money, far more than the parents struggling with distressed kids who are being emotionally abused by this shit in schools.

And still there's nothing we can do get them to bother doing a safeguarding course, or read KCSIE, obviously. That much is clear. Where the hell is the 'compelling' coming from. Will they lose their jobs if they don't use correct English sex-based pronouns? All their money? Go to jail? I doubt it.

What the hell is wrong with people that robust disagreement is being cast as 'compulsion' whilst children are being routinely emotionally abused over very long periods of time in school, where they literally cannot escape, their parents get fined if they don't attend, and the self same people moaning about how some women disagree with their pronoun use are doing nothing.

Words have lost all meaning.

Exactly.

I hope we have learned that insult and name calling is no substitute for proper exchange of views.

I think Hayton has done us a favour by highlighting AGP. I personally am influenced by RoseofDawn and Fionne Orlander who worked to highlight the madness of trans activism. My personal belief is that trans is a wide umbrella, including exhibitionist attention seekers and those who are genuinely struggling. The mad, the bad and the sad. DH is a ‘he’. I respect Rose and Fionne and would call them ‘she’ if they wanted. In terms of single sex spaces I think the needs of transwomen should be taken on board, and that these will differ from person to person. But those needs should not be given prescedence over the needs of women.

So another who believes this issue is important but who is uncomfortable with a black/white approach.

Quite

And I am not calling for JT to be cancelled. I am, however, like you, pointing out that she has now placed herself in a position that is causing harm. And she is hypocritically declaring it is those who disagree who is causing harm.

Personally, I am all for her having her opinion and publishing it. I am just as all for people pointing out the discrepancies in what she has published and hope that she thinks more about what people
are actually saying. Obviously without abusing her. I saw her article yesterday and felt she didn’t quite grasp what women had been saying to her.

Quite.

It's the work of a moment to explain why calling Hayton she is a really, really bad idea, and I genuinely think almost everyone would agree.

Labelling those people as ultra is only going reflect on your attitude to public paraphilias.

The use of wrong sex pronouns which are individual nebulous 'gender based' and not class based is a total upending of grammar rules and will confuse children trying to learn English.

We're telling them that sometimes the rules they're learning don't apply, but they have no way of predicting when this will be or what type of pronouns will be used nor how you can tell. I'd give up and I bet they do too.

What other rules will be optional - punctuation? After all dyslexic students often struggle to learn that? How far does hurt feelings go? Can we all just identify as having qualifications and knowledge? Maybe the laws of gravity can be changed due to the feelings of aeronautical (self ID) engineers that find it hurtful they're no good at maths? Anyone want to fly on that plane?

Meanwhile children from other countries will outstrip us in English as well as Maths and Science.

I want someone to compare the SATS and English exam results for gender woo schools with those who've kept normal English usage. I suspect this bollocks has an impact on education as well as safeguarding.

This is exactly what I thought and why I was surprised to see JT come up with this sort of lazy hyperbole to try and paint people comcemrd about the erosion of women's and children's rights bought about by TIMs and organisations like Stonewall. Its straight out of the TRA/ misogynist playbook, with the constant use of hyperbole to try and indicate extremism, when it's just disagreement and holding a different viewpoint - vile! bigot! witch! hysterical! TeRF! ULTRA! Disappointing to see a woman doing it to be honest.

Incidentally, the only other place I've heard the tem 'Ultras' used recently is in football hooliganism. A section of the Crystal Palace supporters for example are known as The Ultras. Interesting attempt at equivalence I thought.

And you know what, I don't much care if people cave and use female pronouns for males in the moment, sometimes you might have to, so what, doesn't fundamentally change your position that men can't be women. I'd try and avoid it wherever possible but who knows in reality if I came across an AGP male at work, quite likely in IT, especially at a customer site, I'd probably have to.

I'm still GC though, still a feminist and still a TERF, under the made up definition, and proud of trying to protect women and children and wanting my boys not to grow up to be coercive men. If that makes me an ULTRA under someone's silly made up point scoring ideology, then so be it.

“Ultras” is a European term, perhaps originating in France, for organised groups of hard core football hooligans.

There were fun and games when Parisian Ultras decided to follow their women’s team when they played Chelsea. They would not have been allowed to buy tickets for a men’s equivalent, but no one thought to check applicants for women’s tickets.

vile! bigot! witch! hysterical! TeRF! ULTRA! Disappointing to see a woman doing it to be honest.

Incidentally, the only other place I've heard the tem 'Ultras' used recently is in football hooliganism. A section of the Crystal Palace supporters for example are known as The Ultras

I didn't know that about Crystal Palace.

The first part puts me in mind of Shonagh Dillon's PhD title: ‘#TERF/Bigot/Transphobe’ – ‘We found the witch, burn her!’ A contextual constructionist account of the silencing of feminist discourse on the proposed changes to the Gender Recognition Act 2004, and the policy capture of transgender ideology, focusing on the potential impacts and consequences for female-only spaces for victims of male violence.

https://www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/4287881-Congratulations-Shonagh-Dillon-for-Defending-Your-PhD-TERF-Bigot-Transphobe-We-found-the-witch-burn-her?

One of the disturbing aspects of the thesis, amongst others, is the reality that it's a substantial number of women using such language to silence other women in service of harming some of the most vulnerable women.

I think in terms of the 'be kind' thing, Hayton has pulled the wool over the eyes over a lot of women. Women are by nature willing to be kind and accommodating because they aren't inheritantly evil and had sympathy for people who they thought were traumatised by something.

What Hayton has done has demonstrate that the compromise option isn't about being nice to men who has some sort of dysphoria. He's highlighted that you can't distinguish between men who have dysphoria and men who who have a sexual kink.

That's troubling. Especially as this is a man who has been involved with guidelines on toilets in schools. It's got safeguarding red flag bunting.

It think it highlights that the whole concept is being exploited and misused against the understanding women had and contrary to what they have sympathy for. That's dishonest. Again dishonesty is a red flag.

And all of this is against the interests of women and kids.

All of it keeps piling up with evidence of harms and the only benefit being to males, with a high percentage of males with a sexually motivated element to their identity - some who stay within the law and some who don't. But either way, not with the consent of women and even the most mild mannered with a disregard to the impact on women. Women are support humans to their desires however you cut it.

It raises the question of how FEW cases of 'genuine' dysphoria there are. And yet we are trying to rearrange society around this utterly tiny number, in the process exposing women and children to scenarios they don't consent to, may not be aware of and in a small number of cases may be at risk of harms from. Why?

Where is this model poster trans-woman who hasn't got a dubious history, which we raise eyebrows very high about if they didn't have this cloak of trans? Every single high profile transwomen seems to have 'a lot going on'.

We get deleted and chastised for mentioning the extreme cases of sex offenders because that's transphobic and they aren't 'real' trans. We get a whole lot of 'well they deserved it' in response to threats and violence from TRAs. Somehow they aren't representative yet for some reason women have meetings cancelled and get booted / constructively dismissed from work. And that's somehow ok and politicians aren't vocal about how damaging it is to democracy and women's freedom.

These more moderate cases do a good job of making a good show of how they aren't like these extreme cases whilst simultaneously undermining women's rights and single sex provisions. And get a free pass for it because 'well they aren't as bad as that other lot of extremists'. They aren't 'the good ones'. They are still males who don't have the interests of women at heart and are very much willing to throw women under the bus if it suits their interests.

This is an attempt to try and suggest there is also an extremist element to be gender critical. When all women are saying is 'no I don't want to be second class and to be put into situations which I am exposed to indignity to serve the desires - not needs or wants - of males who freely admit they do it for sexual gratification'. It's false equivalence and yes absolutely is about trying to shut down the conversation and try and make women sound unreasonable.

It is NEVER extreme or unreasonable to say, no I don't consent to being a tool and complicit in your sexual fetishes. Let's be crystal clear on this.

As PPs indicate, this is not an issue for women to resolve.

Women have organised into an array of groups and activities from attending events dressed as dinosaurs to policy making.

I don't understand why TWs haven't set up a schedule of several of them visiting male public facilities and using them. Normalising that they use them without exciting comment or more.

I suggest a pairing of Grrl Alex and Izzard (let them expand the bandwidth of what it means to be a man which might be far more powerful).

Other suggested pairings?

I'm sorry I used the word "fool". Not sorry I used the word "naive". I was frustrated at the mischaracterisation of less naive women.

I find it a little weird that JT and AD (and all other free adults who comply with wrong-sex pronouns without risks to their livelihood / safety if they don't) are such willing participants in DH's AGP. He has made it really clear this is where he's coming from, but that's seems to be their decision, much as I don't understand it.

I do think we are all vulnerable to manipulation from others, not always the same others. I might be immune to manipulation from person A but susceptible to it from person B. Intelligence really has nothing to do with it and I believe it is dangerous hubris to believe that we will never be taken in by a manipulative personality type, perhaps someone with an undiagnosed or well hidden cluster B personality disorder or temporarily exhibiting some of the traits thereof.

This happened to me once, a man who I thought seemed very affable and a decent bloke. His wife seemed rather cold and stand offish. Turned out he was abusing her, after she became free of him, not without him nearly succeeding in manipulating professionals that she was abusive and unstable, (DARVO), she has been completely transformed as a person. Free at last from the psychological, emotional and physical abuse. The point being I was completely taken in by him and didn’t suspect anything until I was explicitly told the truth of the situation. There are other situations where I have spotted “Red Flag People” a mile off. I always reserve my judgement now and keep an open mind on who is aloof and odd and who is friendly and safe.

I think it's sad to be slurred within your own faction.
Ultra? I feel being gender critical is akin to atheism. And I much prefer 'gender atheist' actually. Within this there is no extremism or 'ultra'.

You wouldn't expect an atheist to get fuzzy about their belief in God around certain people.

It boils down to me that even some GCers think that referring to someone's natal sex is actually an insult. But how can it be an insult? Pronouns for GCers refer to sex right? Why is this so delicate?

I agree at least there is proper debate going on and I welcome this conversation, but I'm surprised at where it's come from.

It seems to me that Hayton has done a good job of trying to look like “the reasonable one” by admitting the AGP etc. Originally when I read the Mail article about DH, I thought it was reasonable but, on thinking about it, felt like - yet again - a male had wormed his way in somewhere he really wasn’t wanted, this time to the GC argument. It felt…undermining and manipulative. Which, in the context of a paraphilia, is hardly surprising.

Fair play to Janice Turner for writing on the subject, letting DH have his say etc and she (JT) is, of course, entitled to her view. But everyone else is entitled to disagree and labelling that disagreement as the work of “ultras” is quite disrespectful, not least to the women who’ve dealt with unending shit to get us to a point where this is being discussed openly.

Ultras/Lites also smacks of “divide and conquer” - the Ultras are hardened, shrill extremists whose hyperbole and fear-mongering could be ignored, and the Lites have their “reasonableness” championed and could possibly be tempted back to the “Be Kind” side if they’re frightened of being labelled an Ultra. That splitting of feminist solidarity is just not on.

Referencing MK Ultra is pretty rude though, she's basically saying that those of us who refuse to use wrong sex pronouns are trying to brainwash and psychologically manipulate those who choose capitulate to trans demands. If anything it's the opposite way around!