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

Personally I absolutely don't think anyone is immune from manipulation. And some people are very charismatic and persuasive.

Although I've never found Debbie Hayton either of those things, but then maybe he hasn't tried very hard with me!

What I don't get, is how manipulative, or charismatic, or charming does someone have to be, to persuade a hardened journalist to not only participate in their fetish, but to have a dig at women who think it's not on!

Which is why, I have to think, she's not actually seeing it, for some reason. There's a mental process that has concluded in her demoting it to something that doesn't really matter.

Absolutely.

Cults are full of educated rational people.

Why?

And why not the next person?

Thanks for this thread. I have felt extremely discombobulated by the twitter discussions and it is a relief to see the issues laid out clearly above.

I don't see my position as extreme at all, quite the reverse and am baffled by JT and AD being so cross about being disagreed with. I rate those two individuals so highly but do not understand where they are coming from here.

full of educated rational people.

Gurwinder Bhogal: When intelligent people affiliate themselves to ideology, their intellect ceases to guard against wishful thinking, and instead begins to fortify it, causing them to inadvertently mastermind their own delusion, and to very cleverly become stupid.
9:45 PM · Nov 9, 2018
https://twitter.com/G_S_Bhogal/status/1061011900278980608

Contribution to that thread: Intelligent minds can certainly be furiously good at maintaining confirmation bias because they have so much more information and cleverness with which to justify their beliefs.

I wonder if the use of courtesy pronouns is indicative of an empathy bias that overlooks the competing needs of others who aren't in the room at the time (so to speak).

Thinking even harder on the insult, I actually can't believe she got that wording past the layers of sign off at The Times and into the paper. It's hideous.

"Likewise, I will use female pronouns for some trans women. My rules are personal. I will call no male who commits a sexual or violent offence “she”. But those who respect women, like Debbie Hayton, or those I meet in real life, I will respect. This will win me abuse on both sides: Stonewall would say the choice should not be mine; gender-critical ultras will cry traitor. But I reject all compelled speech."

I am at this point, extremely cynical and hope it is just all a misunderstanding or the impact of an extremely plausible male with a lot of skills in getting people to do what he wants. Who appears very nice when it works for him.

However I still think that this is to whatever extent, a group of very committed Labour voters who are reaching panic that Posie in a position of further influence and voice, and uncontrolled women here, will share information that risks making Labour unelectable. And encourage others to turn away from Labour until they sort their policies and misogyny out. Creating a nice 'middle ground' that might just be in touching fingers distance of Starmer's Labour and monstering women who don't obediently stand on it, is a way to paint the public opinion in a way that serves Labour.

It does not serve women.

There is also an element here of academic superiority and the feeling of 'knowing best' which has long since hung around this group, with some voiced derogation such as 'domestic zombies' for other women outside of the group, particularly those who will not follow their leaders. Someone brilliant the other day said that this was like the Deptford Project letter played out on another stage, and I think they had a very shrewd point.

But it's not necessary to agree with each other 100%. Women aren't a hive mind or a gang. Wanting rights and equality and not to be used in a man's sexual and psychological issues because some kind of born duty to special men? As extremism goes, it's barely getting its feet wet unless you are basing on deeply sexist core beliefs.

I might be way off, but it feels quite classist to me. Lovely GC feminists are able to write their articles and books and, of course, they only know jolly decent types. Meanwhile, the working class, anonymous women are taking it all a bit far by refusing to call men women. I’m an older working class woman, and I’m sure I’ve seen this before, or maybe it just feels like a lecture from my betters 🤷🏻‍♀️

Ugh, let's resist this. For a start, 'ultra' has very unfortunate connotations. Who came up with it?

I’m an older working class woman, and I’m sure I’ve seen this before

It feels rather Meg John Barker.

Good Practice Guide, British Association for Counselling and Psychotherapy
(extract)
2.6 Gender identity: woman
Definitions
"Whether trans or cisgender, intersex or not, many people identify as
women. However, what this means varies a great deal depending on their other intersecting attributes…Being a woman in a British cultural context often means adhering to social norms of femininity, such as being nurturing, caring, social, emotional, vulnerable, and concerned with appearance.
However, of course, not all women adhere to all these things. For example some neurodiverse women (on the autistic/aspergic/ADHD spectrums) may struggle to express emotions, or with social situations. In some northern working-class contexts femininity is associated with strength and aggression

www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/3339137-BACP-Gender-Sexual-and-Relationship-Diversity-by-Dr-Meg-John-Barker

Certainly sensitivity to the kinds of women not in their immediate circle has not always been strong. There also seems to be real shock that those who are usually so supportive of them are not coming along on this, and are explaining in unfortunately clear detail as to why.

It was Janice Turner.

Last time I looked the comments under her rebuttal column were a huge amount of polite disagreement with her pronoun using position.

It's not only that. "Cry traitor" has horrible echoes of "cry rape". What the fuck was she thinking? It's such a nasty comment piece. Despicable, in fact.

Thanks. Seen JT's tweet now. Looks like she's using 'ultra' as a mild insult. To me, it means Italian football hooligans, and fascists.

🙈🙈🙈 She's just supported compelled speech by calling women that won't use preferred pronouns under any circumstances 'ultras'.

So you can't have it both ways. I have a lot of respect for journalists like JT, but it seems that when it comes down to it, her and others are making up the rules to suit themselves at perhaps awkward times.when eyeball to eyeball with someone like Hayton.

I’d forgotten about that - it’s part of it, isn’t it? We’re all making ground together, which is really levelling, so rank and a pecking order needs to be reinstated.

I do feel very uncomfortable that men can ‘behave’ their way into preferred pronouns being used. This isn’t good logic and wouldn’t help make good laws.

But I reject all compelled speech."

This is a little difficult to believe, to be honest. I just don't get it.

It's not 'compelling speech' to point out that you're pandering to a paraphilia, as an influential journalist writing for The Times!

What's the opposite of your rejecting compelled speech? Reserving the right to give a bloke a hard on by calling him she?

Knock yourself out.

But don't think it will just pass people by!!

I respect Rose and Fionne and would call them ‘she’ if they wanted.

This is the sort of coercive comments that undermine free speech and actually does lead to compelled speech. PP might not have meant it that way but it is exactly the same as JT; that it is ‘respectful’ to use wrong sex pronouns, ergo it is ‘disrespectful’ to use correct sex pronouns. This then becomes the discourse from those in power - that is disrespectful and therefore abusive/hate speech to call men he/him. And suddenly we don’t even have the choice. You only need to look at MN guidelines to see we now have compelled speech.

And if anyone thinks you can use ‘she/her’ and not have to also call a man a woman then you are extremely naive.

She certainly cannot see the hypocrisy in her published opinions recently. By that I mean the articles and tweets.

It is very clear, yet she doesn’t seem to see it at all.

It has a paramilitary tint to it, to me. Shades of those who thought the militant suffragettes had gone too far.

So you can't have it both ways. I have a lot of respect for journalists like JT, but it seems that when it comes down to it, her and others are making up the rules to suit themselves at perhaps awkward times.when eyeball to eyeball with someone like Hayton.

I suspect JT thought the interview would go down a lot better than it did, and is digging in against the fallout.

Balaclavas in suffragette colours?

Could we all just call ourselves Sex Realists?

That’s what the word “ultras” means to me too. It definitely comes across as an insult and for me not really a mild one as in my mind the word is linked with violence when used as a noun instead of an adjective.

Social psychologists claim that many of us have a tendency to double down when one of our core beliefs is under attack.

I don't know JT. I wonder if one of her core beliefs is in the value of friendship and loyalty and she feels these are under attack and these influence her language choices.

That and the drive to be consistent, to follow up on commitments, and to reward those whom we like (see Cialdini).

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/312916528_You_dont_have_to_be_a_fool_to_be_fooled_An_Interview_with_Robert_Cialdini_about_the_similarities_of_persuasion_tactics_between_cults_and_terror_groups