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

<gets out knitting needles>

(I'm shit at knitting and it’s likely to end up looking like a windsock with some random holes in it, but the thought is there…)

I found Andrew Doyles article helpful in describing the type I would term "GC Ultra"

I have learned that many of them [GC friends] are exasperated by the “intolerant elements” within their community who seek to destroy anyone who does not conform to every single aspect of their worldview, even if it means that the cause is fatally undermined. They describe a “civil war” being waged by a small but intimidating minority who maintain that any slight point of disagreement is a form of heresy, that language has the capacity to shape reality, and that those found guilty of wrongspeak ought to be publicly shamed and alienated.....this kind of sociopathic behaviour is far from typical in the gender-critical movement......My experiences this week have certainly alerted me to a dark element within gender-critical circles, one that has become a source of considerable concern for many women in the fight....[I] hope that I may continue these [GC] conversations with those who are able to remain civil even while robustly disagreeing.

https://unherd.com/2024/02/caught-up-in-the-gender-critical-civil-war/

The accounts calling others "ultras" are claiming that people are attempting to stifle their free speech when in fact they are just prominent accounts furious that the little people are daring to disagree with them.

The same little people that dug deep for crowd funding, Keira Bell should have chosen her words better for instance.

Oh those small shadowy naughty people again. Who all go to another school.

Like the article by JCJ about the racism shadowy naughty GC people of whom no one could find any evidence beyond a few vague aspersions and nit picking.

My experiences this week have certainly alerted me to a dark element within gender-critical circles, one that has become a source of considerable concern for many women in the fight....[I] hope that I may continue these [GC] conversations with those who are able to remain civil even while robustly disagreeing.

AD has his own experience of a "dark element" and perspective on that.

I remain surprised that such terms are used to describe those of us who disagree. That said, I don't explicitly know the components of the "dark element" that are giving "considerable concern" to which "women in the fight".

I know, in vague terms, who the women are who have contributed to and/or maintain a 'sin page" about a woman who attracts their opprobrium. Similarly, those who contributed to an entire issue of Radical Notion that attributed remarkable affiliations and motivations to women with whom they disagree. To me, they have been contributed to fissures and led to an unthinking reputational harm that has damaged overall progress. I know that those women would prefer me to defer my judgment to theirs. And conform my language to theirs.

For the latter part of the AD quotation, afaict, that would include the discussion threads on MN. As ever, I may be wrong.

This is true. There was no evidence proffered apart from some confusing association between nuns supporting the Nordic model.

I also think those are the GC feminists that Stella O’Malley included as those being determined to denounce women through guilt by association.

I don't think he's talking about all GC people that disagree - he's talking about a particular faction. Aggressively noisy online posters that brook no debate.
I thought that was what JT meant by GC Ultras too. I've certainly seen those types on the Internet myself.

Imo the "dark element" that AD alludes to appears to include many women I follow and admire.

Great post.

All of this is simply a new way of shutting women up. "GC ultra" is the new "TERF".

It's as vile as it is devoid of evidence.

I don't think Janice Turner is the sort of person who wants to call women TERFs but can't. Maybe she has a point worth listening to, she usually does.

There are some radical feminists who dislike all men. That would include men claiming to be the women. This is not startling new news.

I saw a claim about a tweet from somebody in the Doyle stramash who either claimed to be a radical feminist or was assigned the label.

However, although I don't recall the wording, it read more like the comment of a misanthrope. (Somebody helpfully looked at the TwiXer's general stream which seemed to be at odds with most of humanity. I'm not confident if there were any comments about the relative soundness of any other life forms.)

OK. But that's not what this is, I don't think. It's an extreme and extremely unpleasant reaction to people pointing out the problems with a puff piece about an AGP who writes about his sexual fetish. When that person is a teacher.

If a teacher said he had any other fetish, he'd not be being lauded by the paper of record, nor would be be invited for any other media interviews, at the very least. Wouldn't happen.

The prominent accounts of several gay men have also been caught up in said stromash and categorised as ultras, and I seriously doubt they hate all men.

I have been watching this post and the Stella one where DH is commented on quite a bit in mostly derogatory terms.

Doyle has received some pretty horrific homophobia posts per his unheard article, and DH has had his school lobbied again about him being a danger to children.

I am not on twitter but i have a feeling that, they are not referring to folk here who don't want to use pronouns ever (fine by me). I think it is more about a lunatic and abusive fringe who purport to be GC.

I think i saw a post earlier querying if we, the GC movement are being infiltrated by trans activists.

I suspect that trans activists are in fact behind all of this, posing as GC women intent on bringing us into disrepute, this is based on some of the quotes from parties involved, sound so much like TRA’s style and language.

So maybe someone here on twitter should pose that question.

I cannot imagine for one minute that all the folk i have come to know here would behave in such a way.

I think it is more about a lunatic and abusive fringe who purport to be [Y]

I've used [Y] here because it takes tiny numbers of people (or bots, depending on the platform) to disrupt conversations and cast a certain perspective over an entire area of public interest that nobody even wants to approach.

I'm reminded of the knitting groups that imploded over [X]. That went from being places of support and skill sharing for enthusiasts to sources of division. I've seen moderators resign from groups about InstaPots because small numbers of posters who were convinced of their moral compass mired everyone in disputes about every single ingredient, shop, appropriation of a culture in a recipe, competing views on healthy diets.

It's sad but true that one community disruptor can destroy a group of thousands that had previously been a great comfort and source of daily support.

How can you say that DH respects women and look at his wife in the eye? DH freely admits to harming his wife and kids at the same time!!!

Janice needs her head read!

It’s so bizarre that JT doesn’t think she’s having her speech compelled. Trans activism has compelled society to use wrong sex pronouns otherwise you’re a nasty bigoty transphobe who isn’t being respectful. She didn’t just come up with the idea of calling DH “she” of her own free will did she?

No, it's a mark of 'respect'.

Which means not doing it is disrespect.

How did we get here?

That not willingly pandering to a man's sexual fetish is disrespectful?

I have read Debbie Hayton’s book, finished it yesterday.

I do wish people here would stop targeting him as some kind of imposter pervert who abuses his wife and children.

It is simply not true.

He has a chapter on AGP and himself (by the way he is not bothered if you call him he)

AGP is described as a love of oneself as a female, it is not about parading around in a dress with a hard on or sexually excited state, at least not for Hayton.

I suspect that the men who do get off on being in women's toilets and the like are not AGP they are abusive scary predators. Which is part of his point in his book.

But not enough is understood about transsexualism.

They have always existed in most cultures, we cannot wish them away.

The final chapter of this book is written by Debbie and puts paid to the concept she is an abused woman.

I dont think Debbie caused this twitter storm, he does not ask the use of compelled pronouns.

That not willingly pandering to a man's sexual fetish is disrespectful?

Much worse, it's "cry traitor" according to the article from yesterday I mean, what the actual fuck??

Cry

Traitor

How dare she.

Do you mean Stephanie has written a chapter?

The biggest issue is that, I believe, he's claiming to have been agp since childhood.

Ergo children are agp.

This is extremely concerning. Especially given he's a teacher.

I dont think Debbie caused this twitter storm, he does not ask the use of compelled pronouns

There are several concurrent threads about several related issues. From your summary, it's not clear to me that you're aware of the different

• number of events and follow-ups
• dramatis personae for each event
• threads and emphasis.

I certainly find it difficult to keep up to date and I've contributed to several of those threads and have been following them since their origin and events since then.

Apologies if I've misconstrued the extent of your awareness of the various events etc.

I've not read it but have read Hatpin/ Loriel's account

x.com/hatpinwoman/status/1755650643446939933?s=46&t=A2fpFNgDRyXF2d6ye97wEA