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

So, just to clarify.

Being treated as a woman by others has no bearing at all to someone’s arousal as a person with AG0? it is all just internal perception. And nothing to do with dressing up?

And dressing up as a woman every day is not a self fulfilling arousal mechanism?

And Hayton’s students are free to call Hayton ‘sir’ instead of ‘Miss’.

And Hayton will never use female single sex spaces again, even if there is no gender neutral option?

Plus, Hayton has apologised to the women on MN for telling us all that breast size indicates where women sit in the hierarchy of powrerful women in society?

Good to know.

This^

Of course those disagreeing can have a point, but you can say that to both of the people disagreeing - by it's very nature it's not a one way statement.

I very much agree re Stock, and that idea that a person disagreeing on some issue - which the speaker is oh so sure they are correct on - means that person is naive etc, reminds me a lot of the way many GC women are upset when friends, who have known them for years, assume they must have become bigots suddenly.

@WarriorN hi there yes I did mean Stephanie.

He did not say he as a child was AGP, he said he spent quite a lot of his time wishing he could wake up and be a girl. He described how female clothing was more appealing to him. It was not sexual.

I am not an expert but it seems that OCD and AGP are related for a small amount of people and the use of the word fetish is somewhat clumsy for those who have gender dysphoria.

i really cannot stand gender ideology, and i cannot stand trans activism, its horrible particularly because it is now impossible to ascertain wether a male person in female attire is dangerous or a pervert

Or a transexual minding their own business going about their daily life not bothering anyone.

That is part of his point in the book.

Interestingly he, in describing his journey from believing he was a real woman. To transitioning, to his back to reality, state of mind “i am a man with AGP”, i was in fact the other woman in our marriage.

He Neatly demonstrate how dangerous the internet TRA’s were to him and ergo ultimately much more so for children.

His writing is elegant in that respect.

So Hayton's autogynephilia is different to that of other men?

Even though it was fed with sissy porn and was so overwhelming that he was prepared to leave his wife and children to accommodate it?

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.

Lol. He is actually responsible for writing the policy which got him access to women's toilets.

I am not an expert but it seems that OCD and AGP are related for a small amount of people and the use of the word fetish is somewhat clumsy for those who have gender dysphoria.

Interesting comparison. Any one with experience of OCD knows you do not accommodate it. If we are to consider AGP similar to OCD rather than a paraphilia then we must not call these men ‘she’ as that would just make their obsession worse.

Just to be clear.

Debbie Hayton is a self-confessed AGP.

It's a paraphilia

"A paraphilia is an experience of recurring or intense sexual arousal to atypical objects, situations, fantasies, behaviors, or individuals.[3][4] It has also been defined as a sexual interest in anything other than a consenting human partner.[5][6] Paraphilias are contrasted with normophilic ("normal") sexual interests,[7][8] though the definition of what makes a sexual interest normal or atypical remains controversial."

Still, I guess it's all of a piece with changing the meaning of words.

When is a paraphilia not a paraphilia? When it's belongs to Debbie Hayton.

I often say this, but it is well worth reading Lundy Bancroft's book 'Why does he do that', a man who who spent years as a therapist working with male abusers, many referred to him through the prison system.

One of the things he discusses in the book about working with and treating a man, is the importance of him blowing holes in their cover story and their attempts to get others to play along with and sympathise with it, as until this happens, the man is very unlikely to change their behaviours. In his experience they are often extremely good at this. They know all the armchair psychology, they are deeply interested in themselves and their motivations and how they like others to perceive and frame it.

It's a useful read that helps see the other side and why a man with a rather doubtful history towards women and the treatment of them may not be an entirely reliable witness, and may be extremely talented at telling a story that enables and gains enabling.

Both sides of the story are helpful to have in mind to get a picture of where the truth lies.

Maybe I should read it; re reading his article from 2019 on 'supporting trans kids in schools' in the TES was illuminating from the pov that he was very clever at throwing enough "easter eggs" for women trying to challenge the shit show, eg transgender trend and single sex changing at school, whilst still thoroughly undermining safeguarding via everything else he advised.

It was a clever way to make schools even more affirming.

There are any number of reasons that people may think it's best overall to observe preferred pronouns. They may not see the fetish aspect in the same way, for one thing - Blanchard for example thought that AGP caused a kind of real dysphoria, at least sometimes, and from that POV using female trappings in public isn't necessarily directly sexual. So anyone who thought that way would not have the same concerns about fetishistic behaviour in public. Plus - not all transwomen are AGP types, and it's not necessarily always possible, or desirable, to ask.

But it can also be a matter of being socially pragmatic, ie compromising with dominant social norms in certain settings - lots of people do this at work - or having limits on where and to what degree they are willing to question people's motives. These can even be compatible with a view that the use of preferred pronouns should become non-normative.

People can see these things somewhat differently, be coming from different sets of experiences, be in different kinds of settings or environments, or weight the importance of some elements more than others. All of which can lead to different decisions about how they will respond in social situations, or work situations, on message boards or philosophical or political situations, or with different specific individuals.

Responding to, reasonable people may disagree with "this is why my view is the only correct one and you are a fool" misses the point.

Exactly frood

It seems that we are now being sold a sanitized version of AGP. This was the entire point of the book.

It was a clever way to make schools even more affirming.

....Whilst giving an appearance of being on the side of the feminists and parents.

In reality, when you read it, it's really pro transition for children.

There's an interesting thread on here about male sexuality with an illuminating post about "hiccups"
It's changed my cynicism about AGP anyway

@WarriorN Don't agree with that commentary at all, firstly he was not fishing tights out at three it was more like five or six. I personally suspect that his memories at that age are skewed as are all of our childhood memories.

The book does not promote transition at all he clearly states that but for the internet he would not have got sucked in to it.

Secondly he states that the existence of reassignment surgery was in itself a draw and became an obsession, that drew him to it. Like a bug to a light.

But for the fact he could have it on the NHS he would not have gone there.

Thirdly he sought help, i checked he does not mention conversion therapy, his religious community were supportive.

I cannot get exorcised about teenagers wanking of over women's clothes.

The author of that post does not mention that he realised that he had some wiring issue, he was in love with his idealised self as a woman, he did not have an external affair he was the other woman.

Has anyone here actually read his book? It would be really useful to debate a book and the person it is about with people who have actually read his book.

the type I would term "GC Ultra"

You’re deploying the tired old “you’re wrong! “Karen” isn’t a misogynistic term of abuse designed to silence women and put them in their place! oh no! it’s just a handy, factually accurate, description of those nasty women over here…” argument.

But there’s certainly room for a discussion about which of these risk “the cause” being “fatally undermined”…

Does a) saying “I disagree with using ‘she’ for a male person” fatally undermine the cause?

Or does b) coining a term like “GC ultra” and using your profile and platform in the MSM to describe the women who don’t agree with you as “extremists” fatally undermine ‘the cause’?

On a side note, I’d have thought that arguing that/believing that “language can shape reality” was more a feature of the gender identity theory camp (hence TWAW) than the GC side of the argument. Whilst those concerned with safeguarding point out that “pronouns are rohypnol”.

Also, interesting to see accusations of a desire for individuals to be publicly shamed and alienated. I’m aware of KJK being on the receiving end of those sorts of manoeuvres from the group that’s been referred to on here as head girls / gentry left. But the camp that is really into shaming and alienating their targets are the gender identity campaigners.

Yep.

Yep.

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.

So not like a beachball that you are incapable of keeping under the sea, it's just loving yourself, not something so overwhelming you'd leave your whole family to pursue it, it's just loving yourself, not a fetish that is fed by by humiliation and sissy porn it's just loving yourself.

lol.

Karensalright

So having read the book, Karen, do you think it's okay for him to teach children dressed as a woman?

And should they be calling him Miss?

Does it seem less sexual than you originally thought, and therefore okay in that setting?

I read Julia Serano's book, 'Whipping Girl'. Serano writes that there is an erotic charge to identifying as a woman, and it's a masochistic one. Serano first began identifying as female at about eleven, standing in front of a mirror with a towel around the head. Serano denies being an AGP.

Are we now going to have the argument that ‘good’ AGP males with a paraphilia (at least one) should be accommodated with pronouns and access to a supply of being treated as a female person, and ‘bad’ AGP males with a paraphilia (at least one) are just a few ‘bad eggs’.

What a great PR job these male people are doing!

And I wonder why they're working so hard at it, and what the pay off is? From women. All these women. Reading the books and writing the articles and listening and understanding...

It's not as if men haven't written articles themselves, given the interviews and talked right here on MN and explained, sometimes unintentionally, what it's all about. If in doubt ask Tinsel or one of the other women who have lived with a partner and this fetish: they have very few illusions. Read up on sex addiction and look at the cross overs in behaviours. Taking it all at face value is probably not a great idea.

Yes frood. The acceptance of a sanitised version of this paraphilia, any paraphilia, is really quite concerning. The end goal is normalisation.

Which will be the next paraphilia to be this treatment ?

Exactly who benefits? All who benefit?

Hi @Datun yes i do because he has an awful lot of insight into himself and who he is.

In his book it is very much about the dangers of the internet and children’s susceptibility to gender ideology. He uses his own experience of being sucked in to the ideas of being wrong bodied to portray that and dedicates a chapter to the risk to children.

I don't really understand what some people want here. We cannot get rid of transexualism or insist it stays at home, what muddies the waters is TRA’s and gender ideology, and the massive loophole that they create for perverted predatory behaviour, thats what we kick back at.

And I wonder why they're working so hard at it, and what the pay off is? From women. All these women. Reading the books and writing the articles and listening and understanding...

The suggestion I've seen is that with the recent shift in the Overton window, certain prominent GCs have seen the opportunity to get back into the fold and hence advance their careers, if they can now appear suitably moderate and accommodating.