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

OP here, sorry to have turned this into a big thing but I'm glad the wise women of mumsnet are so clever on this topic and thank you for making it such an interesting discussion

And people are unsure why that might be pretty fricking offensive to someone like Kathleen Stock, who lost her employment and in some sense her vocation because she was unwilling to be other than truthful or morally upright, or really anyone that has stuck their neck out over this?

I think I've got it.

Debbie Hayton watches sissy porn, is a self-confessed autogynephile, has a porn fuelled idea that big breasts make women more important and was so consumed with the need to wear women's clothes, that he would have forgone his wife and family, in order to pursue transition.

But he's managed to confine the entire thing to evenings and weekends when he's on his own in his house. And the rest of the time it doesn't exist.

Or if it does, all men are sex mad bastards anyway, so what do you expect?

This actually really needs thinking through and is a deeper schism than has been considered I think. @Karensalright makes some good points which I've been trying to think through.

It's become an assumed mantra on here that: agp men are 'involving you in their fetish.' which just seems to mean enjoying thinking about what turns them on in public.

But if that involvement remains only in their heads how do we legislate for it?

Men think about women sexualy without their consent all the time.
Does being around men mean we are consenting to that?
It would seem the only solution to men and women being together publicly without involving women in men's sexual fantasies would be the hijab.

Yes it's icky and I wish we still had a culture with more restrictions around men's sexuality but that ship seems to have sailed.

It's not the same as a convicted paedophile around children. That isn't because the children are going to be harmed by their thoughts it's because they are a known potential danger to actually harming children.

I actually think that those types of equivalences are dangerously flirting with transphobia and that's the first time I've ever suggested that in 6 years on here.

It's also not like voyeurism as that is without your consent to be seen.

When you go out in public you are consenting to the fact you will be around people they will see you, they will be having all sorts of thoughts about you you can't control. As long as they act properly and within the law nothing you can do.
There is no thought police.
Or there is actually, but I don't want there to be.

I don't like this level of sexual display publicly that we've now got with agp, but we seem to have reached a point where we can't object socially, it's just clothes and his identity, and I really think we've stretched 'safeguarding' way beyond what it's able or is designed to do.

It's interesting that DH is seen as OK to be a teacher, but Kayla Lemieux isn't.

I'd say both are a fetish, but only one of them is seen as unacceptable.

I wonder at what (fake) breast size Kayla would be deemed acceptable.

Basically yes.

What are you saying? Men who watch grim porn and think about it at work need to be sacked?

Firstly we'd only get to sack the ones who at least admit to this thought crime.

The rest of them just deny it and carry on.

How is that better?

This is not solvable with legislation.

DH is targeted because he's admitted what the rest won't admit to but getting him cancelled won't solve the rest of them who can just deny the thoughts and nasty porn.

You can only judge on how people act or rely on them to admit to 'bad thoughts'. It's unworkable.

Honestly it's either the hijab or a return to socially enforced codes around men's clothes. The thought police is not an option.

I know which one seems more appealing to me.

That teacher was seen as acceptable.

But it raises the point: if men can have fake boobs now how big can their fake boobs be?

We've opened Pandora's box.

I don't like this level of sexual display publicly that we've now got with agp, but we seem to have reached a point where we can't object socially, it's just clothes and his identity, and I really think we've stretched 'safeguarding' way beyond what it's able or is designed to do

Is it "just clothes"? It looks like either fake breasts or breasts induced on a man by artificial hormones. That's way beyond someone choosing slightly unusual clothing and keeping their sexual ideas to themselves.

And I don't think schoolchildren or adults should expected to play along with a man pretending he's a woman.

Not all these guys wear comedy breasts though. Some have fairly normal sized implants or hormonally induced.

I mean - this used to be part of basic moral religious teaching in the west. You aren't supposed to think about other people besides your spouse sexually, and really you aren't meant to be having sexual fantasies or masturbating etc. And this was in part seen as respect for others and not objectifying them sexually.

But this was felt to be prudish and repressive, so then it was argued that it is ok to do this, not disrespectful, and none of anyone elses business.

I do kind of wonder about this combination of ideas when you add in consent to the mix - it's great and normal to have sexual fantasies, masturbation is normal and good etc -- and also that there is supposed to be some kind of consent involved with the person being thought about? How is that supposed to work?

That just seems bizarre and it's surely not just a male thing. There are millions of girls who had Mick Jagger or Justin Bieber or whomever on their wall and I am quite sure they were not all thinking about going out for a burger and a coke with them.

I don't think schoolchildren or adults should expected to play along with a man pretending he's a woman.

Neither do I. The majority of posts in this thread are yet another take on "I'm not transphobic". It's pointless: it's transphobic to question anything a "trans" person or their acolyte says or does; there's no safe position here; no reasonable compromise.

I do think men should be able to wear skirts and pink jumpers if they want to, with fake breasts if they insist. Since it wouldn't be acceptable for a female teacher to showcase her Z-cups and nipple detail in school, it isn't for Kayla Lemieux either.

No matter what they wear or do to their bodies, adult male humans are men. No fashion choice or pronoun can change that, and pussyfooting round the edges of this important fact makes people look stupid.

Oh yeah, you're right, how could I have been so blind.

Putting a popstar poster on your wall is exactly the same as involving teenagers in your adult fetish while they're in school.

@ResisterRex exactly ! Imagine if this person was female ? Remember the female teacher in Scotland caught on Only Fans ? She was very quickly dismissed ( and quite rightly i.m.o. ) This is how we know sex can't be changed !! And neither does male priviledge !!! The safeguarding of children however , falls by the wayside , well because .... stunning and brave ....

After reading the discussion on this thread, I think DJ Lippy makes an interesting point:

https://x.com/terfasaurus/status/1756714230613483695?s=20

'Is it just me or does it feel like the GC lite position has been reverse engineered? The deals were done long ago and they've been attempting to manufacture our consent ever since. Now the time comes to pay the piper and they're empty handed. We do not comply.'

Oh come on. You aren't a fool, why not engage with the argument rather than building up a straw man. No one is equating them.

The question Malaga has put out there is what exactly do we mean when we say that someone else has been "involved" in a fetish without their consent, when it only means interacting with them in a seemingly non-sexual way?

In general, we have no idea how people are thinking about us at any given time, or what they go home and think about. I don't imagine any of us are in doubt that people, in their minds, treat other human beings as sexual objects as part of their fantasy life.

Do we think that is ok? Quite a lot would say it is totally fine, but there are those who would say that involves a non-consentual sexualization of others, and tends to reduce them to being sexual objects.

So with these AGP men - is the issue fundamentally that they are using their interactions with women for sexual wank fodder? because if so, that presumably applies at a moral level to anyone who does the same thing even if they are not wearing a dress. If they chat with you over coffee and go home and use it as fantasy fodder, that wouldn't be any different.

The other possibility is that it's because they are dressing up in a way that's not socially usual, it becomes evident to the woman in the interaction that it may become sexualized later, in the person's mind. So the problematic involvement in that case isn't having a fantasy about someone else, it's about them being aware of it.

That seems plausible too, that is the kind of thing that gives people the creeps. But it does create a situation where , in order to control it socially, we would have to be able to assess the motive. We know DH is AGP. But in a general interaction, we might not be able to tell. The transwoman I most often interact with is the old gay male type - quite a different motivation. Then there are also the men who might wear dresses, as we have been told is a thing here in threads before, for fashion, or just to be edgy. It won't always be clear which of these a person is without interacting and speaking to them a bit.

It would still be possible to have some social norms around this, but maybe less clear where they were being broken.

But I think if we are going to follow the argument that it's the using people non-consensually in sexual fantasy that is the real ethical issue, it's something that goes well beyond trans ideology.

My main point though, was that we previously had ethical teachings that promoted not reducing people to sexual objects, even mentally, even in a limited way. We've abandoned those and it's maybe not surprising that this has repercussions for what is seen as ok social behaviour.

It's about the trappings of their fetish being publicly displayed to non consenting participants. For cross dressers, that tends to mean things like female coded clothes of a revealing and sexual nature, and large fake breasts. For others, it's nappies, fursuits and slave collars.

There are a lot of interesting and good discussions to be found happening on Twitter among ordinary people who have opinions on what’s been happening in the GC public sphere; it’s not fair (as Doyle, Turner, Linehan et al are doing) to characterise receiving a large number of (anonymous) disagreements as being a sign of extremism taking root.

As an example, this is another interesting view I found on Twitter:

https://x.com/serialsockthief/status/1756614593659498692?s=20

'The anon thing is odd. Before personal brand building on socials became such a big thing it wasn’t unusual at all not to use your own name. People who know me in RL know my name, using it would add nothing to what I say or do here. I have no brand to build and nothing to sell…

And I’ll start taking these moans about anons seriously when the people doing the moaning ditch their anon followers (likely the vast majority of their list) and reject the engagement power that anons provide them with.'

I can't take your post seriously, when you're pretending that we don't know what a paraphilia is.

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.

If wearing the clothes isn't sexy for autogynephiles, then they can just not do it.

Job done.

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

Can I just pick up on this point.

You can have the argument about the sexual element as it's relevant but I also think there's the crucial point about the 'love of oneself' here too.

My point is this is the love of oneself (in any form) taken to the extreme, without regards to the cost to anyone else.

Here we have an example where it was apparently 'uncontrollable', yet simultaneously surgery was apparently only carried out because it was available...

Alarm bells should be ringing at this point in terms of enablement and self confessed apparent inability to self control. It's inconsistent and it doesn't make sense. Not really. Except it does if you understand this is all about manipulating the narrative.

Who would do such a thing? Why?

Narcissism is extreme self-involvement to the degree that it makes a person ignore the needs of those around them. While everyone may show occasional narcissistic behavior, true narcissists frequently disregard others or their feelings. They also do not understand the effect that their behavior has on other people.

Hmmm.

It’s important to note that narcissism is a trait, but it can also be a part of a larger personality disorder. Not every narcissist has narcissistic personality disorder (NPD), as narcissism is a spectrum. People who are at the highest end of the spectrum are those that are classified as NPD, but others, still with narcissistic traits, may fall on the lower end of the narcissistic spectrum.

Hmmm.

People who show signs of narcissism can often be very charming and charismatic. They often don’t show negative behavior right away, especially in relationships. People who show narcissism often like to surround themselves with people who feed into their ego. They build relationships to reinforce their ideas about themselves, even if these relationships are superficial.

Hmmm.

There are two types of narcissism that narcissistic behavior can fall under. The two types can have common traits but come from different childhood experiences. The two types also dictate the different ways people will behave in relationships.

Grandiose Narcissism
People with this behavior were most likely treated as if they were superior or above others during childhood. These expectations can follow them as they become adults. They tend to brag and be elitist.

Those with grandiose narcissism are aggressive, dominant, and exaggerate their importance. They are very self-confident and aren’t sensitive.

Vulnerable Narcissism
This behavior is usually the result of childhood neglect or abuse. People with this behavior are much more sensitive. Narcissistic behavior helps to protect them against feeling inadequate. Even though they go between feeling inferior and superior to others, they feel offended or anxious when others don’t treat them as if they’re special.

Interesting. Two groups of narcissists you say. Both have the same problem but actually it out in different ways. One aggressive, one that seeks out 'special' status.

Signs of Narcissism
Narcissism is still being studied and explored, since many narcissists and people with narcissistic personality disorder don’t seek treatment. But there are some common traits of people with narcissistic behavior that you may be able to spot.

Sense of Entitlement
A common sign of people with narcissism is the belief that they are superior to others and deserve special treatment. They believe that others should be obedient to their wishes and that the rules don’t apply to them.

Manipulative Behavior
Another common trait of narcissism is manipulative or controlling behavior. A narcissist will at first try to please you and impress you, but eventually, their own needs will always come first.

When relating to other people, narcissists will try to keep people at a certain distance in order to maintain control. They may even exploit others to gain something for themselves.

Uh huh. Right. Interesting. Special treatment and manipulative behaviour you say. First trying to impress, but also putting their own desire for special treatment first.

Need for Admiration
One of the most common signs of a narcissist is a constant need for praise or admiration. People with this behavior need to feel validation from others and often brag or exaggerate their accomplishments for recognition. They also like to feel appreciated to boost their ego.

Lack of Empathy
Lack of empathy is another sign of narcissism. This means that the narcissist is unwilling or unable to empathize with the needs, wants, or feelings of other people. This also makes it difficult for them to take responsibility for their own behavior.

Arrogance
People with narcissistic behavior already see themselves as superior to others, so they may become rude or abusive when they don’t receive the treatment they think they deserve. While they hold themselves superior, they may speak or act rudely toward those that they deem are inferior.

Other signs include:
A sense of self-importance, exaggerating their achievements and talents
A preoccupation with fantasies of success, power, or brilliance
A belief that they're more special or unique than others and should only associate with other high-status people
Envy of others or the belief that others are envious of them
Insisting they have the best of everything
Feeling they deserve privileges and special treatment

Hmm. Fascinating.

How to Deal with a Narcissist
With the right treatment, some narcissists can learn how to recognize their behavior. This can improve their lives and the lives of those around them. But narcissists often don't seek help because it doesn’t fit the image they have of themselves. They may need encouragement to get professional help.

If you’re in a relationship with a narcissist, you may be able to change your dynamic in the relationship. It may be possible to change the way your partner looks at you to help lessen the effects of their narcissistic behavior.

If you're in a relationship with a narcissist, try these steps:

Educate yourself. Find out more about the disorder. It can help you understand the narcissist’s strengths and weaknesses and learn how to handle them better. Knowing who they are may also allow you to accept the situation for what it is and have realistic expectations.

Create boundaries. Be clear about your boundaries. It may upset or disappoint the narcissist, but that’s OK. Remember, it’s not your job to control that person’s emotions.

Speak up for yourself. When you need something, be clear and concise.

Watch your wording. Narcissists don’t take constructive criticism well. Try to make comments in careful, positive ways.

Stay calm. Try not to react if they try to pick a fight or gaslight you (making you doubt your own reality). If they lash out, think of them as a 3-year-old who feels rejected because their parent sets a bedtime.

Create a support system. Living with a narcissist can lead to feelings of insecurity, confusion, and self-doubt. Make sure you have a core group of people in your life to support you,.

Bring in a counselor. Therapy won’t cure your partner’s narcissism, but it may help you work certain things out. A counselor can show you ways to approach problem-solving with the narcissist.

You mean like MN and women getting together to reassure other women that it's ok to have boundaries and say no? Ooh. That's something.

Certain things may trigger problems with a narcissist. It's best to not to:

Argue or confront. Try to not confront a narcissist directly. As difficult as it may be to constantly tiptoe around them, it can be better to manage their need to feel in charge.

Direct them. Narcissists like to have control and often fear losing it. Efforts to lead or instruct them will often fail.

Expect them to see your point of view. Narcissists don’t like to admit when they’re wrong or that they’re unlovable, so trying to make them see things your way could backfire.

Expect deep, meaningful communication. Narcissists have very little empathy, so honest, heartfelt communication often doesn’t get through and can even create an angry outburst or shutdown response,.

Go over past issues. Don’t try to make them see a long line of behavior dating back years – or how they’re just like their father, for example. Instead, stay in the present when you express requests or hurt feelings.

All this sounds somewhat familiar too.

People with narcissistic personality disorder usually don’t change, so keep that in mind. Even if you learn to manage your relationship better, it probably won’t ever be a healthy relationship.

Do you think it's possible for these so called GC Lite to possibly be in an unhealthy relationship here?

My point here, is that the sexual element aside, we are still seeing extreme narcissistic behaviour that shouldn't be indulged and is highly problematic. And yet we have a bunch of people saying 'oh but they are lovely'.

Let's play devil's advocate here: If there were a narcissist element to transitioning that you'd see two groups: one which was aggressive and confrontational and one that was highly manipulative and feigned empathy but acted in practice to further their own agenda with no real regard to others despite their words. And they'd be very good at justification, excuses and deflection. But when asked certain questions directly wouldn't like it very much.

Does anyone else see the problem here? Like hello. Wakey wakey.

Source: www.webmd.com/mental-health/narcissism-symptoms-signs

Datun you are not interacting with the argument.

You are pretending this is simple when it's not.
You have reduced your argument to a few simplistic statements which seem logical but where they implementation in the real world is going to be very very complex.

Firstly because we no longer have the social codes which allowed us to restrict sexual display we found creepy, but also because we now have legislation which protects it.

I'm certainly not saying it's fine for transvestites to dress up for work. I don't. But in the current culture and the current legal framework I don't see how it can be stopped. And Im not seeing anyone really engaging with that difficulty.

The 'Lites' don't seem to want to stop it and the 'Ultras' seem to be stuck on a merry go round of stating: it's a fetish without my consent, Safeguarding!!!!

Without explaining how a man, who says he's a man, who is wearing normal clothes, but may think about sex at work but who behaves in appropriate ways can be identified as a fetishist unless he tells you.
So what do we do when it feels uncomfortable but we don't know?

And how are we going to explain that this is safeguarding. When this man never engages in anything sexual except thought? It's not enough to keep just stating safeguarding. It's becoming meaningless the way this is happening, and worse than that I think it's undermining the concept, when it feels like it's repeated without substance.

If you want to win this argument and get agp men out of the workplace or even just schools explain how. Taking into account the current culture and legislation.
I'm genuinely spending time trying to work this out and I'm here a lot so imagine how this is going to fly with the general public.

It's going to sound like unsubstantiated transphobia unless the argument and the links to safeguarding are made very clearly. And I don't think they are being.

Yes I see the problem. I just don't see a solution.

With the other aspects of the GC movement there have been very clear aims with very strong arguments that appealed to the general public once they could be shared. They make immediate sense, because they are instinctively true to nearly everyone and they have clear legal solutions. Such as HR law, school guidance, changing medical pathway etc.

JKR roused people to consciousness on this by saying: wear what you want

That seems instinctively true as liberal and right to people.

So to now argue: but not you. Yes they may be normal clothes for other people but we think we know what you're thinking and we don't like it. Isn't going to easily win the day.
And I can't see what the goal is.

Also, anyone else spotting flying monkeys about, doing the job of the narcissist for them?

Odd isn't it?

Flying monkey is a popular psychology term that refers to an enabler of a highly narcissistic person or someone with narcissistic personality disorder (NPD). A flying monkey is an agent who acts on their behalf.

What are the main types of flying monkeys?
There are usually two main types of flying monkeys in a narcissistic person’s orbit. These are:

The benevolent enabler, and The malevolent enabler

The benevolent enabler
A benevolent flying monkey is someone with a sociotropic nature that makes them an easy target for manipulators. Sociotrophic individuals suffer from the so-called “disease to please,” which means that they tend to put the needs of others ahead of theirs.

Often they unwittingly aid and abet a narcissistic person’s campaign of emotional abuse because predatory manipulators are quick to sniff out a sociotropic person’s powerful longing for external validation.

Benevolent flying monkeys are not consciously trying to cause harm. A benevolent flying monkey is likely to have been subjected to the narcissistic person’s love-bombing and gaslighting tactics. They are usually acting in good faith based on the narcissist’s persuasive vilification of the person they’ve targeted for abuse.

The malevolent enabler
A malevolent flying monkey is misanthropic in nature. They are bad faith actors who knowingly participate in narcissistic abuse because inflicting harm on others gives them a sense of power. Malevolent flying monkeys tend to identify with highly narcissistic people and NPDs because they are equally narcissistic in their own right. They usually share the same attitudes and beliefs and feel a sense of belonging in the narcissistic person or NPDs in-group.

Because a malevolent flying monkey is morally bankrupt, it doesn’t matter who is right or wrong. In fact, they are usually fully aware that an injustice is taking place. However, these types relish an opportunity to deny dignity and justice to someone who they feel is “not like them.”

Malevolent flying monkeys function as gatekeepers. Often they are foot soldiers of a larger system of oppression, i.e. sexism, racism, etc. and they engage in the conflict for the sole purpose of protecting a hierarchy that serves them.

The answer to narcissism is repeated use of the word "no".

I think there is still an inherent need for a lot of women to demonstrate they 'accept trans-people' in the face of all the screams of transphobia. Accepting trans people does not necessarily include being willing to comply with demands for pronouns or seeing some cases as 'genuine' versus others that are not. Being Gender Critical doesn't mean you are not still socially conditioned to default to 'being kind'. And I do think we are seeing an exploitation of this - which in turn acts to vilify women perceived to not be being kind - they are the evil ones once again of course.

At this point, my question here starts to be, is trans an issue with gender primarily or is there a bigger issue with narcissism going on?

If it's the latter it totally reframes everything on the subject and whether anything should be enabled.

I will park that thought there for you all and pose the question: are you being a flying monkey?

Good job done with that book and the publicity for it huh?

Well you can wear what clothes you like.

That's a bit different to donning a pair of fake tits too and expecting everyone to treat you along the lines of gendered stereotypes with it and campaiging for mixed sex toilets.

If you can't see the difference between the likes of David Bowie and Harry Styles compared to DH, I really can't help you.

This isn't rocket science. Don't try to pretend it is.

Saw that too. Not dissimilar to this observation which I posted on another thread:

"🧵Let’s be clear, this article reveals that this was always about party political manoeuvres masquerading as a sophisticated, liberal ‘Third Way’. But it’s based upon multiple, obvs false premises…

Sex realists are not compelling anyone’s speech - they are expressing a value judgment. And so-called AGP is not a safe new identity to be courteous to according to whim, it’s a serious psychological disorder that we cannot afford to shape society and language around.

The article tellingly includes cheap digs at Sunak, when he undoubtedly has the better (if clunky) principle on sex realism.

The project was to offer Starmer and Labour a friendly ‘trans-lite’, AGP compromise, to solve his ridiculous 99.9% daftness, but it’s backfired terribly."

x.com/nosecretlessons/status/1756278920511443293?s=46&t=WHoOZ_3Kv5G6-FyQuvE0LQ

In another, much longer thread, I found this from a part of a long Kara Dansky gave me pause for thought:

"... If your goal is “Get rid of self-ID but let some people legally identify as the opposite sex because of hormones, surgery, etc.,” then I can see why “using opposite-sex pronouns is sometimes strategic” makes sense as an argument

That’s not my goal. My goal as a radical feminist (I do not call myself GC) is to protect the sex-based rights of women and girls and to stop the abolition of sex. I don’t think use of opposite-sex pronouns is ever strategic in accomplishing that particular goal..."

x.com/kdansky/status/1756757496268480588?s=46&t=WHoOZ_3Kv5G6-FyQuvE0LQ