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

This may be true. But it means abandoning the no sexual fetish at work argument.

Because if they're still wearing the clothes for thrills even when you're calling them he and they're using the gents, you still have the fetish at work issue.

I'm not sure about that.

If both having cosmetic breast surgery for personal satisfaction I'm not sure the fact you already have breasts makes a difference.

And if they're taking hormones they may argue they have some breast tissue to build on.

Anyway you'd first need an organisation which had a policy of no fake breasts for men and I can't see that happening anytime soon.

No one is even campaigning for that.

So we're stuck with Brenda and his tits and fetish.

Except they never call themselves Brenda... more likely stuck with Roxy and her tits and her fetish.

Janice Turner said in her article on Saturday some GC feminists must want to repeal the equality act and it got me thinking.
Is this true?
Is this the only way to address transvestism at work?
Is that likely to be a winning campaign with the general public.

Did JT make an accurate statement?

There are arguments for repealing the GRA 2004.

I've somehow missed anyone arguing for the repeal of EqA 2010. Has that happened on MN? In which case, I missed the threads (apologies).

I think it was a supposition not a suggestion it's been argued for.
I'd need to check her wording.

But it got me thinking.

Even if you repeal the GRA the EA would still protect transvestism at work.

I get what you mean. I agree it is ‘difficult’ now with males using hormones. But that is my point.

Those male people have artificially created those breasts unless they had a significant medical condition which was diagnosed as forming those breasts. The grey area has been created.

However, it is not hard to define. Providing the law was clear about sex not being able to be changed.

This was once thin edge of the wedge stuff. It is now not and therefore discussion on it is needed. For me, we are stuck in a situation where you have Stella O’Malley declaring sexual boundaries be dropped enough to allow people to be dressing for a sexual ‘charge’ while teaching children. And that this is part of a liberal society.

And we wonder why our children are now suffering being in a hyper sexualised society. Look at the extreme result of when France had Foucault and buddies activate to lower the age of consent.

Even if you repeal the GRA the EA would still protect transvestism at work.

I'm sure you've grounds for that but I don't recall them offhand so would need to consult EqA 2010 again.

I agree. And while we have this culture and legal framework I think we are stuck with men performing their fetishes at work.

Malaga is right, transvestism is argued as a protected characteristic, it comes under gender reassignment under the equality act. This means that the employer must apply the same dress code rules for men and women.

Gender reassignment could be clearly defined to mean an actual act of gender reassignment rather than an expression of gender identity through dressing. I believe that this has also creeped in under 'stonewall' interpretation of the law rather than the original intention of the Equality Act. I remember back in 2010 there was debate in the legal profession about the meaning of gender reassignment and I don't think any one, at the time, would have thought it would include individuals like Pip Bunce or Eddie Izzard with boy and girl mode, or individuals with obviously fake prosthetic breasts.

So I think this could be addressed in an amendment of the act to set out clear definitions but I think we need to take care what we are arguing for. Obviously inappropriate dress could be dealt with under normal 'dress code' type policies in the work place.

My worry would be that arguing for this as well as single sex spaces will give fuel to activist who will say we are anti-trans rather than pro-women's rights.

For the time being we are stuck with erotic cross-dressers all over the place, and the law doesn't permit institutions to do anything about it as long as they look like Debbie Hayton and not Lily Savage.

Arguing that the law should change so that they are permitted to, is tantamount to saying that trans isn't really a thing. Because in the face off between sex and gender reassignment, sex is always more salient, except in the case of superficial appearance. If TWs can't change their appearance and are also treated as male for all other purposes then they are just men.

Which is what I believe. It appears I have reached the destination of my transphobia journey. 😱

Also what everyone else said whilst I was laboriously typing...

My worry would be that arguing for this as well as single sex spaces will give fuel to activist who will say we are anti-trans rather than pro-women's rights.

The difficulty with that is it doesn't take much for people to make that categorisation, does it. It's obviously still a meaningful phrase to some but it's in such inappropriate use and such a common calumny that it is more of an annoyance to me or an index of suspicion that somebody may be in a position of bad faith.

At least Stella has now been very clear. She is all for fetishes she sees as minor being accommodated as normal in society. Because she believes that is liberal.

Ok Stella. So just where then are the boundaries between acceptable sexual behaviour and not acceptable? Who has the power to adjudicate on that boundary? She posed the position as one of ‘harm’. And yet, she cannot see certain harms that others see clearly.

She is concerned about children, but cannot see the issue with the lowering of sexual boundaries of society that has been causing children distress and discomfort. There seems a disconnect here.

It may just be me but I'm getting to the point where we're expected to be across so many disciplines to have a rounded opinion that it's feeling like we need an online course and a couple of residential Summer Schools to bottom this out.

With the oceans of free time and resources we have to dedicate ourselves to that…

I felt the term sexual charge was very unfortunate. It's just not that.

Everyone finds dressing in certain ways gives them more confidence and certainty a lot of that is based on how they visually look, though also basic things like comfort and practicality are important.

There's always been ideas around power dressing for women, as women's clothing is so much more varied than men's and has controlled us in all sorts of ways.

Agp is different.

Having a dress code for men that doesn’t include feminine attire would be indirect discrimination on the basis of GR. You can indirectly discriminate against protected characteristics if you have an objective justification for doing so. Not requiring children to take part in a teacher’s sexual fetish would seem to me a good objective justification.

Just caught up with the discussion. Read Stella O’malley’s article she wrote yesterday. Which sums it up for me.

I think when it comes to transexual expressions in how they dress we do have to accept that. I cannot see that banning men in dresses from certain areas of public life is an achievable aim, nor would i want a law about what men or women ought to wear.

Our focus should be about appropriate behaviour towards others, that can be held in check and should be.

As it happens Hayton does not require that people call him she in school or anywhere else.

Using pro nouns is IMO silly and i don’t go along with it anywhere.

Not every transexual is a TRA. TRA’s are the enemy, if we achieve our key goals which i don’t need to describe here, TRA’s will be done for they can bugger of back to the internet from whence they came

The EQA has served us well in recent wins just needs the sex definition firming up to exclude trans people.

I can follow your argument and agree with you. AGP is singled out because its visible whereas the reality is there are plenty of men out there doing things with a sexual motivation and we just don't know about it.

Karen - I don't speak for anyone else but I reject being teamed into your "we" and "our". FWIW, I avoid the use of "enemy" in that context, and "exclude" seems odd.

Warrior you have just said what I thought while reading Stella’s substack.

I thought there is a huge fucking difference between feeling a charge because you are feeling confident and this flows to even wearing what you, personally, think will attract you someone’s sexual interest. Vs wearing something that arouses you. Or something that gets you the reaction that you then use for your wank fodder for later when the people giving you that reaction is just them being kind. And they may even be children.

But hey. I must be missing something because Stella sees little or no difference.

Agree- spot on

are you saying that the school allows students to use correct sex pronouns for Hayton?

I just read it too and I agree with her.
I think if you were to post about AIBU to ask why women wear decadent lingerie (I mean basques, suspender belts, tiny strappy bras etc) you'd get a lot of women saying they do it because it makes them feel sexy. Which is fine! We shouldn't be policing clothing choices.

In my version of GC I also think "gender" is nonsense and therefore people can wear what they like, it doesn't mean they've "changed sex".

Therefore in my version of GC men like DH are fine. What he wears is none of my business.

I do agree with overall dress codes and societally appropriate dressing, so people shouldn't be going out in BDSM gear for example (although it appears Kanye West and his girlfriend are trying to change that).

I personally can't get too het up about AGP. Men get aroused by things women do in public all the time. I got properly frottaged on the tube once, by a totally normal looking guy in a totally unremarkable looking suit. That was personally a lot more harmful than If I were around Debbie Hayton in a skirt.

Helleofabore and obviously when you are a lesbian you're not attracted to men. So the comparison simply doesn't work from that pov.

AGP is a heterosexual disorder

Re dressing up, I'm minded of how children are more confident when dressing as super heroes.

Society has always been very sexist and geared more towards male hero narratives.

@Helleofabore totally yes. Children should not be told to use pro nouns, and schools should be clear about who are male and female.