Statement on the gender critical movement and the far right

[hellotowel]

https://x.com/GCAntiFarRight/status/1823790909462602205

"We, the undersigned, are deeply disturbed that populist messages particularly targeting Muslims have gained traction among significant numbers of social media accounts associated with the gender critical movement."
Read and sign our statement below.
https://gcantifarright.wordpress.com/2024/08/13/statement-on-gc-movement-and-the-far-right/

The targets are the unidentified identifiable members of a movement that doesn’t exist. Wasn’t that clear?

There are 2 Lorelei's on Twitter that i'm aware of.

Which one is it?

@hatpinwoman on Twitter

A trial is to determine guilt, and is unnecessary if the defendant pleads guilty.

Thanks, Tinsel.

She used to write for the Radical Notion, didn't she? She must have had a falling out with JCJ.
Although i'm guessing that JCJ could start an argument in an empty room.

BackToLurk unfortunately not to me.

If the suggestion is that wanting to distance yourself from anti-Muslim, populist, far right discourse within the 'GC movement/players/FKW' is putting a target on the back of people who are happy to post/be associated with anti-Muslim, populist, far right elements, then I would say that the logic needs z but to be desired.

She explains what happened at the Radical Notion here:

https://x.com/hatpinwoman/status/1824936453324898568?s=46&t=PSGltfjrMyZmBtYq2-AVIQ

"The character limit on the throwaway GC letters account makes it impractical to reply there, but apparently Jane would like us to publicly discuss what happened at the Radical Notion. So I will now say my piece.

What actually happened was that the Gender Critical Disputes pamphlet was put together without collective consultation. When I read it, I had concerns about how Jane and the magazine would be impacted by publishing it. As well as the wider movement. We were, after all, close friends at the time.

So, I messaged her and we spoke on the phone about that.

She edited one article as a result. I still didn’t feel that I was going to be able to defend the pamphlet. I wasn’t on board with the arguments used or that method of tackling the internecine disputes. But I fully supported Jane in publishing what she saw fit anyway.

Around that time, I wrote a substack about the internecine disputes offering my own perspectives. I did not disavow or belittle the women at the magazine, who I had every respect for.

After my name was removed from the pamphlet, I assumed my friendship with Jane would continue because I thought we were allowed to follow our own principles.

I was mistaken.

At a subsequent meeting, I stood up in front of the RN team members who were present and said why I disagreed and why I thought women were upset. I also said that there should he processes in place to make sure no one at the magazine could put out anything out like that without whole group approval.

I thought, silly goose, that it went extraordinarily well.

The next day Jane rang me and told me that my substack article was a total betrayal (but also that she hadn’t read it). She said that the whole team felt betrayed by me and that there would have to be another meeting where they could go round and discuss just how betrayed they each felt.

I was pretty gutted. And even more so when I saw that I was being made into the villain, by her, at the magazine.

One friend of Jane, for example, said I was threatening the magazine. Another woman there told me that members had been told not to talk to me after I resigned and I had been described as crazy and out of touch with reality in the Slack channel.

I was quickly aware that I was being described as many things by Jane. Duplicitous, traitorous, and cowardly most of all.

Some of her friends outside of the magazine who barely knew me, understandably, supported her but that really wasn’t a very nice experience.

Neither was knowing that horrible things were being said behind my back, that were also very unjust.

I didn’t say much on here, although I mentioned I was being lied about a couple of times when it was particularly brought to my attention. And when a new lie got it’s wings. Rumours about her boyfriend, for example, were falsely attributed to me.

It didn’t seem particularly appropriate to discuss it all publicly when we are all so tired already. And when many people respect everyone involved and don’t need to feel like they need to take sides. (You still don’t need to by the way).

I’ve even had someone reach out to say they were told off for liking unrelated things I’ve posted.

Apparently it was disloyal to still associate with me.

So, you can make of this what you will, but I will not be covertly bullied by this woman.

I won’t speak on this again, either because personal issues like this are necessarily quite divisive”

👍🏻 Thank you.

My sentiments exactly.

Yes, that account that Lorelei provides reveals exactly who Lorelei is - a person who hops into every single dispute with maximum drama and complete self-absorption

I don't recognise this characterisation of her at all.

How many degrees of separation is acceptable for the guilt by association crowd?
Astonishing how few of you were prepared to say anything earlier, when you had to do it on your own.

@BackToLurk 11:09

! 🙃

“By hunk” for believe seems rather good, like some old Viking/English word carrying poetic emphasis and suggesting weighty thoughts.

"How dare you speak up about a problem that you've seen, why can't you be kind and shut up, don't you know you're making us unsafe, what even is far right wing anyway."

"How dare you speak up about a problem that you've seen, why can't you be kind and shut up, don't you know you're making us unsafe, what even is a woman anyway."

Same playbook as the TRAs. Deny, deflect, distract.

I don't recognise this characterisation of her at all.

Me neither. She's very principled.

Well, yes - writing open letters demonising specific unnamed women is indeed the same playbook as the TRAs. Finally someone gets it.

Lorelei’s letter is so calm in comparison to the pointy character of the first letter, which is a proper denouncement.

If they are very vocal, stop presuming and get knowing. They are saying something, shouting it even and you are still presuming what it is.

Though for those of us who went to all girls schools it does encapsulate a certain 'something' that most would be familiar with.

The way people associate and group themselves together; the roles or positions they assume.......it's all the stuff of standard social psychology and group interaction/politics.

Her letter was lots of repetition of “prove it”. But of course if specific tweets were shared or people were named, the accusation would be “you’re painting targets on people’s backs”.

Those who have made a career out of being a professional or academic feminists have a lot invested in how their 'positions' are perceived or understood; likewise those with firm political allegiances of the party political kind...which is is why MPs such as Rosie Duffield signed that letter, I assume.

I don't personally think Owen jones is a " misogynist". I simply think he's so far gone down the rabbit hole of far Left/progressive thinking that he cannot tell his arse from his elbow. He's typically sanctimonious and full of hs own moral virtue, whereas 'misogynist' suggests an active campaign of hatred.

Throwing around labels such as 'racist' or 'misogynist' does not represent a very sophisticated analysis of anything and it serves only to further alienate people.

For a long time, Owen has thought that women are utterly irrelevant.
He's the living embodiment of bro's before hoe's.

That sort of misogyny can be rife among gay men.

And mine

There isn't really a 'movement' ....what there is is a increasingly large number of people waking up to the impact of trans ieology and genderism. People from all backgrounds and persuasions; some with long histories of political activism, and some who have never really strongly aligned in any particular way before.