The latest fallouts in GC world

[Pluvia]

My terfing energy has been focussed elsewhere in recent months and I haven't been here or on TwiX or social media much. Now I've taken responsibility for tweeting/ comms on behalf of a small but potentially significant LGB group and I discover that there seems to be something going on — another schism — in GC world. Jane Clare Jones's name seems to be coming up a lot. Something seems to have gone on but I can't work out what.

If it was my own account I'd just ignore, but the followers of this account are bringing it up and seem to expect an opinion to be expressed or a side to be taken. Also I'm seeing a lot about 'ultras' and 'lites', which is new to me. Can anyone enlighten me? I need to tread carefully.

Sometimes I think it's a good thing that even people on the same side disagree. It shows we are not just one brainwashed homogenous mass, which the other side often like to claim i.e. we are all far right or we are all nazis or, bizarrely, we are all practicing Christianity.

We're not. We are all individuals with varying degrees of desire or ability to tolerate fuckwittery.

Alison Donut, cheers. I knew all about the KJK history but it's useful to have a reminder. How did I miss the Janice Turner/ Hayton thing? I suppose Turner was only following in the Bindel/ WPUK footsteps, but it seems a huge lapse of judgment. How could she blow such a brilliant run of coverage with a massive mistake like that?

Something appears to have kicked off between JCJ and a couple of women who seem to have been former acolytes, which I alluded to above. I'm not going to go any further: the accusations are inflammatory and I'm not schooled enough to know whether they have any merit. The whole thing has an odd smell.

My problem is that I have a lot of GC academics among the followers of the account, and they are taking sides. Not helped by Andrew Doyle throwing in his twopennyworth. Now I have an idea what it's all about I'm clearer on what I'm dodging/ working around.

I've not had much time for JCJ since that Radical Notion hit-job on KJK and also (if my memory is correct) on Kara Dansky.

That said, I thought La Scapagliata's recent X thread about JCJ was rather selective with its quotes and its screenshots. I've no idea whether or not it was a fair summary / interpretation of what JCJ had written because quite frankly I'm 68 and life feels too short now to read JCJ. But it doesn't feel right to form a judgement about her without reading the original source so basically I'm side stepping that one.

I don't know what HatPinWoman has said since and I'm not sure I've got the energy to find out.

I'm more inclined to favour the tactic of chipping away at the GRA and rendering it toothless as opposed to pushing for repeal, which I think means I'm more in tune with the Sex Matters approach. But I'm perfectly happy for some groups to disagree on that and also open to changing my mind.

All my local terf spheres have had divisions, flounces and fallings out.

It's very sad. Mostly started during the gen election then got worse during the the riots, and since then people are policing each other so much debate has ground to a halt.

I don't think you have to get involved even if your followers do. You need to keep asking what your group's core mission is and work to serve that. Maybe a statement on the Wes Streeting puberty blockers ban (if not transing gay kids is part of your remit) It'll blow over in a week anyway.

Ppl very loyal to labour seem to want to there to be more allowances made around the idea of GD and true trans. For some reason it seems to be important to them. In some cases they are then labelling anyone outside that sphere as right wing.

On the other side, some "ultras" have included other political things in their activism around immigration etc. it's getting very messy.

Jean I admire as she's been reverse ferreting and become very single issue and bloody minded. 👏

My problem is that I have a lot of GC academics among the followers of the account, and they are taking sides

I'd sidestep it all to be honest. Just stick to the aims of the group that you represent. Yes one of JCJ's ex writers has gone 'Fuck this shit' and JCJ has responded with another gazillion tweets.

And then loads of other people joined the pile on.

As an LGB organisation you would naturally follow a wide range of people some of whom you agree with and some you don't and in order to get the widest range of inputs, ideas, issues and the current and emerging agendas, you will follow who is speaking for or against a particular thing, in this wide arena.

It’s gone quiet on here since the general election. The repeat-thread starter with three or four favourite topics, the main one being throwing mud at KJK, and a recognisable posting style acros name changes, appears to have disappeared.

😂😂😂😂

I always find it hard to disagree with anything Loriel says or LaScap. Alessandra is excellent and I find it hard to disagree with her. At the same time she has been a bit too personal with some people such as Michael Foran, which halts debate.

I noticed that too @LoobiJee. Mn has been very different too.

@PriOn1 Thanks, that is v helpful. I'm in the Ultra camp: set your boundaries really firmly in the knowledge that some people will always continue to try and get through. Try to meet in the middle and they'll steamroller over you. We tried being nice and reasonable in the early days and they decimated women's and lesbian space. No more of that.

There are various medical groups that are trying that approach to make themselves look reasonable, in the hope that it will allow movement in the direction they/we want, but “ultras” see potential problems with that approach, because you should never compromise yourself by saying things you don’t believe are true.

Familiar territory for me. I have a medical acquaintance in Can-Sg who would describe herself as firmly GC yet was arguing in the summer that we ought to be using female pronouns for Imane Khelif our of kindness and respect for someone with a DSD — even though she freely admitted that Khelif's team and the men around him clearly treated him as male and he was widely understood to be male and playing female for money.

Floisme, thank you. Yes, I found myself thinking I either had to commit a week to reading JCJ's thesis and doing the background research, or stand back and declare that I have no idea whether any of them is justified in their criticism. Like you, I decided I was too old and too tired to take it on.

“Ppl very loyal to labour seem to want to there to be more allowances made around the idea of GD and true trans. For some reason it seems to be important to them. In some cases they are then labelling anyone outside that sphere as right wing.”

I guess they need to cling on to a belief in GD and true trans to maintain their own self-image as good people.

Otherwise, they’d have to face up to the fact that the party they support has been energetically arguing and campaigning against women’s right to the privacy and dignity of single-sex female-only spaces, because the party they support think men’s demands for access to women in a state of undress is more important than women’s dignity. If they cling onto a belief in GD, they can tell themselves that the party they support was trying to support a vulnerable group harmless to women, but very sadly didn’t consider what might go wrong. It avoids them facing the reality that the party they support didn’t, and still doesn’t, care about women’s privacy and dignity.

That's a good description- behind it all is "getting Labour on side" which from what I've seen among local active Labour linked terfs is a driving factor behind viciously denouncing anyone who doesn't think there is some flexibility for some trans identified individuals. JT also seemed to suddenly get very behind Labour about a year ago which seemed to lead to the Hayton piece.

@LoobiJee from what I've seen it seems to be the only way to have their views seen as in any way acceptable within mainstream Labour ranks. They have to denounce other views and other people. It's been getting purity spiral ish.

“it seems to be the only way to have their views seen as in any way acceptable within mainstream Labour ranks”

That’s interesting - so they can’t say something like “I feel immensely sorry for anyone who has been indoctrinated into believing that there is such a thing as gender identity, that there’s a gender identity that makes you a women and another gender identity that makes you a man, and that females with a “man” gender identity should have their breasts amputated; but the reality is that none of those things are actually true, and - whilst individuals who are suffering from mental anguish should be able to access psychological support - we shouldn’t be creating government policy and legislation which claims that those things are true”?

Because saying any of that would show up the Labour party’s position over the last 20+ years as supportive of, and dominated by, external lobby groups’ nonsensical, unevidenced, sloganeering which has caused harm to countless vulnerable young people. Therefore it’s “something which should not be said”?

Sorry, don’t want to derail your thread pluvia

I feel very old-fashioned, in the sense that I don’t necessarily agree with everything the people I follow on SM say or do. I’m a Random with an ‘ology, and I don’t have the patience for purity spirals or mud-flinging: I’ve better things to do and I’ll make my own damn mind up about things.

I agree. I can't be arsed to try to avoid taking any particular side as much as possible.

If you're representing/organising an organisation, then it seems sensible to stay as neutral as you can.

My view is that I support any GCs who are making a difference, moving things forward, even if not all in exactly the same direction at the same time. I'm all for anyone working to smash up gender ideology.
The feuds are hard to miss but such a waste of time. I'd love it if they set out and pushed their positive vision. During the general election KJK spent most of her energy slagging off other GCs. What a waste.
The allegations from LaSCap seemed odd so I actually read the JCJ essay, which was surprisingly short! My view is that Lascap and co have horribly misrepresented it.
I was also very disappointed by JCJ and co with their awful letter, also aimed at defaming other GCs. Just stop.
I admire most of those people in part. But I don't follow any of the rabble rousers on X as their feuding is boring, pointless and seems obsessive.
I have most respect for those who keep above it and focus on the real goals: Sex Matters, For Women Scotland, WRN.

Yep. And when we're united on something as loose and expansive as the belief that sex is immutable and humans are dimorphically sexed mammals, it's hugely likely there will be bun fights disagreements.

@LoobiJee yes it doesn't make any sense to me either and it's only within the realm I've experienced. It's more linked to anyone liking KJK. It's a Labour heartland here. But tra style policing has begun to happen and people are leaving local grass roots groups originally set up to bring us outcast women together as a result.

Sorry if it's a derail but I see JCJ and WPUK in a similar position. These are the people that are being hailed by those with the biggest voices denouncing kjk.

For me you can't look at this through any other lens than safeguarding. For women, girls and children.

It tends to wash all the academic clap trap and ideological political fighting away.

The allegations from LaSCap seemed odd so I actually read the JCJ essay, which was surprisingly short!
Ah thanks for the tip @halfpastten - I should try and read it! As I've said, I'm no fan of JCJ's approach but LaScap's thread about her made me very uneasy.

Describing those who agree with JCJ as academics and others as randoms is inaccurate. I know it is a popular trope. KJK is considerably more educated and ricker than I am and I support JCJ.

And it is not calling people right wing. It is disagreements about working with organisations like Heritage Foundation or retweeting Tommy Robinson.