Smearing opponents as “far right” is a well-known leftist tactic. Transactivists, for example, have had great success with smearing women (many of whom are life-long leftists too) as “Nazis” and “bigots”, for simply pointing out that men are not women and asking men to stop demanding access to female-only spaces. 

Gender-critical (GC) circles haven’t been immune from this dynamic either. Talking about Asian grooming and rape gangs, appearing on right-wing platforms to talk about women’s issues, and even standing in the vicinity of someone later identified as being far right, have all been used as “proof” by certain GC leftists, that their fellow activists are “racist” and “far right” too. Once accused, various demands are made, ranging from policing the target’s associations, public denouncements and even calls for their expulsion.

With all due respect to anyone’s ideological feelings, it always seemed like a bizarre own goal, in a movement full of disenfranchised women, to give credence to false accusations of “far right”, especially when the basis for such accusations is flimsy, if not entirely absent. Why is anyone even bothering with such nonsense? We have a common goal, don’t we? I used to believe so, but now I’m not so sure.

What is now referred to as the “GC movement” is the continuation of the enduring feminist critique of transsexualism. This is what TERF stands for – Trans Exclusionary Radical Feminist – because for decades, radical feminists have been the main critics of the practice of transsexualism and the safeguarding failures associated with men gaining access to female-only spaces. As the modern concept of transgenderism further de-regulated the medical, legal and societal safeguards around transsexualism, it effectively demolished sex-based rights and protections for women, and caused a massive expansion of “sex change” industries, particularly toward children. 

In the new millennium, the resistance to this phenomenon coalesced around the following objectives:

1. Reinstate sex-based rights, and female-only spaces and services, for women and girls.
2. End harmful medical and surgical “gender/sex change” experiments on children and vulnerable adults.
3. To achieve this, use clear, sex-accurate language, and focus on repealing the laws and policies which entrench sex falsification.

Due to the censorship and persecution of anyone critical of transgenderism, articulating these objectives and spreading awareness in the mainstream has been quite challenging. Up until just a few years ago, women who spoke out or even just used a sex-accurate pronoun for someone were regularly banned from social media and online platforms, and the risk to their jobs and reputations was high. But what was the alternative? Arguing that “she” didn’t belong in female sport, or that “she” should be housed in a male rather than female prison, makes no sense. Use the sex-accurate language – he – and the issue becomes a lot clearer.

In order to mitigate effects of this censorship, and perhaps to maintain their relationship with the Labour Party, some GC leftists teamed up with trans-identifying men who were willing to publicly state that they know they are biologically male. This worked to a mutual benefit. Trans-identifying men who were willing to promote the GC cause to any degree were quickly propelled to star status. They got speaking and writing gigs that most grassroots activists could only dream of. They enjoyed mainstream media opportunities, often ironically enabling the creation of “manels” (male-only panels) and displacing women from discussions pertaining to women’s rights. Most gratifyingly, perhaps, these men were not just accepted, they were treated as indispensable by the very women who fought against their demands. This enabled men who embraced both trans and GC identities, to set the red lines, which the “official” GC movement could not cross.

Some GC leftists benefitted too. Thanks to their association with (and some would say pandering to the demands of) trans-identifying men, they could rebuke false accusations of “transphobia”, and triangulate grassroots activists as “far right/adjacent/extremists”, in order to present themselves as the “reasonable alternative”. This worked to a point. While it helped them to gain a seat at the table – which undoubtedly advanced the GC cause – the compromises and red lines they espoused ultimately contributed to the reasons why basic rights and protection for women and children remained elusive.

As the GC activism gained momentum, and the consequences for speaking out diminished, the “GC community” grew exponentially. For the most part, the new supporters enriched and amplified the GC cause. Unfortunately, we have also seen a steady influx of grifters, bona fide right wingers, men’s rights activists, paraphiliacs, and their enablers, who sought to redefine our objectives to suit their agendas. To achieve this, they exploited the existing power dynamics and divisions in the GC movement, adopting the red lines set by trans-identifying men, gaining power and influence by doing so, and then using this to retaliate against criticism, by maligning grassroots women as “extremists” and “anonymous trolls”.

One can get embroiled in intellectual and academic discussions about optics and strategies, but at the end of the day, women and girls are still routinely accosted by males in what are meant to be female-only spaces, and we still have no legal recourse. We are still mobbed in our workplaces if we refuse to pretend that a man is a woman. Children are still being indoctrinated by the schools and the media to believe they were “born in the wrong body”, and they continue to be targeted for chemical castration and other “gender reassignment” interventions, albeit under the guise of “clinical trials”.

So, understandably, there’s been a growing disquiet in the GC circles. Unhelpful compromises – such as calling men “she”, claiming that laws enabling sex-falsification can’t or shouldn’t be repealed, advocating access to single-sex spaces and services based on physical appearance rather than sex, and maintaining “gender medicine” in some form – have all been pointed out as the likely reasons why, despite years of fundraising and activism, the GC movement wasn’t gaining much useful ground. Mixed messages, and arriving to the negotiation table with half of our objectives abandoned before the conversation even began, was never going to be a winning strategy.

Some have engaged with these criticisms in good faith. Others responded by coining the term “Ultra”, which is meant to convey something even more dangerous, scary and contagious, than “extremist”. I like to pronounce it in Brian Blessed’s best panto voice – “Ulltrrrraaaaa!” – but in reality, this new slur is thrown in women’s faces with the same kind of malice, and by the same kind of people, as “TERF”, “feminazi” and “far right”.

“Ultra” combines well with other epithets, so for example, a gay man can slur a woman who opposes surrogacy and child drag – or his own misogyny – as a “homophobic Ultra”. A male teacher who crossdresses in class and forces his pupils to call him “Miss”, or a man who impersonates a woman to gain career advantage, can dismiss women who criticise his actions, as “transphobic Ultras”. “Far-Right Ultra”. “Racist Ultra”. “Pearl-clutching Ultra”. The moment a woman is labelled in this way, she becomes a legitimate target for abuse within her own community. As anyone with an axe to grind joins in, the “cancel campaign” escalates, creating a chilling effect, where women are afraid to speak up, yet again.

In this sense, the creation of “Ultra” has facilitated coming together of grifters, anti-feminists and anyone in the GC movement who is antagonistic to the concept of safeguarding, regardless of where on the political spectrum they planted their flag. The leftist feminists, who have for years slandered other women as “far right”, can now comfortably join forces with the actual right-wing anti-feminist misogynists, free from fear of being confronted about their hypocrisy, because there is a larger, looming threat of the “Ultra” to address. 

The end result is a coercive control dynamic, which grassroots women can’t leave because they are not participants in it, they are the target.