Exulansic has reduced following?

Thanks for coming back to the thread and for your analysis, Langcleginspace.

The Genspect and GAWL connection has both been vehemently denied (on the previous thread, by someone I am guessing is a Genspect employee), and been listed as one of the 50 top achievements of Genspect. The youtube podcasts also provide a link to Genspect. It's instinctively wrong, for me, to have O'Malley's near fawning appreciation and admiration for the originators of the notion of males in female spaces as a form of therapeutic relief; conjoined with her work to help parents of children who are vulnerable to such men and their propaganda, which they transpose onto confused/distressed/non conforming youths as being the same condition as their own. The more I understand about Michael Bailey's utterances in particular, the more disturbed I am at the notion that anything he had advocated might influence Genspect's approach to helping children. I agree with Linea that they cannot have both the podcast and the org and expect to remain immune from criticism.

The schism has been created however, and the damage done. Women are now being told by Genspect's supporters that they are guests within their own movement, and told to force team with the sorts of men discussed at great length in the GAWL podcasts or be cast out. Alix Aharon of Gender Mapper made a sad video earlier (that's now disappeared) about how she feels pushed out of the GC movement by these people. A trans widow has talked of her near miss at being confronted by a roomful of people like her husband, when she was invited to a drinks event led by Genspect supporters. GC women asking safeguarding questions are attacked as pedophiles by Genspect employees. Personally, I would never support these people again.

The only other thing I have to say about that interview is about the characterisation of feminism as a sociological discipline as opposed to a psychological discipline.

Feminism is a political movement that fights to end the oppression of women and girls because of our sex. For as long as academia remains completely useless, we will continue to route around it.

I fully agree with your assessment langclegonmars. In particular, you have put your finger on something there. If they just did genspect OR just did daft genderfluid podcasts OR just counselled children, they would receive no criticism. It's exactly as you say: because they announce themselves as child psychotherapy practitioners in the area of gender that immediately calls for a particular standard of behaviour, and cavorting with AGPs and sexologists isn't it, nor is casually chatting about a 3/4 year old engaging in certain activities without having an aura of appropriate concern for safeguarding, or sitting there giggling while teenagers suffer the presence of their AGP father being filmed.

There's a weird harking back to the 1990's theme in the BB interview. Discussion of Stella's haircut (90's rockstar), then the case MB talked about which happened in the 1990's, and then this:

'If we all behaved well it would be fine. I would disagree with you, you would disagree with me, and we would't lose our minds. We could just disagree like ordinary thinking people in the 1990's.'

The 1990's were still the bad old days for safeguarding. We didn't even have CRB/DBS checks until 1997. The 90s were full of men who did not behave well at all but who were nevertheless accepted as 'ordinary thinking people' with whom we might just 'disagree'.

That's why peter tatchell among others.

Stella harks back to the 1990's when safeguarding wasn't really a thing. If you are 'gender curious' and you believe in freedom of expression and those are your only concerns then that's fine.

If you are a therapist who works with children and / or vulnerable adults then that is not fine because those should not be your only concerns.

If you are in a front line role then safeguarding comes first, before any political or philosophical discussion.

I think a lot of the problem is the lack of firm boundaries between genspect and wider lens, and between Stella and Sasha's clinical work and each of these projects.

I find Wider Lens an interesting podcast even when I strongly disagree with their guests. They upfront say they are 'gender curious' which is quite different from 'gender critical' and a very long way from feminism. I've never gone to their channel for feminism and that would be fine except that they are sponsored by genspect and both hosts plug their credentials as therapists who work with children at the beginning of every episode.

Genspect is supposed to support parents, and by extension their children. It presents itself as gender critical, not gender curious. It appears (belatedly) keen to present itself as an organisation that is on top of safeguarding, hence the evolving safeguarding policy. I don't think this is compatible with being so closely tied to wider lens, and the sexologist and AGP interviews. I don't see how it is possible to give space to the in-depth and remarkably uncritical platforming of discussions around adult men's sex rights, while at the same time presenting yourselves as a source of support for parents of extremely vulnerable children.

Aside from genspect and wider lens, I am concerned that Stella and Sasha both work with children and neither of them appear to understand safeguarding.

You're right of course. Sorry for the error!

They appointed a creepy pornographer to the board

Important correction - that was Gender Dysphoria Alliance, not Genspect.

Great analysis Langclegsinspace. I totally agree with everything you said.

Genspect, as a charity that works with the parents of extremely vulnerable and mentally ill children, requires a first-class culture of child safeguarding.
Several issues have made me doubt that that is the case.
1The simple naivity with which members have interviewed the sex researchers associated with vp. It is not necessary to meet these people to study any of their research which is of interest and value. This doesn't make me think they are p _s, but it does raise a red flag and it makes me feel disappointed that they have no idea how things look to others - and it's important how things look, this is a serious business were talking about, where children get damaged for life, you can't afford to f$#k about; and surprise that they don't seem to experience any revulsion at the thought of associating with people who support the vp site.They were part of a working group with them too. Pure idiocy.
2 The appalling programme where they visited Debbie Hayton's House. They showed a complete lack of empathy and insight into the dynamics of the situation in front of them, and children were present. They failed to have a serious attitude to a situation which was extremely serious for the children involved, and for Debbie's wife. 3The particular episode where the 3/4 year old child was masturbating in his mother's underwear: he had an AGP father and it was clearly a safeguarding issue, while they went along with a theory of inherited agp. 4They appointed a creepy pornographer to the board. 5_They are always hanging about with AGPs and seem to value these people, and these peoples' thoughts, more than the thoughts and opinions of the actual victims of behaviours they claim to stand against Taken together, these issues convince me that the organisation has no clue about safeguarding and wouldn't spot eg a child being transed for ulterior parental motives, rather than due to being hoodwinked purely by societal trends/friends/Internet.

Sean's post is exactly what I'm on about. It's a load of hyperbolic stuff about what a youtuber has said. It doesn't engage with what people are saying on this thread.

Langcleginspace if you have the energy or inclination for it, I would love to hear your analysis on the matter. Totally understand if you'd rather move on though.

I was going to move on but as the thread has been bumped ...

Near the beginning, Stella says something like, 'if you're putting the movement before personal integrity then you've lost your way'

I totally agree, but she does not recognise that some (not all) of the criticism of genspect is coming from exactly that place - personal integrity. Being an upstander, not a bystander.

There's an exchange at around 45:50, BB says something like - only if people share his best interests can he listen if they say he is wrong, so it's necessary to locate the good faith actors.

Stella says, 'I agree, but it's too tiring and distracting and pointless. It's a waste of time.'

This is exactly the point I have been making throughout this thread: This ego-driven tribalism is very bad for safeguarding because it stops people listening.

Stella has basically said she has stopped listening, there might be good faith actors but it's too tiring and distracting and a pointless waste of time to work out who they are, who the upstanders are, who is coming from a place of personal integrity.

One person who I 100% believe IS coming from that place is Claire, who made the video I posted above.

When discussing the MB interview, Stella expressed astonishment that Claire had made this video - 'believe it or not, a video was made!' (even aside from the safeguarding issues, why would anyone find this hard to believe? That's how YT works - people post videos and sometimes other people post videos in response )

She misrepresents MB's anecdote - she say's it was about a 5 y/o masturbating while wearing 'some sort of women's clothing'. In fact, MB talked about a 3-4 y/o masturbating while wearing his mother's underwear. This anecdote is similarly downplayed in the 'rebuttal'. I don't believe Stella hasn't listened back to what MB actually said, especially as she said this is one of the issues raised that really upset her. I can think of no good reason for this continual downplaying. MB's actual words are out there anyway.

Stella doesn't appear to understand what is meant by 'red flag'. She says a young child masturbating is not 'always' a red flag. She seems to think that red flag = abuse is definitely happening.

A red flag is a sign that abuse might be happening and it should always be taken seriously, at the very least noted, and if it's a big flag, or one of several, it should be investigated. A red flag does not mean abuse is always taking place but a red flag IS always a red flag. It should always be taken seriously even if it amounts to nothing in the end. This is how we keep children safe.

A 3-4 y/o who is putting on his mother's underwear and masturbating, and who has a father or an older brother who secretly cross-dresses for sexual reasons, is flying all the red flags and all the bunting.

Even if a predisposition for AGP turns out to be heritable, if we hear hooves, can we please keep an eye out for the horses, before we start searching for fascinating but elusive zebras? CSA within families is horribly, horribly common. I thought we all knew this by now.

We also all surely know by now that sexual cross-dressing is extremely common in men with all sorts of abusive fetishes. If you think you've found a zebra that's even more of a reason to keep an eye out for the horses.

No-one sensible expects Stella to get in a time machine and safeguard a child in the 1990's. Quite a few sensible people think she should do what she can to safeguard children now (as we all should) and not let glaring red flags pass without comment on her channel.

Publicly broadcasting something and then insisting on only private feedback - denouncing people who publicly respond - is totally unreasonable. The Bailey interview has 1400 views on YT (I think it's also on other platforms?)

The priority must be to inform all parents that a child behaving like this is quite likely being abused - so if their own child is behaving like this, parents can safeguard them now.

To the “I just wont to know why” crowd. Suggesting Genspect is suspect because it interviewed some people who had some questionable opinions is like trolling though the some journalists interviews because he interviewed Russia’s president Putin 10 years ago, thus suggesting the journalist is ok with the invasion of Ukraine. For gods sake people look at the extraordinary good things that Genspect has done over the Last year and Stella over the last 4 years. Get a grip, go do something positive yourself, get out from behind that armchair and actually contribute to the fight.
It has been for a long time a classic TRA tactic, throw out a smear, an accusation, then quote the smear (he has been accused of....). Discredit someone with some unfounded accusation and then refer to such person as "being discredited". You have to admire the tactic it certainly works, soon everyone is quoting the accusations and not what the victim actually does. Karen Davis has adopted these TRA tactics to a key, but one must ask why, Cui Bono, who benefits, this is an important investigative tool, Cui Bono? Well, the Trans Agender benefits, so does that mean the Karen Davis is a trans activist? Certainly, Genspect which has been in its short lifespan one of the most effective organisations in providing support to, providing facts figures and information to the besieged parents of trans indoctrinated children like ourselves. So attacking Genspect, Cui Bono? Karen Davis says, "are they being supported by Pritzker", next thing on mumsnet someone says, "well i just want to know where they get their money". Well, they get their money from donations from parents like me who have appreciated their help and support. If you want to support the fight against trans ideology then YOU too should support GENSPECT, and you should go do it now.

My head's in a whirl like yours LinearPark,

But I would say no, we don't have to agree on everything. Please don't beat yourself up too much about it all xx

Langcleginspace if you have the energy or inclination for it, I would love to hear your analysis on the matter. Totally understand if you'd rather move on though.

Linearpark, I've just seen what your deleted post referred to (on Lesley F's substack). What a disappointing way of conducting themselves from a bunch of people I used to admire. "We ARE the movement"??! Fucking hell, the arrogance.

Feminist Claire is wonderful. I would love to see her and Helen Staniland team up for a regular podcast.

Also see Rubble of Empires content over the last couple of days.

Yes, op. Really like Feminist Claire. Her 'Labour Losing Women' video is close to the bone. I would have veered towards Labour and Lib Dem previously. Wouldn't even dream of voting for them now. I do feel politically homeless; based on the Suffragettes advice of 'No self respecting woman should vote or work for the success of a party that ignores her sex^ (Susan B Anthony). I don't know who is the least worst option. To me, it appears they are trying to profess that a woman isn't even a real or proper classification. Just like the 'miscellaneous' line on the accounts ledger.

As an aside, I received greetings from offspring on International Women's day. Important women (to offspring) were mentioned. Quite tongue in cheek as I had to point out that our fabulous (but incorrigible) girl cat was not an adult human female. Maybe Keir Starmer meant it is something that shouldn't be said, it is not not right about only women have a cervix as other female mammals do too. Straw and grasp.

But I can't leave this thread without posting Claire's video in response to a short segment of the Bailey interview.

Stella O'Malley and Sasha Ayad have never acknowledged that a very young child, dressing in his mother's clothes and masturbating, is a serious safeguarding issue.

Instead, they choose to misrepresent these concerns and pretend that people are saying they should be responsible for what happened to a particular child several decades ago.

There are trolls. Genspect are being attacked. If they want any kind of credibility then they need to get a proper gip on safeguarding.

Iike KJK I am 100% on the side of parents and children. So safeguarding comes first.

@264MyShirt I watched the videos you linked.

I don't disagree with anything kjk said and I'm curious why you posted this in response to my post. If it was meant as a rebuttal to something I said then you need to be much more specific.

I have a lot of things I could say about Stella O'Malley's interview with Benjamin Boyce. Happy to discuss this tomorrow if anyone's still interested.

Or we could all decide to ignore ALL the raging egos and focus on things like the interim Cass report, Scottish GRA bill, MF's employment tribunal or anything else that's important long term for women's rights or for child safeguarding.

You are not alone.

I have said what I have said on this thread about exulansic's views about people with DSD. I have also said what I have said about genspect. I stand by everything I have said and I am in nobody's tribe.

I agree with most of what you say here.

This ego-driven tribalism is very bad for safeguarding and I include ALL the big egos on various 'sides' in that.

It's bad for safeguarding because it stops people listening.

It does not seem possible to raise valid safeguarding concerns without being automatically lumped in with people who think genspect is a paedophile network (WTF??), or with people who think that those with CAIS should be treated as men (also WTF??)

Those who don't understand why this is an issue obviously don't undertand the recent history of terrible safeguarding failures we have had in the UK.

Lots more to say tomorrow if anyone still has the energy to continue this thread.

ps. LinearPark - I like children's organisations to be squeaky clean

I am sure we can all agree with you there.

However, Genspect is NOT a "children's organisation".

Please see previous posts on this subject.

I suspect that you are "confused" because you are ignoring all the explanations and information that has already been posted in this thread and by Genspect itself in its "Rebuttal":

genspect.org/genspect-rebuttal/

4_ I'll probably think of more questions later

The Rebuttal includes this paragraph:

"While we hope to provide a comprehensive response, there may be something we miss: if so, please let us know by speaking with us directly. We are open to dialogue, as all people in our movement should be. What we are not open to is the TRA-style behaviour of the hit-piece, which demonstrates nothing but bad faith. Social media is a fraught place; as we take ourselves and our work seriously, we have requested that people email us with any concerns they might have. This has become, however, our first “crime”: requesting emails rather than accusations made on social media. To date, we’ve received eight genuinely concerned emails and we’ve answered them. We believe that social media creates a strange environment which supports petty gossip and where discussion can become heightened. We continue to believe that anyone with concerns should email us first. We would urge you to consider what kind of person would speak about you, rather than to you, if he or she had concerns about you, particularly if the language used was laced with invective and ad hominem."

Your fellow Mumsnetters can only respond by posting our own thoughts and views.

However, if you want answers to questions about Genspect, there is an open invitation to contact Genspect to ask them directly.

In the meantime,

• please stop pretending that no one has covered these issues

• please stop repeating misinformation that has already been debunked in this thread.

Have you read what has been posted in this thread?

For example, in my previous post (emphasis added here):

"All the people mentioned as "links" in this "guilt by association chain" (Bailey, Blanchard and Cantor - B,B&C) are researchers whose work and views inform current understanding of the various, possibly unrelated, phenomena grouped under the labels "transgender", "transsexual", "gender dysphoria", "gender identity disorder", etc. etc

"In a contested field of study, unless and until their research is proved misleading and worthless, their views are important and need to be aired, alongside those of the long list of other researchers interviewed by individuals involved with Genspect."

www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/4494001-Exulansic-has-reduced-following?msgid=115798039

I can't quote believe your obtuse determination to misunderstand things in your post @Linearpark!

1. Genspect outlined the ridiculous guilt by association idea that is needed for someone to be able to pretend that members of Genspect interviewed supporters of VP. Do you agree with the concept of guilt by association? Do you think nobody should every interview anybody unless they fully agree with every aspect of their work? Is this a productive way to run a podcast?
2. Genspect explained their rejection of guilt by association and their appreciation of the principles of scientific enquiry in their rebuttal genspect.org/genspect-rebuttal/The podcast that interviewed Mike Bailey - who is the ONLY person who is linked to VP - interviewed him because of his work on AGP not VP.
3. One photo of a get-together is not hanging around "all the time".