What's going on with Genspect?

Boyce was incredibly disparaging of women voicing concerns and had a great time on Twitter auditioning for the role of henchman/sidekick to James Lindsay who was even worse in his attitude towards women making their worries and objections known to Genspect. But of course, both of them would take these points seriously if a man made them - they’re so obviously sexist but refuse to acknowledge it.

Thanks for the Boyce-Uhler link, I'm going to watch it.
Uhler mentions all the main characters at the Genspect conference and tells you what is really going on based on his experience.And what 'being kind' is really abetting. Shocking.

Interesting. Benjamin Boyce interviewed Uhler a while ago (link below) and was very respectful of Uhler's knowledge and take, I believe (I would need to re-watch- but it came to mind as soon as I saw this).
Am I right in thinking BB was pretty disparaging of women raising this issue during conference-gate?
If so, I wonder if he will come across this new interview with Uhler and have any pause for thought?

I heard John Uhler on somrbjng before. Agree, he was interesting, what he said was really disturbing

Just saw this video by Jon Uhler, a US psychologist who worked with hard-core male sex offenders for 15 years and his analysis of Genspect and that controversial conference opened my eyes.
He's great as he explains everything in plain language . He's devoted to protecting women and children. Please watch this...

Jon Uhler is good on this. So is Helen Joyce:

https://x.com/uhlerjon/status/1749163474674938017?s=46&t=WHoOZZ_3Kv5G6-FyQuvE0LQ

Paraphilia is a term that was popularised by John Money, who wanted it to replace the earlier term 'perversion'. He succeeded in his aim, and I retain a dislike for the word because of its association with him. But know full well using the older term would result in deletion if not banning.

Money also popularized 'sexual orientation' as a replacement for sexual preference.

"Orientations are stable. (They can be repressed or denied, but they're stable.) But paraphilias always escalate.

But they don't. That's just something somebody made up.

Noone has told you that you must do anything. Genspect is an organisation set up to promote a nuanced and evidence-based approach to gender, so part of that is naturally going to involved exploring things like AGP which it will share with anyone who is interested.

She's saying that you shouldn't police what people wear in that tweet, which used to be uncontroversial in feminist circles. She's got Sarah Philimore's support, which I regard ad the highest praise.

It's fine not to agree with some of what HP says (I don't either) but she's not the enemy.

Aww Utopia!

Rex, you picked two opinions I thought very insightful too. Thanks for copying and pasting them; it didn’t occur to me to do it 💐

And this:

"Orientations are stable. (They can be repressed or denied, but they're stable.) But paraphilias always escalate.
Can you imagine an orientation that always escalates? That demands more and more high-risk behavior to achieve the same sense-of-self? That needs to be mirrored back in ever increasing degrees to feel authentic?
That doesn't remotely sound like LGB or het orientation. It does sound something like a personality disorder or an addiction."

This is why they need to understand that they can't opt out of safeguarding and that doing so has consequences

Couple of great observations on there. Like this:

"I love how it's simultaneously "just a dress" and we need to stop clutching our pearls, but it's also so deeply essential to certain men's identities and psychological well-being that we must seek a deeper understanding these men and their dresses."

I came across an interesting discussion of the Genspect approach to associations:

https://ovarit.com/o/GenderCritical/529371/the-agp-divide-what-s-it-all-about-and-on-which-side-do-the-podcasters-fall

The more I read from Helen Pluckrose, the less I feel she’ll be useful to an organisation working in a difficult social space and advocating for vulnerable people.

Tweet from GenderReceipts:
'New Genspect appointee is sick of your moaning ladies, if an AGP wears a bra & knickers in front of you but isn’t erect you need to shut your mouths.'
https://twitter.com/GenderReceipts/status/1748711145299480730

It doesn't matter that they say they are advocacy rather than therapeutic, they need to understand safeguarding. One simple reason is that otherwise they will not be able to recognise when they've been infiltrated or deal with concerns when they are raised. They are signposting to anyone with an agenda they are easy pickings.

If you RTFT, you'll see the discussions about safeguarding throughout.

Where does it say they don’t do safeguarding @ResisterRex ? That seems like a pretty wild statement

With a Swiftian turn of phrase, Glinner has been known to phrase this as, "Getting high off huffing their own farts".

It’s so frustrating to watch it happening.

Boghossian is the most pleasant of the three, and initially comes across as the most open to new ideas. He talks to the widest range of people in his podcast (and he looks like he’s learning new things and he says frequently that Helen Joyce blew his mind with the discussion they had) but he seems to value Liberalism/Libertarianism more than society having a duty of care to the vulnerable and so his advocacy is centred on freedom of speech and association.

He seems more than happy to leave advocating for children’s and women’s safety to feminists; he agrees that children shouldn’t be medically transitioned and that AGP has a negative effect on women and families (and he interviews a fair number of people who agree with that position) but he leaves it at interviewing them; he doesn’t get involved.

They have quite quickly become what they wanted to expose.

I know what you mean. Lindsay has lost it; his behaviour towards women in particular is MRA behaviour on steroids.

Pluckrose doesn’t seem to think sexism exists and doesn’t think women exist as a sex class.

Boghossian has had multiple deep conversations with knowledgeable feminists and scientists in which he seems to be learning a lot but then he resets back to his libertarian ideas by the next interview and he’s back to being fine with the idea of 18 year olds being able to do whatever they want to their bodies because that’s the age the law allows for people to make adult decisions 🤷‍♀️

True

I'm getting to the stage of believing that nobody who uses the word epistemology is a serious person.