What's going on with Genspect?

If all the scrotes who watch pornography were castrated I wonder how many we'd have left intact.

Anne Lawrence suggested that AGP boys be identified young and be castrated as it would lead to better transition, whilst I don't think anyone here wants them to transition, there does seem to be some agreement over the castration element because that would stop the escalation in behaviour.

Identification of AGP boys could be around behaviour, such as stealing women's underwear or watching pornography (which some people earlier in the thread identified as the causes of AGP).

'Gender diversity' is doing a lot of work in that paragraph.

Men who have AGP arent gender diverse, they are performing something only men have - being sexually excited at the thought of themselves as women, being sexually excited at the idea of forcing others to see them as women, and being sexually excited by being in womens spaces and wearing womens clothes.

How does working towards true gender diversity solve any of the problems these men have and cause?

It also widely acknowledged that these men tend to binge on their AGP, then swear to themselves never to do it again, only to binge yet again. Can these men ever 'detransition'. Stella is setting people up to include these men as detransitioners, when really they are just between agp binges.

It's difficult to know exactly what she meant because some detransitioners will have retained their male genetalia.

Logically, acronym people who are detransitioners wouldn't have their male genitalia any more: presumably while they still retain male genitalia, the urge to satisfy a fetish need would still be there (so logically they wouldn't ever become detransitioners unless they have their genitalia removed). Basically, what you're saying above @Georgeburgess
However, none of this seems particularly clear in what she says in this chapter.

Nor is it clear what the typical acronym risk escalation (or de-escalation via genital removal) profile looks like for adolescent boys as they grow in to adulthood, particularly so where the impact of autism is also a factor.
This is an area that needs much more of a deep dive. Hopefully it's something that Stella and the Genspect team will focus on for the framework off the back of all of this recent discussion. In the absence of decent data from gender clinics, they may be able to assume some patterns from known principles about paraphilias, and the intersection with other co-morbiditities such as autism, to help with this understanding.

I meant they have no sex drive.

So it's like comparing chemically castrated paedophiles with chemically castrated AGPs.

Yes that's the point, @BonfireLady, Stella is talking about AGP detransitioners, this is NOT the same as active AGPs. They gave no sex drive, for example.

Photos below of what Stella wrote (blue highlighted paragraph across two pages)

@Georgeburgess it's possible that you're right but it's difficult to tell from the way that she wrote it. If you substitute the acronym word for any other paraphilia it's very odd. Is there any such thing as a reformed paedophile, for example? I suspect not and paedophilia is rightfully stigmatised. The grey area on the acronym word is that there will be some adolescent boys, turned on by avatars in fantasy worlds etc, who don't realise that the lines are blurring in their minds. To put it bluntly, they are too busy thinking with the second brain that lives in their underwear to spend any time bothering to care. I would absolutely agree that these people don't deserve to be lumped in and stigmatised with the fully-formed adult version of the acronym if they desist or detransition.

@MowingTheTerf my guess would be that the turning point would probably be late teens or early twenties. By 18, males should have enough maturity to responsibly handle their libido in respect of this if they choose to do so. I think a deep dive in to this whole area by someone like Dr Az would be very useful. Autistic boys are more likely to be socially isolated than neurotypical boys, so may (I'm guessing) feel more drawn towards staying in this world and they are more likely to have a slower emotional maturity.. I'm guessing again but presumably if you stay in it, and enjoy the turn on, you're more susceptible to escalating to the next step that will give the same turn on. Disclaimer: I'm no fetish expert and nor do I ever want to be!

Do we have any knowledge of what ages the dangerous stuff kicks in? And what dangerous behaviour starts at what ages?

You're way off base @BonfireLady Stella doesn't shift her narrative in Az Hakeem's book. I've literally just read that chapter. She writes about detransitioners.

Obviously some of these boys would not have "bottom surgery" and may to become tomorrow's escalating and dangerous acronym people.

Correcting myself (italics). Hopefully my post doesn't get deleted.
MNHQ if you need to delete it, please can you let me know if I can repost it with the correction above.

In a weird case of coincidence @UtopiaPlanitia, I was returning to this thread to talk about Dr Az now that I've finished his book.

A PP had mentioned (forgive me, I can't remember who) that he's particularly good at explaining gender identity and autism in relation to boys. I would agree. I do think there are some bits missing, but it's well worth a read as it very clearly differentiates the acronym people (heterosexual, fetish) from those that are more likely to grow up as gay men if watchful waiting is applied. I would add the following to what he says (he does mention anime/gaming but as more of a footnote):

Boys
When boys are socially isolated, particularly those that are autistic, many are drawn towards a more accessible way of socialising: gaming. During adolescence, their sexuality emerges. Purely on stats, the majority will be heterosexual. Seeing sexy female avatars in games like Fortnite can be an early introduction to feeling turned on during this. Some may already have discovered anime and may already be blurring the real world and fantasy world in this way. Autism adds the layer of "baking in". If a boy uses a female avatar and feels turned on (highly likely, given how 13 and 14 year old boys are... just ask any "non-girly" teenage girl who suddenly sees their boy friends change from being adventurous buddies into a totally different persona who seem obsessed with the pretty girls), some will not be able to, or possibly not want to, separate this feeling from reality. Dr Az does talk about detransitioners who didn't know they had the acronym, who go on to have surgery, and totally lose their libido afterwards. The cruelty here is that they didn't understand that it was all about sex because of the rainbow celebration and conflation with the "born in the wrong body, would grow up to be gay" types. Obviously some of these boys would not have "bottom surgery" and are likely to become tomorrow's escalating and dangerous acronym people. Understanding the patterns and differences is essential to giving them the right approach in therapeutic treatment. The acronym/narcissist type need to be understood and managed as a risk, very much like any other paraphilia.
Interestingly, Stella did a chapter in the book and she talks about the acronym being unfairly stigmatised.... It's fair to say that what she said in the YouTube conversation is VERY different from this. It sounds like she's been on an important journey of thinking. To be fair, so have I. I haven't lost compassion for boys who would otherwise grow up gay, nor do I think that autistic boys who are caught up in the avatar/anime world are on an inevitable pathway to becoming tomorrow's acronym. Obviously none of these people belong in women's spaces, and it's not "women's problem" to solve etc. BUT many women are mums to boys who are caught up in this. Perhaps Stella was gaslighting everyone with her shifting narrative (this has been levelled at her) or perhaps she was just saving face and trying to hide her pivot from what she said in the book to what she said in the YouTube conversation about the acronym. She's a human being and she's a curious psychologist - she's following what she learns and adapting her approach as a result of this. I'm not interested in pointing fingers. I'm more interested in how this will unfold to help boys who are victims of this as well as protecting the rights of women and girls.

Girls
He talks about social contagion, autism and trauma but completely misses the traumatic impact of sensory issues, such as breast development and periods, with autistic girls during puberty and the way that this feeds in to the mix. This thread isn't about that so I'll leave it there, with a couple of links in case it's of interest to anyone:
https://twitter.com/BonfireLady/status/1697126765687099612?t=7_e-yZYZUgKG1s_WPjS4CQ&s=19

https://www.transgendertrend.com/teenage-gender-identity-crisis/

Conclusion
Perhaps it's coming in book 3 but a deeper dive in to autism and gender identity is warranted. His main clinical interest seemed to be with males who adopt a female gender identity, which is definitely helpful, particularly in understanding more about the acronym and who will/could likely go on to detransition versus those that just need management as a danger. But given the 5000% increase in girls presenting with gender dysphoria and the fact that 48% of all referrals are autistic, he's skimming over a significant number of victims in this medical scandal.

Yes great podcast thanks

I found that episode very informative, thanks for posting about it. Dr Az has a great way of explaining things in easily understandable terms. I’m definitely buying his book after Xmas. A lot of this was very relevant to Genspect.

Until listening to this, I wasn’t aware that Clive had worked as a nurse in the mental health field - his perspective was very interesting too.

Here’s a link to the episode for anyone else who’s interested in listening:
https://overcast.fm/+BDqteL6y7c

Thanks @UtopiaPlanitia going to have a read now. The history of clothing is something I kinda fell into via a book on a wide variety of resistance/change movements that focused on their visual identity, primarily clothing, and what they were trying to communicate

Indeed @ArthurbellaScott . Yet people with disordered behaviour and a lack of boundaries are regularly elevated by the media and institutions - funded and celebrated almost as role models.

Yes. If a disorder centres on pushing and/or transgressing boundaries, then removing those boundaries is potentially exhilarating, terrifying and enraging.

Children who don't have clear, firm boundaries and rules keep hitting out until they come up against one. Partly from fear and partly from the desire to find someone to day 'no'.

I guess.the same applies to disordered adults. Only with potentially far more serious consequences and often with sexual motivations entangled, too.

'Queering' boundaries, undermining norms, transgressing boundaries will pretty inevitably lead to more extremely disordered behaviour.

Sorry, coming in late & haven't really read this thread for the last few days, but just listened to "The Queens' Speech" podcast, made by the gorgeous Dennis Kavanagh and Clive (not sure of his last name). In the mods recent epi. they speak with Dr Az Hakeem, who's a real expert on the varieties of gender dysphoria - particularly for men.

Very interesting & enlightening.

I'm not convinced that it's possible to put the genie back in the bottle to suggest that men work incrementally towards normalising skirts or dresses. It's already been put on fast forward because of the way in which the trans umbrella expanded beyond the original and rare dysphoria. I'm not saying people shouldn't call it out but it may end up feeling more like shouting in to the wind.

Instead, raising awareness of the acronym, and the fact that it escalates because it's about boundary crossing for a thrill (not dysphoria) is what may make the biggest difference. Hopefully, moments like this Genspect episode will bring different voices in to the mix to help with this, to add to those that are already doing it. Eventually a critical mass will break through. I'm imagining at the beginning of paedophilia being "outed" that there may have been the equivalent of Benjamin Boyce's mockery, with those asking if people were suggesting that all men should be excluded from working with children just to address the risk that you can't see inside people's heads to understand if they do or don't have a fetish. And others pointing out that not all those who are a danger to children are men. Voices like Mary Whitehouse, who stood firm (and also had very conservative and religious values and judgement) were sadly easy to mock and dismiss.
As painful as it's been to see infighting on the significance of the man in the dress, it does seem to have shifted the dial a little in how people are discussing the acronym online. Whether that's enough to break through the bubble that we're all stuck inside regarding this discussion is unlikely but we've already had Isla Bryson, Andrew/Amy Miller and the rules around women's sports (and the TRA entitlement/anger) before this. So it's likely to help rather than hinder. The public discourse seems to be heading in the right direction 🤞🤞

In the meantime, the short term focus IMO is to push back on gender identity belief being compelled as a truth separately and in parallel to this. This one is easier by comparison. It's still possible to feel compassion for people who believe that they have a gender identity, and are distressed because they feel that they are trapped in the wrong body, without having to hold a belief in gender identity yourself. This therefore makes it more palatable for the Be Kind parts of the public to take on board.The easiest pushback still remains pointing out that not everyone believes that we all have a gender identity, therefore education, healthcare, laws and sport shouldn't accommodate it as a truth.

In the part of Ireland where I grew up, the parish priests preached against women wearing trousers in the late 1960s and, like you, my school uniform in the 80s for girls (including PE kit 😡) was skirts and knee length socks (not even in winter were tights allowed).

I didn’t wear my first pair of trousers until, at age 16, I convinced my mother to buy me shorts for playing tennis. And there was a fight for me to buy jeans in 1989. Once I got to Uni, and bought my own clothes, it was trousers/jeans all the way but I still received criticism ‘Couldn’t you wear a nice dress/skirt?' was a frequent complaint from family. I was made wear a skirt to my graduation, because I wasn’t paying for my own outfit (can you tell I’m still bitter about it? 😂). And I remember that women wearing power suits to work in cities in the 80s still largely wore skirts with their big shoulder-padded suit jackets.

In my experience, wearing trousers was broadly seen as unfeminine until the 90s when jeans (and then trousers) became accepted for teenagers and older.

Quite obviously this did happen incrementally. I remember my parents commenting about first seeing women wearing trousers with a front zip, back in the 50s or 60s and commenting on it as it was so unusual.

In the 80s my school uniform was only skirt or dress, 6th formers wore their own clothes, but not trousers.

Even now some women think a skirt is smarter for interviews and some situations,

The incremental changes are still going on.

If men want to normalise skirt wearing for men then it too needs to happen incrementally.

We know with children & young people that if they are able to continually breach boundaries, their behaviour escalates and subsequently frequently involves criminality. Presumably this also applies to a number of men.
Crimes like indecent exposure are a gateway offence to more serious crimes as the Couzens case demonstrates and there's a range of similar evidence in relation to a range of crimes (see current debates about shoplifting etc).

Does the current insistence that men must be welcome in places where women undress etc rather than it's a boundary to breach contribute to escalating crimes against women? There's a lot of evidence that a significant % of men insistent that women must make themselves available when naked / vulnerable openly display their own fetishes while barreling through all our institutions, especially in relation to children. They also appear to be very successfully removing once firm safeguarding measures (see adults in Mermaids, Stonewall, Girl Guides, the rubber man in the NSPCC, the penis player pianist, the male prostitute footballer etc). None of who would have been socially acceptable 20 years ago and their behaviour would in many cases have been sanctioned & criminalised.

Now they're celebrated😡

These transitional societal movements do not occur by increment.

They did not occur by increment for women.

Didn't they? What was the exact date on which the switch occured from women wearing trousers being seen as totally unacceptable to trousers being a perfectly normal piece of clothing for women and most women owning at least one pair?

If the change didn't occur by increment there must have been a sudden overnight change which can be pinned down to an exact date.

Thank you, I've wondered about this before.

What effect does 'trans awareness' and 'trans acceptance' have on, say,Andrew Miller? Who'd been stealing underwear all his adult life? He then 'comes out' as trans in middle age and his paraphilias apparently escalate sharply, with horrific consequences.

I've said before that if someone is seeking a boundary to push against and instead meets encouragement, what happens?

This.