What's going on with Genspect?

It really is pretty infantile to speculate that these things can be moved by degrees...

What are the degrees...do they involve non- Scottish men wearing kilts...mmm ...I can just see the cultural appropriation backlash on that. ..😆

Perhaps there is a kind of ...1991 culottes movement for men.. as they gradually transition from 'mens' trousers to 'womens' skirts 😁😆😄... increasingly thinner fabric and baggier legs...? Would that work for you perhaps..?

Get real.

These transitional societal movements do not occur by increment.

They did not occur by increment for women.

Look at the figures for women ... look at characters like Anne Lister - she did not start wearing incrementally male attire...trousers by degree 😆, she boldly wore whatever the hell she wanted..and to hell with the conservative society around her that tried to censure who she chose to be.

Journalist Wesley Yang, quoting Ritchie Herron, posted an interesting tweet regarding this discussion that’s arisen following Genspect:

https://twitter.com/wesyang/status/1728035019061358632

@ wesyang
"The campaigns have activated many paraphilics"

This is such a key point. The paraphilics of the past were seen as largely incorrigible because attempts to treat them mostly failed, causing sexologists and clinicians to contemplate societal accommodations for this suffering remnant.

But that's of course because they were the paraphilics who persisted in their compulsions even in the face of powerful stigmas and taboos -- those were the untreatable.

We are in the midst of an ongoing social contagion that has activated many who would not otherwise have been reached by these compulsions. Societal accommodation normalization of the condition under these conditions would simply multiply the numbers of those drawn into it while preventing many who could be cured of these compulsions from even attempting it.

Maintaining boundaries premised upon the clear establishment of healthy norms (it is better to not be in the grip of powerful sexual compulsion than to be in it) is a key part of minimizing the scope of these obsessions.

Quote:
Replying to @ TulipR
However, the rate of escalation has been magnified. Consider the last ten years of trans news, inclusion, awareness, etc

The campaigns have activated many paraphilics, both ego dystonic and synotic to escalate where they may not otherwise.

So why can I buy boyfriend jeans and boyfriend sweaters targeted at women but DH cannot buy girlfriend jeans and girlfriend sweaters targeted at men?

CERTAINLY I TAKE IT YOUN REFER TAE RESEARCH ON KILTED SPERMS FAE THE UNIVERITY OF BAMS AND THE COLLEGE O FANNYBAWS RIGORIUSLY REVEWED AND TESTE D

Exactly this. If there are some women for whom 'autoandrophilia' really is a thing, it's still not the equivalent of AGP. There's not the same level of compulsion, escalation and boundary violation that you get with male paraphilias.

Women started sorting this out for ourselves 140 years ago, way before we even had the vote. Men have never shown an interest in a rational skirts campaign so I remain sceptical.

If that's what you want to go for though, good luck to you.

Beware of men's sex rights advocates infiltrating your rational skirt movement. It's a common problem.

I think Stella called it right too but I have noticed over the last decade that society doesn’t want to know about AGP - in fact, society goes out of its way to avoid hearing about it. It was always that way with transvestism too - it was okay to joke about it but not to take it seriously as something that happened and needed to be addressed because it negatively affected women and children.

KJK, Meghan Murphy, Glinner, Reduxx, KPSS etc are all shouting about it and society shuts them down. I think because it makes people feel uncomfortable acknowledging the truth about there being men like this and so it’s a case of covering the ears and loudly shouting "Can’t hear you!"

WPUK and organisations that don’t mention it in their campaigns seem to be seen as more acceptable somehow. It’s almost like society is angry at the people telling them about a serious problem that needs to be addressed, angry that they can no longer claim ignorance of the issue and are now expected to do something about it.

Is that a rational enough reason for it?

And if it's about comfort, and it being rational to want to be comfortable, well there are plenty of women who rationally find it more comfortable to be in skirts or dresses, why can't men say the same thing? I would have thought it probably would be more comfortable for them to be fair 😆

We certainly know that men who wear kilts have better sperm counts as their testicles are at a slightly lower temperature compared to men who wear trousers.

Actually I think you're wrong on 'autoandrophilia', although I imagine there is not much mainstream concept of it.

There is plenty of lesbian erotic literature over many decades that refers to some 'butch' lesbians deriving sexual satisfaction from wearing typically male underwear and packing with soft dildos. There are detailed accounts of this, and the effort and detail that was taken over these processes, and yes, description of sexual arousal experienced during these processes. Eg can be found in 'Awakening the Virgin' and 'The Good Parts' ...short story lesbian erotica edited by Nicole Foster.

It shows ignorance of safeguarding protocols in both situations and, because of this, now Disney will attract job applications from men who want access to both women’s clothing and young girls - not something that is considered a safe idea (borne out by decades of offending patterns in both USA and Europe).

Irrespective of whether a man in a dress in a children's dress shop is within the social contract of "acceptable" or not, I completely agree with you on this point. If they are going to encourage freedom of expression through choice of clothing, they need to be aware of the risks that this brings in and decide how to manage these. They could derisk completely by banning any male staff in dresses or they could put in protocols that accommodate this as an option. The easiest from a risk management perspective is obviously the first one.

@UtopiaPlanitia your point about boys in dresses has given me lots of food for thought. It's a double-edged sword: at the moment, a boy in a dress is likely to end up on the Jackie Green pathway to being transed. However, ideally any boy that wants to wear a dress can do so without anyone believing that this means that they are actually a girl.

We're in such a mess with this in the public discourse. I'm really starting to think Stella called it right: that raising awareness of the paraphilia will help with so many aspects of the problem. This is a worthy shared goal of so many "GC leaning" stakeholders in this. The key is to raise it in a way that breaks out of the echo chamber, as she said. Otherwise it's just a bun fight and giant game of whack-a-mole between those that try to do so and those that shoot them down as bigots.

Yes, I find the discussions really helpful. Mostly enjoyable, sometimes difficult, but always worth it. Sharing and listening to thoughts with people on this board really helps to demystify the often baffling topic of gender identity. Which in turn helps me to help my daughter.

Haha I wouldn't call that an essay in any academic sex. I fully understand the differences thank you, my first degree is in applied psychology and I worked in sex offender treatment. I've taught and read pretty much all the original literature.
I now teach mostly sociology and pshe so I am extremely clear on what paraphilias are and why.
I stand by my post though. There is no difference as long as its a thrill to yourself like wearing sexy clothes and not about others reactions. Agp is personal. Additional paraphilias about shame and exposure are additional.

I agree with your analysis 💯 and we are not seeing this fashion revolution in men’s clothes, probably because a lot of clothing made for women is less comfortable and less practical., but also because men who dress as women see it as losing status by emulating women and they often get off on that 'humiliation'. Whereas the women fighting for rationality in clothing were trying to improve their lot/status in society.

I came across an essay on gender roles in other societies that you might find interesting. I remember reading this years ago, before non-binary really took off as an ideology, and it gave me the tools to examine the arguments made by TRAs about two-spirit, Hijra etc meaning other cultures accepted transgender identities more than white cultures.:

'American Indian nations that had more rigid gender roles and assigned women less power historically felt the need to strip male/female identities from non-conformers, while more egalitarian societies with less gender socialization lack two-spirit people because of, rather than in spite of, their lack of emphasis on sex-assigned gender roles.'

https://culturallyboundgender.wordpress.com/2013/03/09/toward-an-end-to-appropriation-of-indigenous-two-spirit-people-in-trans-politics-the-relationship-between-third-gender-roles-and-patriarchy/

@spookehtooth You might find these articles interesting, I know I did 😊

https://helenrappaport.com/footnotes/rational-dress/

https://blog.newspapers.com/the-rational-dress-society-and-victorian-dress-reform/

https://sageandsavant.com/2018/04/09/background-information-rational-dress-movement/

Quote from one of the articles: 'By changing the fashion, Rational Dress speakers claimed women would gain great social mobility, independence from men, and the ability to work for comparable wages.'

Very glad you found the essay interesting @BonfireLady 😊

With regards to your discussion of the male staff wearing women’s clothing at Disney World’s princess boutique, I’ll admit I’m not in favour. My reasoning being did the men ask to wear women’s clothing and be put on the rota for a shop that sells almost exclusively to young girls? If they didn’t ask, why would Disney be motivated to rota male staff to that shop where little girls are trying on dresses?

Men asking to work there is a red flag to me and, to be honest, it would also be a red flag if Disney was insisting that some men work there. It shows ignorance of safeguarding protocols in both situations and, because of this, now Disney will attract job applications from men who want access to both women’s clothing and young girls - not something that is considered a safe idea (borne out by decades of offending patterns in both USA and Europe).

It fascinating to see where your thinking has changed on various threads and topics - I do find your posts interesting and I hope you enjoy these discussions 😊

You know this? On what research? Did the first trousers worn by women magically appear?

Some history, there was resistance to women wearing trousers. So much so, that it was considered safer wear bloomers, baggy and easily mistaken for a skirt but definitely trousers like. Trousers gradually came over decades. By resistance, I'm talking abuse and violence. Now, I don't know for sure, I might dig into this, but I wouldn't be surprised in such an atmosphere if they were stolen and secretly worn by some women. The catholic church considered it part of cross dressing, and therefore heresy, and in the late 19th century the French had a decree that a woman had to get permission from a police man to wear trousers. It was repealed in 2013 or so.

Policing the wearing of everyday clothing styles, for one sex only, is literally propping up the patriarchy. Women do as they please, low status and they look pretty so who cares, but men must stick to their uniform to mark them as superior. Diviate, and your status and respect is deminished to that of a woman. You can see this in way that people use "just a man in a dress" as a phrase not just to say what they think but also dehumanise and mock people who consider themselves trans. The implication is often not just "sex is real" but "sex is real AND you shouldn't dress like that"

Of course there's inappropriate dressing, but nobody has to deviate from stereotypes to do that. I can just pop out to the shops in my underwear & vest for that. It's a separate subject entirely, tho.

To add:
Regardless of whether Nick was a transwoman or a man
**
That's very lazy wording on my part. It avoids the unfortunate word salad I end up with distinguishing between whether Nick identified as a woman (therefore "transwoman") or had no gender identity at all (therefore "man").

I'm fully aware that transwomen are not women and I'm fully aware that there are two sexes. I choose to challenge the impact of the belief that we all have a gender identity, not the belief itself.

This essay is fantastic.

I'm sure lots of posters are already clued up to this level but personally I still had a few dots to join up (I already knew most of it, just not laid out in this way) and this really helped. There's obviously lots more to add e.g. the role of gaming and avatars in how young acronym people are finding the pull towards starting this journey very easily. Especially if they are socially isolated and mostly communicating online (and the specific impact on transwidows and any children in the family isn't covered).

But it certainly helps to lay out the basics of the acronym. This person seems aware to a point, but perhaps mostly unaware, that left unchecked (which most acronym people would presumably have little desire to do), it's going to escalate. So being "proud" to be an acronym person is rather misplaced to say the least.

I had a look at the thread that @MalagaNights copied in. I'm one of the first posters on it and my position has definitely moved a little since then. I'm still of the opinion that the social contract is already in place (and on a basic level, Nick is just a man in a dress selling dresses in a dress shop). However, my opinion would now be that if Nick identified as a woman, I would most likely avoid any pronouns at all and would be more cautious to the idea that Nick could be of this persuasion. Given Nick is working with children in the Disney shop, I would expect all the normal protocols and checks to be in place, regardless of whether Nick was a transwoman or a man.

If I take that thought forwards and combine it with Stella's call to raise awareness of the acronym in public, I would want such protocols to take this specific risk in to account. It's unlikely that it will be because of the general blindspot in the public discourse on this. If there is no obvious sign that someone (e.g. Nick) has the acronym, there is no reason to restrict what is being worn as long as it is within the normal social contract IMO. Wearing a Disney dress in a shop that sells Disney dresses is arguably just that, regardless of anyone's sex. However, if there is an obvious sign (such as someone like Phil declaring their paraphilia), this changes the risk profile considerably. It also means that no self-declared acronym person should be a teacher... as discussed on the YouTube conversation last night.

Social norms are great because they help set the "rules" for what's acceptable and safe so that it's easier to see what's not. But personally I don't feel it has to be rigid and conservative. It's about what is being worn when. Nobody would turn up to a funeral wearing a bikini, just as nobody is likely to spend a day on the beach dressed in typical funeral attire. As a society we are generally pretty good at spotting red flags - there just needs to be a recalibration when it comes to the acronym. It's far too well buried under the whole Be Kind blanket.

Some women much prefer wearing mens clothes, mostly for comfort, we all accept that. Some men really enjoy wearing women's clothes, for style, drama and prettiness. Many of these men are AGP, some aren't.