What's going on with Genspect?

It's a good example of Chesterton's fence to me: don't dismantle the fence until you are sure it has no utility and wasn't there for a reason.

OK, what do you think is the utility of "traditional" clothing styles for men and women?

And if men's clothing is going to be policed in that way, aren't women also going to find that there are certain items of clothing that they are not allowed to wear?

If men have to wear trousers and are not allowed to wear skirts, then they might argue that the opposite should be true for women. Why should women have the right to choose between skirts and trousers if men are not allowed the same freedom?

Aye, it's just trolling.

• Many feminists here promoted the idea men in dresses is fine. Which ones? We'll rely on them telling us to spot the ones who should be banned? All the others are fine?*

But wtf would the proposal be otherwise? Banning men in garments that don't have bifurcated leg attachments? Banning kilts? Banning men from wearing make up? None of this is feasible, let alone desirable.

Was Freda part of a plan that was indeed working after all? To normalise the acronym by splitting apart the "GC" community?

I think Freda, as a narcissistic opportunist, has correctly identified that there are a lot of people who are confused about safeguarding etc, and simply enjoys the power trip, like many of these males do. I think Freda can spin it to other TRAs that Freda's behaviour is all part of a considered strategy but I think Freda simply likes winding people up.

@DameMaud @NotBadConsidering that all makes a lot of sense.

I might be entering tin foil hat territory here but I keep thinking back to Freda Wallace talking about the fact that women were "falling in to my trap" when they were calling out the fetish performance aspect of the IEA conference. Then along comes Phil Illy and women (understandably!) shout louder.... but this time many more women and GCs jump to Phil's defence and push back. During that phase, Phil is pushing the idea that the acronym is a sexual orientation (therefore firmly teamed with LGB etc, according to Phil). Next in line, Julia Malott is now talking about the idea that it's awful that Julia doesn't pass as an adult and perhaps we should be transing "some" kids after all... followed by a diplomatic rowback to say (paraphrased) "no, no, you're missing the nuance... I meant we just need to think about the needs of adults who don't pass if we don't trans kids". What does that even mean? Is passing now the goal? If so, why?

Was Freda part of a plan that was indeed working after all? To normalise the acronym by splitting apart the "GC" community?

Or have I just conspiracy theorised my way in to madness?!

Whether I've finally lost the plot or not, the conversation this evening will certainly help to show which way the wind will blow on how Genspect will handle the acronym issue in their framework.

For me, it’s something akin to safeguarding. The trans activism movement has a strong history of “give ‘em an inch, and they’ll take a mile.” This is not exclusive to the sexual fetish side, but also with violence, laws enacted, free speech impacts, and so on. The movement has an especially strong history of red flags being ignored at the time of no harm, to see harm eventually being perpetuated. This is what DameMaud means in other areas. Examples in trans activism:

Men parading in front of children at DQSH. Red flags. No harm initially. Inevitably a man found to be an offender.

People like Sarah Jane Barker given activism platform. Red flags. No harm initially, just let them speak! Inevitably violent threats made against women.

And so on. There are countless examples.

This man has red flags galore. He’s open about his fetish and trying to normalise paraphilias, including criminal ones. Genspect knew this beforehand, and gave him a platform, because they believe - rightly - that his presence at the conference would not cause harm at the time of the conference (in relation to his AGP and beliefs, as opposed to him being insensitive).

But they’ve failed to heed the strong history of what men like this do. He’s been given an inch. If he doesn’t take a mile, they’ll get away with it. But if he does take a mile, they can’t say it’s not on them, because anyone with any nous could predict it happening.

Unfortunately Bonfirelady, most safeguarding legislation has followed from serious harms or deaths in high profile cases. The DBS (formerly CRB) was brought in after the murder of Holly Wells and Jessica Chapman I believe (happy to be corrected). So something awful had to happen before action was taking. I think that's pretty much the pattern in the history of safeguarding.
It's a really interesting history to look at.

You are left trying to do this by arguing safeguarding only which is a high bar to reach in many of these cases, for something which really is about men deliberately making women uncomfortable.

Our discomfort is not safeguarding.

My view would be that safeguarding as a direct responsibility applies at a small scale only e.g. a school, a specific event.

Everything else is just the law (with safeguarding principles built in) and the "social contract". It would be unworkable and undesirable to have a law which stipulated the clothing that people wore. The social contract in wider society relies on people using their judgement. We're generally pretty good at this, with the exception of spotting these acronym people (and others who get in to influential places and pose risk). I get the feeling that what's happened recently in women's sports and the sunlight that's still pouring in on sex crimes committed by transwomen will recalibrate enough people. I don't know the history of how DBS checks came to be in schools and youth groups, for example, but I'm assuming that it followed a similar path once enough people understood what they were looking at following the PIE debacle.

@MalagaNights I really get where you're coming from.
I wrote a post further up this thread and I mentioned the word safeguarding a lot in reference to several different aspects of it for different purposes.

When I mentioned safeguarding in reference to the conference, I was thinking about some guardrails that would limit the potential for fetish performance. Perhaps things like a conference rule that all attendees need to use the toilets for their natal sex or unisex facilities and another around dress code. The dress code one would be tricky but "smart casual or business casual" would probably be enough for someone to then challenge anyone who is wearing a clearly incongruous dress. Obviously there could be other acronym people there also performing (when wearing clothes similar to everyone else) but it's about lowering risk rather than strict rules that limit the goals of the conference. If Genspect wants to include all voices who wish to participate (someone mentioned further up the thread that WPATH was also invited) then safeguarding is important to manage the risk that comes with doing so.

And then there is the safeguarding for children and young people which needs to be considered when creating the framework, so that the (inevitable) ideas that are received via casting a wider net are filtered through this lens. The acronym does appear to be quite the blindspot here for lots of otherwise sensible people.

But yes, to your point, the word feels like it's in danger of losing its meaning.

It will be interesting to see how the Big Conversation unfolds tonight. If Benjamin Boyce chooses to be impartial, and asks curious open questions, it could go very well. If he chooses to (continue to) downplay it, and KJK bites, it will be 2v1 and will simply end up being a destructive bun fight. I really hope KJK is going to play it smart and will take the time to help them to understand, rather than just shutting down what they say. For clarity, I'm completely on her side regarding the fetish issue here and she's absolutely right with what she's calling out. I'm just not sure that her default approach is going to help move the discourse on positively. In theory both Stella and Benjamin are capable of listening to reasoned argument. But they need to be gently pulled across the bridge in to the sunlight. Anything else just won't work.

I would say there is unlikely to be a direct safeguarding impact of an AGP man at such a conference.

The safeguarding concern would be from the follow on effect: people see an AGP man with horrible views about paraphilias being welcomed and accepted at a conference, ergo other men of similar ilk are welcomed and accepted at events with a direct safeguarding concern. Normalise men exhibiting their fetish in public, and it’s only a matter of time - likely days, the way these men are 🤨- before they push their luck crossing a boundary somewhere else.

That would be one view.

Safeguarding means protecting from things/people that are harmful/dangerous not things that are unacceptable. It’s a framework used to prevent there being gaps or weaknesses that predators can use to their advantage. It means setting up consistently followed sensible policies and procedures. It’s formal and accountable and should be open to objective reassessment. I genuinely don’t intend to be obnoxious when I say this, but if you can’t see the difference between the two things then I don’t know how to explain it any better.

If it’s being diluted as a concept or framework it’s because people aren’t carrying it out properly and are viewing it as a tickbox exercise rather than an effective way to prevent harm.

TRAs are magpies and they nick anything they think will give them leeway to keep doing what they want. I’m not too worried about them parroting phrases they don’t understand; narcissists grab at anything they think will give them the upper hand in a situation.

I agree that some people just don’t seem to get safeguarding but I wonder why - it’s a pretty straightforward concept, I think. Some people seem to almost resent it as being OTT and worrywarting, that attitude really baffles me.

Dr Em has written an interesting blogpost about the phenomenon of people refusing to see/acknowledge the safeguarding issues related to occasions like the multiple attendees at Genspect etc:

'When people argue ‘not my Nigella’ or ‘not all Trans’ they are really saying that this time, this person has a lady brain rather than a dangerous fetish. Yes, clothes are magical and defining. They are telling you to ignore the pattern, ignore the mounting evidence, submit to the ideology, just this once.'

https://uncommongroundmedia.com/understanding-your-nigella-the-harms-of-transvestic-paraphilia/

2021: 'Hi, We're Genspect, we're a new organisation set up to provide a voice for parents with gender-questioning kids.'

2023: 'Hi, were Genspect, we're an international alliance of professionals, parent groups, trans people, detransitioners, and others promoting a healthy approach to sex and gender. What's that, parents with gender-questioning kids? We can't quite hear you. This man in a dress has quite a loud booming voice so you'll have to speak up'

What has become apparent to me is that some people 'get' safeguarding and some people just don't.

I used to think that anyone who had ever had a frontline job working with children or vulnerable adults would have a sound understanding of safeguarding but Stella O'Malley and Sasha Ayad do both see children and families individually as private therapists and neither of them get it.

I never expected Genspect to be particularly feminist. I did expect them to understand safeguarding, given their original aim.

I am not at all surprised that SoM has once again been having visceral reactions to feminists asserting sexual boundaries in a twitter space.

3-4 year old children are not 'very exposed to sexual content just in the world' unless they are severely neglected. They are only exposed to the sexual content that their care givers expose them to. Because they are three. They're not in their rooms doing their own thing on the internet like they will be when they're 15.

My first thought would also have been some kind of influence, even if it was just the son observing something he wasn't meant to have seen. But I don't know that we are given enough information on the case to make much of a judgement. Kids are very exposed to sexual content just in the world around them. If there is a pattern some people see in clinical settings it's something that might be worth further investigation.

So many people say ‘wear what you want’ whilst ignoring that these aren’t fashion choices men are making.

Jesse Singal is interesting on this in the most recent episode of Blocked and Reported. He’s quite scathing about James Lindsay.

I once had a run in with Helen Pluckrose on Twitter. Years ago - about these paygap, which she maintained was a bitter feminist error. She was nasty and several of her acolytes piled on. Then she blocked me. It was really OTT in terms of what I’d tweeted.

So I never understood the awe some people hold her in. She seemed to me to be an academic wannabe who couldn’t land an academic post.

If you are really interested in Peter Boghossian, it is worth watching his interview with KJK and his misunderstanding of the 'benefits' of prostitution.

So many of the people involved with what we may call 'The Gender Wars' apparently on the side of 'reality' are in no way on the side of women or girls. They all seem to have blind spots and alot of these blind spots seem to be men with AGP. Look at Glinner and Stella's adoration of Debbie Hayton, whilst not being able to comprehend that he is the reason that girls do not have access to female only spaces in schools.

He wrote the fucking policies that got males into female toilets for fucks sake! He is not a fucking hero.

This AGP blind spot is a recurring theme. AGP is not 'gender non-conformity'.

I think Peter Boghossian probably agrees with Helen Pluckrose. He's never struck me as someone who 'gets' feminism or safeguarding. Both probably believe that this is all at least partly feminists' fault and that there are some people who are 'really trans' and that feminists should stop 'being mean' to them. All three have done important work which is useful to feminists but none of them are feminists.

But neither Helen Pluckrose nor Peter Boghossian are in the same category as James Lindsay. Neither have called us thick old hags or whatever he said. Only James Lindsay has lost control of himself and spilled his woman-hating rage all over the place. Have either of them reacted to his tantrum?

this ‘turmoil’ is a mixture of class differences, centre-right male trolling owing to a dislike of feminism, a strong dislike by libfems of radfems, a perception that women criticising people (particularly men) is a form of bullying, and a general lack of knowledge of political theory and safeguarding.

Yes, add in a sprinking of men in dresses and all their fucking reasons and this is an accurate description of 'Gender Critical'. It makes no more sense as a label than LGBTQIblabla.

I’ve come across another article re Genspect and what’s been happening - this article makes the argument that this ‘turmoil’ is a mixture of class differences, centre-right male trolling owing to a dislike of feminism, a strong dislike by libfems of radfems, a perception that women criticising people (particularly men) is a form of bullying, and a general lack of knowledge of political theory and safeguarding.

It’s a long-ish but very interesting read and I think it makes good points.

https://msediewyatt.substack.com/p/agp-gate

One thing this article has made me wonder is how on earth Peter Boghossian manages to get on with Helen Pluckrose and James Lindsay - he seems so much more knowledgeable, and less obnoxious and contrarian than they do.