What's going on with Genspect?

A 3-4 y/o child behaving in such a precociously sexualised way is a HUGE red flag for CSA.

That's safeguarding 101.

This is where we see academics loosing sight of the reality of coal face safeguarding thanks to theories and academic freedom of speech.

Not everything that is passed on from parents is passed on by genetics. We could be kind and assume that Zucker had already ruled out abuse. But when you have a 3 or 4 year old behaving in such an adult sexualised manner you'd at least have to wonder about abuse regardless of the trans.

I'm not clear how endemic this problem is to Genspect. I have noticed that Sasha and Stella are very much "the parents are the ones who care about their children, the parents are the authority" and while that's usually true there are going to be exceptions.

Uhler said all three of them were mandated reporters.

I see what you’re saying and I understand what you mean but I’m more inclined to think that the crossdressing father is the significant factor in this boy’s life and I’m not inclined to think the child’s unusual behaviour is something that would develop naturally at such a young age.

I could believe it might happen to a boy going through puberty who begins to fixate on something to the point where it gets reinforced in his mind and he believes he’s always been that way. But I think a very young boy with a paraphilic father is a safeguarding concern, and I’m horrified that Zucker didn’t notify the relevant child protection authority. And I’m equally concerned that Bailey and O’Malley aren’t seeing this as a worrying story.

A 3-4 y/o child behaving in such a precociously sexualised way is a HUGE red flag for CSA.

To uncritically present this as a thing to be speculated about - 'fascinating case ... maybe it's genetic?' without even a nod to safeguarding is appalling.

Safeguarding should be at the absolute forefront of any professional's mind who works with children, or families, or advocates for them, or seeks to influence policy on their behalf.

This is the problem some of us have with Genspect.

There is data. Kinsey data. Which cannot be used or trusted yet which has permeated so much of the "thinking" about "the child as a sexual being".

More on Kinsey and how he got his data here:

It should probably be said that the Yorkshire film/C4 video above contains discussions of child sexual abuse which some people might find quite upsetting.

I think he's saying that it's something he suspects, this is an example.

If you read about the origins or first experiences boys have of fetishistic arousal, of all kinds, it seems to come largely out of the blue. Often attached to events that have no apparent sexual connotation at all, triggered by objects that have no sexual connotations. Though there are certain types of objects, like shoes, that appear again and again.

I imagine there isn't much data looking at generational incidents of this kind of thing, so speculation is likely to be pretty wide and is going to be driven by the clinicians personal observations.

Was gonna say, it's a belief. Just that:

"I believe that there is a strong genetic component"

Do you now?!

Of course it's not the same, it's a different thing. But it is similar in the sense that claims of a kind of scientific knowledge are made when the evidence simply isn't there, and people are criticized for saying so, not on rational grounds, but moral grounds.

There are people in most, though not all, cultures that have sex sometimes, or a lot of times, with people of the same sex.

But this is not typically understood in the same way we understand sexuality as such. And there are huge historical variations in which people had same sex sex, and under what circumstances too. It's clearly a culturally influenced phenomena.

Even in a western context, one of the huge issues in studies about sexuality is how you decide to define a person's sexuality for the purposes of the study, which has to have a consistent criteria. And we still have no clear idea what causes differences in sexuality. It does not seem to be the same in all cases.

If people are required to believe stuff because it's a moral imperative, don't be surprised if they think the same way about other things.

Where on earth does Bailey get 'strong genetic component' from in that story?!?! It seems much more logical and likely to me that the young boy has been either abused or influenced by the father. How is that not seen as a precipitating factor and a case for involving the authorities by these 4 people trained in psychology?!?!

I wrote a transcript of this when it first aired:

[56:20]

SOM: Do you think AGP arrives, let's say, post-puberty, pre-puberty, have you got any kind of thoughts around this? Because, you know, there's a lot of conversation on that point.

MJB: Yup, so it is generally first evident when boys are in adolescence and they're getting a sex drive, and it's quite fascinating actually, because there's no way they learn this from other people, but they typically learn that they enjoy wearing their sister's or their mother's lingerie in private, looking at themselves in the mirror and masturbating. But for 90% of autogynephilic males, that's the first step.

However, Ken Zucker published a fascinating case report of a little boy, I think he's three or four, who's brought to the clinic because he is wearing his mother's panties and getting erections and masturbating. And he told me - wait, I think this is in the case report, I'm going to tell you anyway - that, in discussing this case, he learned that the father of this little boy was a secret cross-dresser.

SA: I've heard a lot of stories of father and son cross-dressing.

MJB: It is - there are only isolated case reports and anecdotes, but I believe that there is a strong genetic component in this and we can't - it's hard to see how we - you know, I can't be sure, but based on these case reports and stories I hear, I just believe that, that is true.

SA: Well, Mike Bailey, it was a really interesting conversation, we're so glad to have had you on.

MJB: I had a great time and - yeah, so I'll try to send you the link to the free version of my book and everybody should read it and have their parents and their children read it too.

[laughter]

SOM: Yeah, you're right!

SA: Read it to your five-year-olds before bed as a nice bedtime story.

MJB: Yes, and send Andrea James an email about how much they enjoyed it.

SA: Oh my gosh, I definitely will. [laughs] Thank you so much Mike, I hope you have a fantasic rest of your night.

MJB: Thank you, great to see you.

SOM: Thank you.

MJB: You too, you too.

There are homosexuals all over the world. Many cultures also have an equivalent of HSTS, e.g. fa'afafine or hijra - but as far as I can tell, AGP appears to be a peculiarly western phenomenon. I think Helen Joyce has said similar.

So I would say it does not belong in the same category as sexual orientation.

Ps regarding his sucking up to James Lindsay.... from what I could see, this seemed to stop when James went in to a full-on battle against feminists, with all the hag name-calling etc.

If KJK whips out the "I'm not a feminist" card in the discussion, she'll need to do so very carefully. On this particular issue I would hope that she demonstrates how she stands with what feminists are calling out regarding the risks associated with fetishes.

He was awful wasn't he?

Prior to all of this, I had already pushed through my disappointment in Benjamin Boyce, having previously watched hours of brilliant and empathetic interviews... and then joining Twitter (in July I think) to discover that he came from the Matt Walsh school of "the purpose of women", for want of a better phrase 🤦‍♀️ He excelled himself in this misogynistic capacity with how he acted in the immediate aftermath of the Genspect mess.

However.... If he can engage his very good critical thinking skills (sadly very lacking so far in the Genspect issue), he is a good facilitator in reasoned and calm discussion. If he can draw out the best of KJK (completely right to call out the fetish here) and Stella (completely right IMO to engage in scientific debate with open curiosity... as long as she is thinking critically about people's motivations and mitigating for risk.... and not shouting down the people who point out the failure to do this).... then this could prove to be a useful conversation.

In theory, all three of them could come out of this looking positive, with a united front regarding the Genspect conference. To do so, each of them will have to overlook some things that have annoyed them recently... or at least air these and then push on through to have a discussion that has value. It will take good self control and good listening skills from all three of them. Otherwise it's just a variation of the Hunger Games to see who comes out winning - and I'm not really sure what that would achieve.

For the views/likes etc.?? I think he was surprised at how well his early GC interviews went in terms of viewership and he’s been riding that train ever since, cos it raises his profile 🤔

After Genspect’s conference, Boyce was trolling women who were arguing that Illy was a safeguarding concern, and he was sucking up to James Linsdsay like a comedy sidekick when Lindsay was failing to 'take down' KJK, on Twitter 🤷‍♀️🙄 So, in terms of a 'debate moderator' will he be great at being impartial?

At any rate, I’m still glad that Stella and Kellie-Jay are entering into public discussion - it’s a hopeful development.

Wish it wasn’t Boyce hosting it though - I increasingly think he’s using GC women/campaigners to build his channel; based on his sexist tweets that I’ve seen, I don’t think he cares about women’s rights too much.

Totally agree. I thought he was a decent, sensible kind of bloke but lately he hasn’t been able to resist taking potshots at feminists and is clearly being entirely self-serving when it comes to platforming women and detransitioners.

Yup. I can't stand him. I tried so much not to.

I don't know why he is involved at all.

That’s going into my diary - thanks for letting us know AlisonDonut 👍

Debate and discussion is good, its much better than seeing people snipe at each other through blog posts or on Twitter - so I’m glad this is going ahead.

Wish it wasn’t Boyce hosting it though - I increasingly think he’s using GC women/campaigners to build his channel; based on his sexist tweets that I’ve seen, I don’t think he cares about women’s rights too much.

Thursday 7pm UK time, KJK talking to Stella on Boyce's you tube channel.

I shall be tuning in to see where Stella now lands on this after all this.

I hadn’t seen Uhler’s tweet, thanks for the link, but I did listen to that podcast a while ago and I remember being shocked by Bailey and co’s attitude to this story. In fact, Bailey, Cantor, Burgo, Ayad, Zucker, and O’Malley surprise (and worry) me with how open-minded they are about what seem to me to be dangerous things. I find them very naive about paedophilia, AGP, and other proclivities - I know psychotherapists are supposed to be empathetic but I think they take it too far at times.

Some people are dangerous and misplaced empathy in therapists/the justice system authorities allows them to manipulate and hurt others; Uhler understands that and is very blunt about it.

science says so" approach, which has been very doninant in gay rights from the 80's

Is this an instance of what Pratchett and others would have called 'lying to children'?

I often wonder how we handle the disconnect between a narrative that is useful at the time and then obstructs real understanding when it's needed.

The "lie-to-children" concept was first discussed by scientist Jack Cohen and mathematician Ian Stewart in the 1994 book The Collapse of Chaos: Discovering Simplicity in a Complex World.[1][2][3] They further elaborated upon their views in their coauthored 1997 book Figments of Reality: The Evolution of the Curious Mind.[1][2][4] The concept gained greater exposure when they collaborated with popular author Terry Pratchett, discussing "lies-to-children" in the book The Science of Discworld (1999).[5][6]

Cohen and Stewart discussed "lies-to-children" and the desire inherent in society for a view of simplicity with regards to complex concepts in their 1994 book The Collapse of Chaos.[1][2][3][7]

Stewart and Cohen wrote in Figments of Reality (1997) that the lie-to-children concept reflected the difficulty inherent in reducing complex concepts during the education process.[4][8] Stewart and Cohen noted reality itself was viewed within the prism of human perspective: "Any description suitable for human minds to grasp must be some type of lie-to-children — real reality is always much too complicated for our limited minds.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lie-to-children

I can't help but think we are reaping the results of the "sexuality is innate and unchangable, the science says so" approach, which has been very doninant in gay rights from the 80's.

The thing is, we don't really even have a very good scientific definition of "sexuality". The idea that we can say that homo, hetero, or bisexuality are somehow fundamental and natural in either sex, or that these are set before birth, or not culturally influenced, and all the rest - it's just not supported scientifically.

Sexuality is to some extent, and we don't really know how far this goes, a constructed category, and one that isn't particularly historically common.

It's very difficult to "prove" that things like AGP don't belong in the same category when you don't have a clear, evidenced and explained set of criteria beyond "this is how people experience their sexuality whatever the heck that means."

Rights groups chose to run with this idea because it was very successful at creating empathy in the general public. Not because it was the only compelling theory or because it had the best evidence base. So finding that now there are other theories without compelling evidence that people expect to be supported for their social utility, as they see it - well, yeah. That's the precedent that's been set and a whole generation has been taught that is the only moral way to think about issues.

These seemingly small fudges for the greater good bear fruit down the line.

Sorry @2fallsfromSSA I hadn't seen this post.

Another aspect here is that private companies delivering cpd, pedagogical approaches, safeguarding training and even aspects of pastoral care such as counselling to schools is rising exponentially.

Added to the fact that the local nhs and the local councils have the capacity to commission services from charities to support aspects of school - such as the proud trust, rainbow schemes, even No Outsiders, it's becoming an infinate game of whackamole.

Senior school leaders would assume the nhs 'has it right' or that the council have done their research.

And that's not to mention how individual teachers might naively pick up a 'nice' book on being kind that actually is about the ideological idea that you can be 'in the wrong body' to read at the end of the day.

A small group of volunteers cannot hold all these people to account individually. New companies are popping up daily. Schools and parents need to be equipped with the skills to challenge as safeguarding is everyone's business.

The latest news that Ofsted May be changing and safeguarding inspections may be undertaken by a separate body, annually, is very welcome.

@UtopiaPlanitia you may have seen this? "straight out of Kinsey"

https://x.com/uhlerjon/status/1724718641566896534?s=46&t=WHoOZZ_3Kv5G6-FyQuvE0LQ

Wow. what a melon.