What's going on with Genspect?

A thought that I've been really reflecting on from this thread is the risk that is posed by failing to safeguard against the risks that a person poses to those around them. To use the parallel of autism:

My daughter has a PDA (Pathological Demand Avoidance) style of response when she is highly anxious and is triggered. The PDA autism response comes from a fight or flight survival instinct - the person feels that whatever is being asked of them is going to cause them harm. Even something as basic as asking them to get their shoes on. When their anxiety is low, this response doesn't happen, so the main aim is to keep anxiety as low as possible through a variety of strategies. Some led by adults, some self-led. If things start to escalate, there are other strategies. But a key part of the PDA response is that it's performative. It's designed to get a reaction because what the person really wants is to gain back control in order to feel safe. Obviously the psychology behind the acronym is different (it's driven by sexual thrill, not survival) but the escalating dangers are sufficiently similar because they pose a real risk to others.

There is discussion and division amongst psychiatrists that PDA is either a completely separate type of autism or it's present in all autistic people, to a greater or lesser degree.

The reasonable adjustments that are accommodated at school in and around her lessons are there to lower her anxiety, not to accommodate dealing with her exploding (this is also managed of course, if needed). Society doesn't have to budge up and say "Oh, it's fine. She threw a chair but no worries". Instead she needs to learn strategies to help her understand the world and that this is not acceptable in society. Thankfully good progress is being made here. But if I had listened to the autism groups, helping her to build resilience and learn better strategies than throwing a chair is "ableist". The point at which I'd decided that the groups were of no use to me was where there was a discussion about prisoners and how people just needed to understand that many prisoners are autistic (OK... yes, agreed. That's helpful to understand how to both support and manage them).... and that's why we've got too many people in prison. Eh? WTAF?! So we should be giving people a gentle warning rather than a custodial sentence because they couldn't control themselves and society just has to budge up. No.

For me, having Phil at the conference and knowing the escalating risks of the acronym, this is a similar issue. In so far as it's pathway of escalating risk. If my daughter were to believe it was acceptable to throw chairs, what's going to come next when she feels out of control? If someone is allowed to perform their fetish, what next to get the next thrill? If Genspect is going to listen to all voices, they need to be completely on top of this.

This is a really key point.

There were some transgender attendees who were (as far as could be observed) staying within the social contract that I'd imagine the majority would find acceptable. Not everyone would, but the majority within the context of the conference. If it were a conference about trans widows, that completely changes the equation.

Julia Malott is a good example. There are tweets out there in the wilds of the internet where Julia is talking about transwomen breastfeeding - so there are certainly some red flags. However, from what I've seen, Julia is currently contributing a net positive towards the goal of safeguarding children. Even now staying within the safeguarding rules of not using women's toilets and changing rooms (according to Julia, Julia stopped doing this 8 months ago). There are two possibilities here: 1) Julia genuinely wants to contribute towards safeguarding children in a positive way or 2) Julia is playing the long game very well.
Personally I'm glad that Julia is at the conference offering the insight that Julia brings. However, I rely on Genspect to set the right safeguarding measures for Julia to follow in both attending the conference and in how influencial Julia's voice is in shaping the framework. On balance, there is more to be gained from having Julia participate in discussion from within the Genspect circle than Julia being part of the WPATH crowd. Obviously Genspect needs to be watching out for all sorts of risk, including any double agents etc. So far, they don't seem to have this competence. But that doesn't mean they can't sort it. I'll be watching their comms with interest. They royally messed up here and need to demonstrate that they recognise that, either by direct apology (unlikely I suspect) or a clear delivery of how they will learn from this or both.

Thank you for the info.

The reason I don't use the word gender (I used to as a polite synonym for sex) is because I've realised that there is far more benefit in letting it go. It is well and truly owned by the people who believe that we all have a gender identity. It's possible to discuss and understand sexism, how sex-based stereotypes came to exist, how cultural norms associated with the sexes without ever needing the word "gender".

To explain my position as best I can: I don't contest the tenets of the belief. I have no interest in understanding how many genders there are because none of it means anything to me. There could be 100 plus by now. My interest is in helping to make sure it's not pushed as a compelled truth. It's the impacts of the belief that I challenge, rather than the details within the belief. Transwomen are welcome to believe that they are women but that means nothing to me because I don't hold a belief in gender identity. And I don't want laws, education or healthcare to pull this belief in as a truth. These should be based on observable facts (sex is observable, even to those who state that it was "assigned to" them at birth) and statistical patterns. I hold a belief that sex is immutable in the same way that I hold a belief that the world is round, not flat: I've seen plenty of evidence to suggest it's a truth. Ultimately it's recognised in law as a WORIAD belief that sex is immutable and that's what counts. A belief that we all have a gender identity is contestable in the same way as a belief in God, in reincarnation or in ghosts.

Aargh wrong thread

It wasn't a conference aimed at children or at any particular vulnerable group

But it was a conference that encouraged the attendance of some very vulnerable people including children, and adults who had been abused, and people similar to their abusers. The conference didn't have an "adults only" warning, and it didn't have a set of rules for expected behaviour.

I've been at conferences around sexuality that have similar issues and they manage things by being explicit about what is expected/allowed where. Some kinds of "dressing up" might be allowed at a particular workshop or at an evening social, but not in the general areas, and there will be warning. Some items would be restricted to identifiable areas, and child-safe areas are identified.

If you're going to mix people with very different needs and wishes then you have to think it through and let people know what they're likely to encounter and what behaviour and limits are expected, ideally ahead of time and not on the hoof.

@BonfireLady@MalagaNights I dunno if this info will help or further confuse 😁 but as part of my undergraduate degree I studied Feminist Political Theory (this was decades before it got renamed as Women’s Studies and then queered into Gender Studies) and we always used the terms ’sex-based stereotypes’. However, in books from the US they often used ‘gender-based stereotypes’ because Americans often substitute what they see as the more polite word ‘gender’ for the word ‘sex’.

I think this is where the term ‘gender’ got mutated from (sex-based) stereotypes to this newer phenomenon of 'gender as a cultural-construct'.

Gender is basically the sex-based stereotypes (and rules of behaviour) a given culture associates with either men or women, and various schools of Feminist Theory have evolved with their own critiques of how to tackle the resulting disadvantage/discrimination that affects women.

I could suggest an interesting, easy to comprehend textbook used on one of my Uni courses if you feel like looking it up:

https://www.taylorfrancis.com/books/mono/10.4324/9781315003221/feminist-thought-rosemarie-tong

This edition is more recent than the one I studied but it still contains info on the major schools of feminist theory.

'this is what gets me off, look at me'.

He wasn't insisting any rules be changed. He wasn't even asking for any rules to be changed.

And it's not his responsibility to provide you with a reason for his clothing choice that you deem acceptable. "This is what I feel like wearing, so piss off and mind your own business" is reason enough.

I haven't seen the clip but I personally don't use the word gender at all because I don't have a need for it.

I'm not sure if I would consider myself GC, sex realist, feminist or all of the above (where "sex realist" refers to the belief that is protected in law that sex is immutable). I'd say I'm pretty new to feminism, only having really thought about it in recent years when I realised how much the world was stacked towards the way that so many men see women's value through the lens of how attractive they consider the women to be.

These are the two different positions from what I can tell - screenshot below. I'm in the second group.

Your breakdown of the sex-based stereotypes and their origins helps to add an extra layer as to how cultural norms evolve and how these might be linked to biology. The hormone changes around pregnancy and how this influences behaviour is a great one - starting with "nesting" just prior to the birth.

Watching KJK’s live on YouTube yesterday she also said she doesn’t personally believe that gender is a social construct.

(I have no idea if this is what KJK meant - )

It depends what you describe as "gender" as there are certainly biological links to some stereotypes. For example, women's clothes have to be physically different to fit - obviously protective gear too. The problem is that it's become commercialised via fashion and so moves beyond practicality and into cultural / fashionable stereotyping.

The brain changes that occur during pregnancy that gear the mother to protect her child will have some sort of recognised function that can be stereotyped (the change's apparently last up to two years) but again this means that stereotype evolves culturally further than this to lead to inhibiting women's lives beyond motherhood. Via children's toys, books, expectations.

Consumerism and tv/ online media has completely destroyed our ability to discern what's biologically relevant and what's being culturally sold to us.

They haven't done in the last 7/8 years or so that I've been following this on Twitter so I don't personally hold out much hope. But what I will say is that there have been several of these tru-trans and GC alliances and they always go this way. They have always crashed and burned because of TRAs prioritising things which are unpalatable to feminists.

I'm really hoping that the different "GC leaning" people who are (currently still 😔) arguing it out on Twitter can pull together and see the value in understanding that there is a shared goal here: safeguarding children and vulnerable young people from the harms that come from gender identity belief.

Posting a timely clip from someone who does a great job of doing exactly this (and by extension, love* him or loathe him, Matt Walsh achieves it too):

https://x.com/NotScottNewgent/status/1724472846687117517?t=QIdEnmfY8JnIyphoHDmiEg&s=09

*I can't imagine that there is much love for Matt Walsh on a feminist board. Understandably so! But I have seen plenty of respect for some of the things he has done to raise awareness on the topic of gender identity.

Modern safeguarding was partly informed by feminist ideas - especially by the understanding that feminism brought about power differentials. That quote apart from maturity and understanding, children didn't have the power to consent to sex with adults, and especially not the adults who cared for them and who they had to depend on practically and emotionally.

So the kind of therapy I saw in that documentary, based on a "family dynamic" theory that assumed everyone was an equal agent in the dynamic and a pubescent girl had as much responsibility for her part in the dysfunctional family dynamic as the father who was abusing her... I think feminism had a lot to do with knocking that on the head.

Yes, same here, it’s not as cut and dried as some thread topics and the discussion is really interesting and useful.

Just wanted to say how interesting this thread is, and how much I’m learning. I don’t deal with safeguarding much as most of my undergrads are 18+

Thanks, everyone - this is the joy of the grassroots movement that feminism is. And I say that as one of those fanned academic feminists!

OMG @BonfireLadyI couldn’t agree more. I can’t tell you how many FB groups I have joined and left because the prevailing attitude is, ironically, affirmation-only. Now as an ND parent of ND kids I guess I’m fortunate to be able to see things from both sides. However, NT parents are being dictated to by ND adults who are simply projecting their childhood trauma at them. Nothing other than “let you kid do what they want” will do. Throw in some insinuations that your child will soon find themselves in terminal burnout (or worse, that they’ll kill themselves) and it’s a scary mix.

I once watched a parent be told that her child (aged around 10), who was soiling themselves instead of pausing the Xbox to go to the toilet, should be just allowed to do that, because no way should she heap NT behavioural expectations onto them (or words to that effect).

Sadly none of this surprises me. I'm just glad that schools, local authorities and mental health services haven't (yet?) been captured by the autism activist groups that are pushing for all of this.

I really do hope that Genspect recognises what's happening here and sorts themselves out 🤞 Otherwise they will be WPATH under another name as far as care for boys is concerned. I'm not sure discussion on the acronym would directly impact care for girls but either way, if they start seeing the acronym as a "sexual orientation" that needs to be accommodated as acceptable, that's enough of a crack to let anything else in because it's a conflation of sexual orientation and gender identity and a step back into gender affirming care.

Discussion and understanding, yes. Accommodation as acceptable as something to be normalised, no.

Remember uk and USA left to right goes a bit like this
Labour uk
Tories uk
Democrats USA
Republication USA

Even their left is right wing compared to uk politics.

Yes agree this is normal right like uk. I meant the right wing USA essentially used as a slur when paired with gc beliefs.

All the right wing views are def not GC they think gender is correct and often from God.

When I read this, I think of all the people I know know, or know of, who are on the right, and especially women on the right, and tbh I pretty much don't recognize it.

Plenty think there are some inherent differences between men and women. Plenty would say that you can make some generalizations, at a population level, about men and women, with regards to behavioural things, and that some of this is rooted in biology. Or, rooted in the consequences of biology. (Say, breastfeeding mothers may more often choose to stay home with infants longer. So a social choice, but one that comes out of a biological fact.)

Usually they don't see some gendered social differences, say in clothing styles, as necessarily negative.

But they all recognize that people are all different, they think women should be educated and have careers if they want them, that they can excel at anything, that they make good leaders, and so on.

The biggest difference I see is that they tend to put a high value on mothering, and see it as being as worthwhile as a career.

Thanks all. I just can’t help but want to categorise myself into a neat box (being ND I can’t help but be drawn to that) but of course we are all individuals with ever-changing thoughts so I guess that’s not realistic.

Watching KJK’s live on YouTube yesterday she also said she doesn’t personally believe that gender is a social construct. Now this was 🤯 because I have always wrangled with that statement. I’ve found it hard to believe that gender performance/gender roles are brought about entirely by socialisation. I am more inclined to think that the sexes are driven to behave in ways that are inbuilt (i.e. driven by biological differences) in addition to socialisation.

I have stepped away from the parent groups because attendees are being indoctrinated to believe that any strategies to help your child navigate the world are "ableist"

OMG @BonfireLady I couldn’t agree more. I can’t tell you how many FB groups I have joined and left because the prevailing attitude is, ironically, affirmation-only. Now as an ND parent of ND kids I guess I’m fortunate to be able to see things from both sides. However, NT parents are being dictated to by ND adults who are simply projecting their childhood trauma at them. Nothing other than “let you kid do what they want” will do. Throw in some insinuations that your child will soon find themselves in terminal burnout (or worse, that they’ll kill themselves) and it’s a scary mix.

I once watched a parent be told that her child (aged around 10), who was soiling themselves instead of pausing the Xbox to go to the toilet, should be just allowed to do that, because no way should she heap NT behavioural expectations onto them (or words to that effect).

I've never been sure about political lesbianism.My bubble is largely woman-dominated, but I know I'm heterosexual in my preference. So I've always thought that political lesbianism is a bit of a hypocritical swizz.

No easy answers (ref. back to lesbian separatists "Why are you sleeping with the enemy?")

If it helps anyone; safe schools alliance U.K. are a safeguarding organisation.

They're not feminist, GC or any other type of group.

So all their analysis is from a safeguarding in schools pov.

Safeguarding is working well for most aspects of safeguarding generally in most schools, Ofsted make sure of that.

Not so much within RSE / pshe and the sex and gender reassignment aspect of the EA2010. Ofsted and the gov have not got that right. And it appears to attract an awful lot of outside orgs. Some aspects of SEND are also neglected.