What's going on with Genspect?

Ha, forgot that one. Political lesbianism, a tool used by rad fems to bring about the matriarchy.

in terms of radfem vs feminism vs GC vs sex realism

Speaking as a now old-ish 2nd wave feminist - I attended Women's Lib conferences when I was 18 in the late 1970s - I have a couple of observations:

these sorts of definitions and divisions are par for the course. In the 1970s, there were big debates (and some painful divisions) between lesbian separatists (asking us straights, "Why are you sleeping with the enemy?"), socialist feminists ("the liberation of women will only come after the liberation of the proletariat) and the radical feminists (it's all the fault of the patriarchy).

And really, I call myself a feminist, because for me this encompasses "gender critical feminism" It cannot but do so: the basis of feminism is the analysis of the distinctions between sex (biological, immutable) and gender roles & stereotypes (socially constructed, and historically & culturally specific).

'Twas ever thus, that there are differences - and understandable in a grass roots movement, with so many people involved, and one in which the politics is lived activism.

Ffs it lost my whole post

I am GC always have been. This means I don't believe most stereotypes are true and think people are individual with personality.
But I also am SR as I do accept some differences like men are more likely to sexually assault or just assault. Women can have nasty personalities but they manipulate or abuse through other coercion and emotion not often physically.
You can be one but not the other. All the right wing views are def not GC they think gender is correct and often from God. Other SR believe in GI but don't believe you can actually change sex. So accept tw are men but think they can mostly present as women except in specific situations.

Theoretically as a general rule Liberal feminists believe TWAW and sex work is work, that we have made great strides towards equality.
Marxist feminists believe we need to overthrow the whole system so some align with GI as identity rules, others who are also radical don't.
Radical feminists generally believe the greatest oppression is that of women so we need to overthrow the patriarchy preferable for a matriarchy as women are more peaceful etc. Maybe by removing reproduction from our bodies hence many rad fems being involved in the development of ivf. Generally then radical feminists says TWAM.

I don't worry about labelling myself and my beliefs so precisely. Or anyone else's. That's the thing about being an academic, I am used to people explaining what they mean by the labels they're using each time they use them.

I do remember telling my DC that TERF was a stupid term because there hadn't been any active radical feminists since about 1980-something. As it turns out that might not be quite true

I’ve found the side discussion in this thread really interesting, in terms of radfem vs feminism vs GC vs sex realism. But fuck ME does it muddy the waters for me in terms of trying to understand what I am and what my beliefs are?

I’ve heard KJK say enough times that she isn’t a feminist, and Helen Joyce say that she isn’t GC but a sex realist… is there a Wiki somewhere which explains all the factions? I need an easily understandable summary because I have inattentive ADHD 😄

This thread has some amazing insights in it. Forgive me as I don't have the PPs' names to hand but I wanted to pick up on a few gems and add my own thoughts, from my perspective as a parent (of an autistic gender-questioning child) who is also interested in protecting women's rights:

1. I welcome the fact that Genspect cast their net wide and bring in voices from the other point of view (in this case, an acronym person). Although we have information already, the climate changes in relation to the acronym, particularly so for boys who are being pulled towards seeing themselves as female through anime, avatars and similar. Maintaining up to date info and dialogue through current as well as historical known inputs is important.
2. This should only ever be done with adequate safeguarding regarding how that input is considered and challenged. They let their guard down here massively on this, as demonstrated by their promotional tweet. If they can't recognise that his choice of dress style was incongruous and performative, what other transgressions have they failed to recognise and potentially pull in to their framework? How much influence has already crept in to their allegiances and ways of working?
3. The narcissm pathway was very interesting from this perspective. It also describes ego-led behaviours in many/most corporate organisations. It's no accident that many CEOs are of a personality type that behaves in a similar way and the work politics can be pretty brutal. The added layer here is the danger of escalations that are linked to a fetish which feeds off lack of consent for the thrill. Hence the safeguarding fail right from the start.
4. Calling out what's happening in autism circles in relation to narcissm creeping in resonates hugely with me (and linking it back to the current toilet issue is very astute). 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" and that the world should shift to accommodate autistic people. I totally disagree. My daughter is fab and wonderful in so many ways but this doesn't mean the world should accept her "as she is". There should be reasonable adjustments yes, but ultimately the autistic person needs to learn skills and strategies to navigate the world as it is. Thankfully the school and CAMHS agree on this, so stepping away from the unhelpful influence is an easy choice to make on this one.
5. If Genspect wants to include voices from attendees such as this person, reasonable adjustments may be possible (e.g. perhaps he could attend in something that wasn't so clearly performative) but safeguarding should come first. If that balance of risk (his fetish performance in the conference and his ideas infiltrating the framework without proper scrutiny) and benefit (interactive active discussion on his input to help further understanding) can't be achieved then so be it. Ideally I would hope that they could find a balance to have him there but if not, I would expect them to err on the side of caution. Actively promoting him and his book displays massive red flags that they have been captured and are oblivious to the fire with which they are playing - as stated above by a PP.
6. The social contract is an interesting one. When we wear clothes, we make a statement. No matter what someone's sex, wearing something deliberately incongruous (e.g. jeans at a wedding) breaks the social contract in some way. The extent to which this causes upset to others depends on weighing up lots of different factors. Personally, I would be OK with the attendee being there in a different dress that wasn't so clearly performative. But if the majority view on whether that broke the social contract (when weighing up the risks and benefits) was different and that he shouldn't attend, I would accept that too. Going back to the example of jeans at a wedding, it all depends on whether it breaks the social contract and what the risks/benefits are: if that person is a key guest and the bride and groom accept that they will only attend if they can wear jeans, then my own views carry less weight. If Genspect think that this person attending in whatever he likes is beneficial to the conference, then my own views don't matter (and I'm likely to turn on my heals and look for a better organisation to help my daughter, just like I did with the autism group). In this case, Genspect clearly failed to even recognise the need for a balance of risk and benefit, let alone have a view on it. Now they are on the back foot and their attempts to manage this are painful.

I still hope that some good will come out of this whole episode. It's certainly blown the whole conversation wide open and thrown some sunlight on it, as has been said above. At the moment, Genspect still represent the best hope for helping children and young people (and parents) to get access to evidence-based care.

therapy also tries to start where the patient is and work from there to open up other possible perspectives.

Which is why we no longer offer family therapy to parents and children when (one of) those parents (has) been sexually abusing their children.

I am old enough to remember when therapists thought that was a good idea.

No, not personal, but I still remember a very serious educational-type TV documentary showing that therapy in (I think) the late 1970s or early 1980s. The therapy started from where the abuser was, and the therapist told the victim to take her share of the responsibility for the abuse. Even then I was enraged on her behalf!

Lorelei and Dr Louise Moody did a good space on this on Twitter/X the other day.

Last copied-over post from Twitter on the Genspect issue for now.

Lorelei
https://twitter.com/hatpinwoman/status/1724089337736773791

Tweet text:
@ hatpinwoman
It’s critical to understand that men with transvestic fetishism do not share an identity, or a new form of innate sexual orientation, or some hitherto overlooked characteristic in need of protection.
^^
They aren’t secretly women, and they aren’t a vulnerable group of men.
^^
What they have in common is a paraphilia and their paraphilia stands to increase, not diminish, their risk to others.
^^
Including children.
^^
“Transvestic fetishism may be associated with increased risks for sexual acting out that could injure the individual and victimize others.
^^
Among subjects who accidentally died when engaged in autoerotic asphyxia, a high- risk paraphilic behavior based on self-induced cerebral anoxia by hanging or suffocation during masturbation, transvestic fetishism was common (Blanchard & Hucker, 1991).
^^
Co-occurrence of non-paraphilic hypersexuality, including extensive masturbation and promiscuity, and transvestic fetishism has been identified in clinical outpatient populations (Black, Kehrberg, Flumerfeldt, & Schlosser, 1997; Kafka & Hennen, 1999, 2002).
^^
Finally, a seminal investigation of 561 male subjects voluntarily seeking help for paraphilic behavior revealed that many had additional DSM-II/III paraphilias in addition to the presenting diagnosis (Abel, Becker, Cunningham-Rathner, Mittelman, & Rouleau, 1988).
^^
Up to 20% of individuals with transvestic fetishism also had been involved in the sexual molestation of children, and 36% had committed exhibitionistic acts (see also Langevin, Checkley, & Pugh, 1987)”
^^
Quote from “Transvestic Fetishism in the General Population: Prevalence and Correlates” by Kenneth J. Zucker and Niklas Langstrom

3:38 pm · 13 Nov 2023 ·57.5K Views

I hope no-one minds me posting a few more interesting tweets that I’ve found discussing Genspect.

Amy Sousa
https://twitter.com/KnownHeretic/status/1724107025104437683

Tweet text:
@ KnownHeretic
Warning: EMPATHY TRAP
^^
It is not in women's interest to make accommodations for men with transvestic fetishism. Their public paraphilia is directly harmful to women/children.
^^
Some men are tormented by fetishistic addictions, but it is a dangerous empathy trap to put men's psychological state above women's physical safeguarding. Do not be drawn into empathy traps that attempt to place men's sexual desires over the health of the culture at large. Reserve your empathy for the men and women who do not consent to being unwilling participants in men's sexual gratification. Boundaries are more important than some men's sexual frustration. #EmpathyTrap
4:48 pm · 13 Nov 2023 ·93.2K Views

Genevieve Gluck - this tweet includes screenshots of an old transvestite magazine called Empathy. The Letters to the Editor page is an eye-opener.

https://twitter.com/WomenReadWomen/status/1724287583537312195

Tweet text:
@ WomenReadWomen
These men and the sexologists who advocate for them have been emotionally manipulating women for decades. And before "true trans" there was "true transvestite."
4:46 am · 14 Nov 2023 ·1,595 Views

I'm very tempted to go to the next one with just a 'safeguarding' head on. Like a mystery shopper [which I did for many years].

Dr Suzanne Vierling tweeted re what happened at Genspect & about the Ray Blanchard tweet mentioned in an earlier post and I found it an interesting thread. Lack of impulse control, exhibitionism and clustering of these fetishes/paraphilias in men with AGP is discussed.

https://twitter.com/suzannevierling/status/1724133712013795807

Tweet text:
@suzannevierling
What is the role of a psychologist, psychotherapist, mental health professional? Our job when working with a population suffering from a mental health condition is to organize a treatment protocol purposed to ameliorate negative symptoms and assist the client in adapting to our societal norms and expectations.

For example, when a young person is diagnosed with schizophrenia, he or she is expected to adapt to a culture that values predictable behavior and linear thinking. A psychologist can then be part of a team that assists the client not only in feeling better and functioning independently, but in adapting as best as possible to his or her environment. Society does not adapt nor is expected to adapt to the condition.

In no way shape or form should the mental health profession proceed with supporting protocols that places 50% of the population in harms way, as opposed to helping individuals adapt to societal norms - as is what is done for all mental health conditions. This is criminal.

Last edited
6:34 pm · 13 Nov 2023 ·20.4K Views

But I wonder if it’s more whatWE think Genspect should do, rather than what they’re actually trying to do.

They are NOT a lobbying or activist organisation although I think a lot of people think they should be. Lord knows we need an activist organisation in this field.

Genspect is an organisation primarily about responsible balanced therapeutic care for children and young people, and their parents and families. And that might mean that they need to face head on, stuff that those of us watching from the sidelines have the luxury of not having to deal with.

They can’t be both activists and therapists.

I’ve found listening to the Gender: a wider lens podcasts to be hugely informative and thought provoking. And I’ve also realised that they are quite deliberately trying not to be too immured in a specific political position. There was one epi where they talked about feminists and feminism as if they were nothing to do with them. As a “they” not a “we”.

Im conflicted about the presence of an AGP man at their conference. But if you’re a therapist maybe you need to know who such people are and how to treat them. And therapy also tries to start where the patient is and work from there to
open up other possible perspectives.

Thank you, very useful context.

I agree that Genspect seems like it needs to either choose one angle, or split into two groups.

Cantor is a very clever man, but I've always had an issue with him as in the past he's said that he thinks paedophilia is a sexual orientation and we should reduce stigma. The so called "virtuous paedophile" concept.

Be wary of those who find men's sexual behaviour 'fascinating'. The etymology of that word is all to do with being bedazzled by dick.

YY @PencilsInSpace, great posts

I share the frustration that 'sex exists' is positioned as a 'belief' & I felt that at the time with Maya's case

Yes, I felt that same sense of frustration!

I guess it's a bit like "flat earth" versus "solid earth" beliefs. The evidence is for a solid spherical-ish earth, which makes it a "fact" as well as a "belief". But we're allowed to believe in either one. As long as we don't then refuse to use the instruments that fly the plane safely because they're all based on solid earth beliefs!

What I have learned from all the legal cases is that self-righteous bullying is still bullying. Even righteous bullying would still be bullying.

Getting back to Genspect... I think that Sasha and Stella can be a little naive about adult psychology. They are experts and practitioners in children and teenage developmental psychology, focussed on gender. That's their field and their strength. They aren't as aware as they could be of the extent to which therapeutic approaches have at various times and places apologised for and covered up adult male abuse of women and children.

Thinking about the "Gender A Wider Lens" podcast with Cantor, they did seem to accept some of Cantor's more obtuse remarks about the paraphilia-that-must-not-be-named uncritically, though to be fair to them his disability makes it difficult to challenge him on the spot. And to be fair to Cantor he is a usefully incisive critic of the quality of published research, at least when it comes to gender.

I do feel a little confused now about what (or who) Genspect is for. I had thought Genspect was mainly about children and young people, and then it embraced detransitioners, and now I'm not sure. I personally would like some organisation to champion good research and good medical information and outcome information for adults as well.

Quick interjection.

In amongst the madness, I did hear tell that the AGP didn't even have to buy a ticket to the conference. He was given it.

I'd be interested if anyone else heard this. I heard it on a Twitter space, possibly KJK's one. There have been so many this week about this!

I'd be interested if Genspect did indeed not only have his book on their website, promoted it in the twixxes and also invite him along.

Because that would render them captured in my book.

It's not weird, it's just that there are lots of different people posting on here and we all have different opinions and different interpretations of what things mean.

I can't recall who said it, but, "Neither MN nor FWR are a be-cardiganed monolith" (or words to that effect).

He is forcing people to participate in his fetish by observing him and encountering him socially. Nobody is shocked by this any more.

People are forced into either pretending he's a woman and giving him the nod, acknowledging he's getting a sexual thrill out of pretending to be a woman, and still giving him the nod, or reacting with disapproval.

Any of these reactions gives him a hard-on. There is no way to react to these men without increasing their thrill.

This is the problem with men who get their kicks from dressing in female clothing. It's impossible to stop without enforcing strict dress codes with different requirements for men and women. I don't think any of us want to go back to a time when that was the norm.

How do we solve this problem when there is a group of men who use ordinary female attire as fetish wear and any reaction, or even ignoring them, just increases their thrill?

(I have to say that I would hate Genspect to disappear because, as a parent, it saved my sanity).

I don't think talking about AGP and trying to understand the different types of transitioning males is incompatible with helping parents. We tend to forget that ROGD affects boys as well, although to a lesser extent. From the podcast, I think Sasha, Stella and others think that there might be a new AGP ROGD, induced by watching porn too much and at a too early age. Maybe my impression is wrong (I listened to them focusing on female ROGD) but there is a portion of parents that also needs help. I cannot imagine the sense of shame the parents may feel. These boys can also be groomed online. On the other end, you are all probably right on Genspect needing to become better in safeguarding. I come from another country and it's only here in the UK that I've seen the concept expressed with such a clarity.

No one is particularly disagreeing on gender as a social construct or any of the rest of it. It's just that "gender critical" as a label and a concept does not have a lot of meaning, or agreement about meaning.

Even Maya's organisation, Sex Matters, describes itself as a human rights organisation, not as a feminist one. And Maya was the one who got "gender critical beliefs" protected.

I just resist the whole notion that we actually describe knowing sex is a thing as a "belief". It was never deemed a "belief" before women started to get uppity about men declaring themselves women. Robert Winston didn't need to state that he had a protected "belief" that humans can't change sex live on the BBC. By downgrading facts as beliefs I think you further marginalise women.

Rad fem / Lib fem are better established and understood categories.

It's not weird, it's just that there are lots of different people posting on here and we all have different opinions and different interpretations of what things mean.

I wasn't aware that GC had a legal meaning due to the Forstater ruling. I have always thought that gender critical meant critical of the idea of gender in a general sense, so I wouldn't describe someone like Matt Walsh as GC. I personally am consistent with that, but I'm aware that some other posters use GC as shorthand for anyone who doesn't believe TWAW.