What's going on with Genspect?

GC does not come from a branch of feminism. It was coined less than ten years ago in response to the media asking any woman who knows men aren't women, 'If we can't call you T**Fs then what should we call you?' It has never meant feminist, particularly. Everyone knows men aren't women just like everyone knows water is wet.

'GC' now has a legal meaning, thanks to Maya Forstater.

If you believe that there are two sexes, that human beings can't change sex, and that in some situations sex is important, then you have gender critical beliefs and you are protected from discrimination because of your beliefs under the Equality Act 2010.

This is not a feminist belief, even Matt Walsh would agree with it He is GC according to the UK legal definition but of course he's not a feminist.

I Haven't read this man's book but I have read other autogynephiles' books. Nothing I have read so far makes me think that this man's book is any different from any of the others.

It doesn't matter if sex is 'only' one part of it, it matters that sex is a part of it.

A lot of people saying how he's "forcing" them to participate in his fetish by being shocked by it.

No, not shocked. 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.

Everyone knows the difference between a feminine man and a man who dresses 'as a woman' / 'wears women's clothes', even if they can't quite put it into words. People with an interest in men's 'fascinating' sexual lives will forever smerge the difference.

All of this.

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.

This is not to do with whether Genspect should have 'allowed' this AGP man into their conference or not, or what clothes men should be 'allowed' or 'banned' from wearing, and in what contexts.

For Genspect as an organisation this is a deeper issue and this is just the latest example.

Their original strapline was: A voice for parents with gender-questioning kids

That's what most people still expect from them because that is how they plugged themselves. That's an extremely responsible role to take on. Any org involved with children and parents must be shit hot on safeguarding, which does not just mean preventing abuse of children by the org itself, it means actively avoiding and preventing anything which might erode the boundaries that keep children safe - such as featuring an adult man in his fetish gear on your social media, complete with a link to his book in which he tells everyone about his fetish gear.

Genspect have never been shit hot on safeguarding. They have always been reactive, defensive and aggressive. Its a terrible look for an org that was set up as A voice for parents with gender-questioning kids.

Less than a year after forming, in the spring of 2022, and with zero fanfare, Genspect's strapline changed to: A rational approach to gender. They no longer mention 'parents with gender-questioning kids' - Why? Who are they a voice for now?

By the following June, they were just 'G' with no strapline.

Who the fuck knows what they stand for now? They remained 'G' until August of this year when they changed back to 'Genspect', but still no strapline.

The recent conference was called 'The Bigger Picture' and Genspect says:

The breadth and variety of speakers at our conference reflect our broad-spectrum approach to countering WPATH. Traditional exploratory psychotherapy for gender-distressed youth must replace affirmative care, of course, and a rigorous scientific method must continue challenging the shoddy evidence base for activist-driven gender medicine; but Genspect holds that much more is needed if we’re successfully to counter the pervasive influence of gender ideology in Western culture.

https://genspect.org/genspect-releases-full-programme-for-denver-conference/

So they want to be 'Bigger Picture' but also to provide support for parents with gender-questioning kids, but these are not always compatible because we know that the 'Bigger Picture' includes various AGP men, associated fetishists and creepy sexologists who should be nowhere near children, or anyone who seeks to make policy for children.

Genspect do a lot of valuable work but they are trying to do two incompatible things at once. That's the problem.

The best thing that could happen now is if Genspect made it very, very clear that they are no longer 'A voice for parents with gender-questioning kids' and have not been for some time.

I took Blanchard's comment to refer to practical "accomodations" like using cross-gender toilets etc.

I certainly don't want AGP males in women's toilets. Do you think this is a reasonable "accommodation"? Letting men who fetishise women into women-only spaces?

How much do you think we should "accommodate" males who cosplay at being women and force other people to participate in their fetish?

What do you mean by "transwomen"? What sort of man falls into this category?

What do you think motivates "men who present as women"?

You are right. There is no difference to the external observer. We cannot tell. So we have to make assumptions. Three out of three. Feel free to make your own guess.

And would anybody observing them without prior introduction - say, at a conference or something - be in a position to tell which ones are the transwomen and which are just the "men who present as women"? Surely there is no difference, to the external observer?

So that's three then...

I encounter several men who present as women in the course of my daily life. I don't have any idea what their motivation is. However, I do have a working relationship with three transwomen, each of whom I meet at least twice a week. They are all very keen to tell me how liberating it is to wear stockings or how much they enjoy feeling the wind blowing up their skirts. AGP much?

That's what I mean @MalagaNights. Knowing that sex is real and that it can't change is such a universal concept that it can't be used as a comprehensive ideology.

People coined "gender critical" because it was deemed offensive to call us TERFs. We didn't call ourselves GC. I certainly don't identify with it although I will agree with most of what people accuse me of. Then GC was adopted by the media because it othered us and our willingness to call a spade a fucking spade, instead of accepting it as a mainstream view. Oh, those controversial GC feminists are at it again they say, when what they mean is "my mum agrees with every fucking word".

As someone said, everyone's a terf. We all just have different boundaries. For some it's "relationship purposes", for others it's procuring a surrogate. Even GRA2005 is a bit terfy when it comes to religious organisations and hereditary titles.

So no, fantasising about somebody is not at all the same as involving them in a paraphilia.

The former is entirely based on one's own thoughts and imagination; the latter involves provoking a response.

Exhibitionism depends on the response of other unwilling parties. The flasher gets off on shocking onlookers with nudity. The AGP likewise, with clothing and behaviours.

@EatMyHead are you missing a "not" in that last paragraph?

You are of course right, Genspect as an organisation is not "for women", although all the evidence is that women are overwhelmingly disadvantaged by the wholesale adoption of gender identity ideology. Yet in their "the split" statement Genspect explicitly align themselves with women's groups, and they say that their "framework prioritises women and children’s safety". So it's not a complete picture to say they are entirely divorced from the feminist agenda, nor that they don't want support from women's advocacy groups.

Excerpt from his book. There's no such thing as transsexual 'juveniles'!
Genspect did delete their tweet promoting his book, yet, they still did.

Many won't agree but AGPs are getting much cleverer at winning the hearts of women. They're wolves in gender-critical sheep's clothing. I can't see how critical thinking people cannot see this.

How many 'normal' blokes may see a sexy woman and go home and wank about her later. Are they co opting said woman unwillingly in sexual behaviour?
Why is that OK and the malaga airport crew not?

@MalagaNights on a point of information, I deliberately said "GC" and not "GC feminist" in my post. That's what I mean about it being a meaningless label. Everyone bar a few brain addled gender muppets knows that it's impossible to for men to be women.

@OldCrone

AGPs aren't tormented by the desire to be a woman though, are they? They're aroused by the thought of themselves as women. I don't think society needs to be willing to accommodate this at all. Any more than society needs to accommodate any other paraphilia.

I'm not clear what you mean by society "not accommodating" it. Do you mean society should tell them they're not allowed to be aroused by the thought of themselves as women? Or that they're allowed to but are not allowed to wear certain clothes - even ones that other people ARE allowed to wear - because it might let other people know of such arousal? Or something else?

I took Blanchard's comment to refer to practical "accomodations" like using cross-gender toilets etc. Somebody going about their life while wearing a dress that covers their private parts to a normal standard of modesty is not being accommodated in anything, or asking to be.

I don't know about a bad person but yet that's lazy thinking. It's pretty silly to imagine you know the internal sexual nature and motivations of every individual member of a huge and disparate group, just because of how they dress.