What's going on with Genspect?

A hairdresser once told me off for not doing my hair properly - said it would ruin my dress. I thought "what dress?" and obviously never went back. I was reminded of that looking at this picture though. I mean the hair is terrible and the dress looks awful. Not even accessorised!! Definitely didn't deserve a SM call out. Or any further attention. Wish I could unsee it.

I think I'm just not convinced by the one dimensional and simplistic narrative of him "performing his fetish". I'm going by hearing him on the podcast, where he described how sex was only one part of it. He dresses in women's clothes full time, it's not like he only does it when he wants a sexual thrill.

Hi, a trans widow here. I think about 99.9% of us have heard the "I wear them for comfort, it's not only a sex thing" or variations thereof. But look at what he was wearing. He wasn't wearing women's slacks and a blouse, or even a skirt and top suitable for the office. My ex wore a tutu "because it was so comfortable".

That's interesting UtopiaPlanitia. I've not listened to the podcasts so wouldn't know. I agree with your point about intellectual fascination. Think I've seen some of Uhler's thoughts and would also agree there, too.

Has anyone here read Illy's book? Genuine question - I haven't.

I think I'm just not convinced by the one dimensional and simplistic narrative of him "performing his fetish". I'm going by hearing him on the podcast, where he described how sex was only one part of it. He dresses in women's clothes full time, it's not like he only does it when he wants a sexual thrill.

Some might argue with this but I think really, if the fact that "he's written a book about it" is going to be used as an argument, one should probably have a reasonable idea of what that book says. I suspect it doesn't say what people think it says.

A lot of people saying how he's "forcing" them to participate in his fetish by being shocked by it. Isn't the simple solution to that to not be shocked by it? It's only a dude in a dress. And here I was thinking this is the country that invented panto. 😀

We had decades of feminists painstakingly dismantling the idea of boys' and girls' clothes. He's certainly not the first transwoman to apparently resurrect that idea through the striking juxtaposition of opposites, but it's entirely up to us whether we want to buy into it or not.

The indirect effects of a man—even a good man—walking around in stereotypically female dress, in an era when other men who do this expect to be allowed in to female only spaces, to be treated as if they are women—are negative.

Big fat load of unevidenced assumption there. One could just as easily make the argument that the effects are positive, because they show that it's possible to live happily as an AGP transwoman while NOT being allowed (or even wanting to be allowed) into female only spaces. So they destroy the argument that not letting transwomen into those spaces is cruel, transphobic and damaging to their mental health.

This is the problem with indirect effects. It's almost never possible to objectively prove what they are (because they're indirect, so routed through too many variables to measure). So people tend to just assert that they are what they want them to be.

To be honest, Stella’s public output, via her C4 documentary and her podcast, has always showed great empathy/sympathy for men with AGP but not much attention or empathy is given to the wives of these men. So I can see why she might struggle to consider the needs of trans widows (or the needs of other women) in organising the conference. She’s definitely not displaying empathy at the moment in her public statements about the criticism Genspect have attracted.

I have a theory that therapists/ psychologists/psychiatrists find their patients so intellectually fascinating (and thus empathise with them strongly) and this prevents them from seeing the harm that paedophiles and men with sexual fetishes/paraphilias cause to the people in their lives and society in general.

I get this sense when I listen to Blanchard, Bailey, Cantor, Burgo, as well as Stella and Sasha. At times they seem almost naive in their ability to intellectualise these fetishes as sexual orientations that need societal sympathy and understanding. At least John Uhler is honest and blunt about the escalating nature of paraphilias and the need for strict safeguarding - he’s just not popular for expressing these facts.

Yes, from what I've read, the approving photo posted on SM was the mistake made. Now it’s become Attention-Seeker Gets The Attention He Wanted.

I've skimmed the thread. Will read properly when time allows. But what would happen if everyone just ignored the dress and the man in it. Isn't the issue that Genspect basically "insta-ed" him and made a deal out of it? If I were there I would have walked the other way in the same way I would have if it had been bondage gear, probaby eye raised and yawned. We should more of that and less attention giving perhaps.

I have tried to read all the posts but I might have missed some, so I'm not sure whether this has been already raised. One of the angles Genspect is exploring is ROGD in boys. I think in their clinical/support experience they are starting to hypothesize that some ROGD boys have a sort of early onset AGP triggered by excessive and/or early porn exposure. I think their interest in AGP, which is typically later age onset, stems also from their will to help parents of boys, and the boys themselves.

The difficulty is you don't know if it's fetish unless they've written a book on it. or declare it as such.

It starts by telling people that Genspect sees it as an unacceptable thing to do, that this is not Pride. Don't wear your fetish to conference, and don't expect acceptance if you do.

It's moving the boundary back towards where it belongs.

Yes. Rules wouldn't be about clothing. They'd be about not performing your fetish.

Basically fetishists need to be told it's not okay to use other people for their own pleasure. They may choose to disregard the request, but what we need to stop doing is saying 'it's fine to perform your fetish in public, do what you like'.

He really doesn't come across as the kind of monster many are assuming,

No-one has to be a monster to behave badly. Good people who get it wrong apologise (and mean it)

But 'wear whatever you want, unless you are agp' is not going to work, the norms have to be applied generally.

If you have a rubber glove fetish then don't wear rubber gloves to the conference. The person who cleans the bogs can wear rubber gloves, you can wear knitted ones. If you have a knitted glove fetish then don't wear knitted gloves either. The general norm is: if you have an X fetish then don't wear X to the conference. If you have a frock fetish then don't wear a frock to the conference. Other clothes exist. If you are so AGP that all women's clothing is a fetish then wear gender neutral clothing.

And don't expect the conference organisers to share pictures of you happily wearing your fetish gear, whether it's rubber gloves or frocks. That's a mistake too.

It's really not difficult.

I agree with everything posters have said about his likely motivations and that it is unpleasant for women to have to deal with. But what is the proposed rule or policy that you would use to prevent him attending or to control what he wears if attending? It becomes as controlling as a TRA safe space. Again, obviously this is not a women only or a therapeutic space, for which there would be clear steps that could be taken. I think the cost of trying to exclude a man in a dress from a conference is higher than the cost of putting up with it. Fine to complain about it and try and establish a social norm, but damaging to turn into an attack on the organisers or a demand that something similar be somehow prevented from ever happening again.

the norms have to be applied generally.

I just can't see how this would work, nor how you'd go about doing this.

In many cases you may not know if someone's performing a fetish. However in this instance, the man literally wrote a book saying he does.

Actually, it's interesting - the advance of promoting transgenderism as anodyne, non-sexual and completely acceptable has probably spoiled the fun for some fetishists, compelling them to act more outrageously to achieve 'transgression'.

Grayson Perry talked about how he no longer gets 'a stiffie' from dressing up as a young girl, because it's now so accepted - even expected, in his case.

So for someone looking to transgress, they have to push the boundaries further. They may do this by, say, publishing a whole book on how they are getting off. And then going ahead and parading their fetish in public.

It's caught the public in a bit of a bind - acceptance of him in his outfit gives the 'dupers delight' supply of having fooled everyone, whereas outrage/anger/disgust gives the thrill of humiliation/attention, etc.

Not easy to try and apply boundaries, rules, or standards when somebody's whole intent is to subvert, transgress, or undermine them.

Thinking about it more, I do think SSUK got this right.

If Genspect had not only a safeguarding first approach but also if they centred those who've been the victims of gender ideology, they couldn't have done as they did.

That is because they'd have understood the risks posed by a fetish. And what violating boundaries means. They'd have understood those risks to vulnerable people, and they'd have understood the entirely predictable response from those who've been hurt by fetishes. When people (women in this case) have experienced trauma - as those married to AGPs have done - they will react to an event like this. Telling them we need to understand a fetish will obviously elicit a reaction. One borne out of trauma.

It's not a distant academic inquiry for many. It's real. It's hurt them. It's hurt their children.

Their response was just not right. They should (as SSUK say) reflect on it.

There is a strong movement now that ND children should not be taught social norms.

When these people say ND they don’t actually mean ND, they mean autism and, at a push, ADHD. It is another example of forced teaming but only one/two conditions count.

Maybe we need Wesley Yang to tell people (it suddenly became comprehensible when he told James Lindsay what people’s objections were) 😬

the transgression of norms is the point

Yes, the specific items of clothing is immaterial (forgive the pun).

The point is outraging/confusing/puzzling/discombobulating/humiliating/disgust etc.

I do find men in women's clothes makes me uncomfortable.

This man wasn't in just 'womens clothes'. He was in performative ridiculous clothes. The discomfort of others is part of the fetish.