What's going on with Genspect?

Also, it's fairly straightforward - nobody has suggested that men in dresses should be banned. Women have laid out very clearly that a man who openly uses others' non consensual participation to get off attending an event in his fetish costume will mean that many women will self exclude.

A man who has literally written a book about his fetish and performs it at an event where women who have been harmed by the same fetish attend is a tricky situation.

I find it unbelievable that anyone can't grasp why.

Maybe this will help you understand the objections - extract is from Heather Heying’s article (link posted above by MalagaNights):

'Even if it is true that any particular man will not behave in a predatory way to women, the public display of fetish opens up doors to predators who would. We had a social contract that did a good job of keeping women safe. Public display of fetish begins to dismantle that contract.

The fact that Phil is not himself a creep thus does not render his behavior harmless. He is breaching a social contract by walking around in hyper-feminine garb, causing people’s brains to throw errors and—for women—to become hyper-vigilant about what it means and how to react. 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. I suppose that this is too bad for Illy, and others like him, that they should be expected to curtail their behavior because of other bad actors. But it is far worse if he does not curtail his behavior in public, far worse for the 50% of the population who are now on high alert at all times, protecting ourselves and our children against the compulsions of a few.'

He's not a monster. He's a common or garden fetishist. He has written a 600 page book about it.

Who suggested he should be excluded?

I listened to that Heterodorx episode with Phil Illy on that was linked to earlier in the thread, and would recommend others to. He really doesn't come across as the kind of monster many are assuming, nor does the preference for dresses come across in the kind of one-dimensionally sexual way they are assuming.

I'm not sure I understand the safeguarding angle. It wasn't a conference aimed at children or at any particular vulnerable group (not that I would see a man wearing a dress as a dangerous act even if it was). What kind of safeguarding responsibilities to people think Genspect have toward them that this would have infringed? You might see a man in a dress in the street, on the tube, at a concert or anywhere else, and have to deal with it. It's not Genspect's responsibility or anyone else's to edit your environment to make it easier for you.

It's just not realistic to restrict people's freedom and participation in events based on your own conclusions about their mental state. There is no way to reliably test for it and know who is thinking exactly what. You can either ban all men wearing dresses from your event - including Harry Styles, Eddie Izzard and any man who happens to like wearing a dress for any AGP or non-AGP reason whatsoever - or none of them. You might think or say you're banning it because of non-consensuality in how some individuals use it as a fetish or whatever, but ultimately what you're banning is the behaviour for all individuals, regardless of their personal reasons for it. It can't be anything else.

And I find it extraordinary that people who call themselves gender critical can be suggesting people should be excluded from an event for not conforming to gender norms of appearance.

Thanks for posting the article Malaga!

I fully agree with this part:

'Even if it is true that any particular man will not behave in a predatory way to women, the public display of fetish opens up doors to predators who would. We had a social contract that did a good job of keeping women safe. Public display of fetish begins to dismantle that contract.

The fact that Phil is not himself a creep thus does not render his behavior harmless. He is breaching a social contract by walking around in hyper-feminine garb, causing people’s brains to throw errors and—for women—to become hyper-vigilant about what it means and how to react. 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. I suppose that this is too bad for Illy, and others like him, that they should be expected to curtail their behavior because of other bad actors. But it is far worse if he does not curtail his behavior in public, far worse for the 50% of the population who are now on high alert at all times, protecting ourselves and our children against the compulsions of a few.'

I mean, not wanting to get back to toilets, but keeping facilities single sex where they need to be is precisely because of this issue.

This shit gets blown up and lost online though

There's nuance, context, ages and stages. It's really complex.

An age 7 child who has very little ability to communicate and socially interact at all needs a very different set of social parameters and expectations, which can also be holistic while boundaried to an age 7 child who does have more of these skills. Also, the level of emotional regulation skill is key too. That needs to be a priority and also explicitly focused on an taught.

Again, too many literal interpretations being flung about and picked up and misunderstood.

Yes it is a good thread

Is also autistic btw.

If he's autistic there's an added layer of complexity but as a teacher of autistic children we spend an awful lot of time communicating what is and isn't socially appropriate or acceptable. It's incredibly important and needs to be explicitly taught. Not excused.

A self recognised agp should be willing to learn about the impact of the fetish on others.

Obviously the age and stage of the child is relevant. And safeguarding once again underpins all of that.

The difficulty is it's normal clothes that many people are wearing and which are socially acceptable.

Socially acceptable? In the photo I can see what Phil Illy is wearing and I can see what other attendees are wearing. Yes, there could be many reasons to wear a blue sleeveless ballgown and tight long blue handless gloves to a conference, and no, I don't expect the organisers to police what people wear... but when you've explicitly stated it's your fetish that's rude and deserves an apology - not from Stella but from Illy.

And yes, I do think Stella slightly missed the point in her response. Not convinced it's worth a split but a false note in the symphony.

Maybe there's a need to split events rather than the organisation?

That whole post is Tania Marshall

Good thread to consider:

x.com/taniaamarshall/status/1723985747475407296?s=46&t=A2fpFNgDRyXF2d6ye97wEA

How does a group or organisation become infiltrated by a Narcissist/Dark Triad? This often begins by

1. ‘ingratiating’ themselves, displaying charm and charisma to win trust.

1. They exploit existing group dynamics, identifying and manipulating vulnerabilities. Subtle tactics include sowing discord, creating factions within the group, and undermining others' credibility.

1. Over time, they may strategically align with influential members, isolate dissenters, and gradually assert control by exploiting power dynamics.

1. Their ability to ‘mask’ manipulation with charm can make it very challenging for the group to recognize the destructive influence until significant damage is done. Vigilance, open communication, and awareness can help mitigate the impact of narcissistic individuals on a group.

Specific tactics narcissists may employ to infiltrate and eventually take over a group:

1. Initial Charm:

1. Identifying Vulnerabilities:

1. Gaslighting:

1. Creating Divisions:

1. Projecting Confidence:

1. Strategic Alliances:

1. Isolating Dissenters:

1. Gradual Power Grab:

1. Manipulating Perception:

10. Exploiting Loyalty:
    They may demand unquestioning loyalty, creating a culture where members hesitate to challenge the narcissist, fearing repercussions.

11. Group split(s)
    These tactics collectively erode trust, create dependency, and pave the way for the narcissist to take control of the group, often with detrimental consequences. They are often defined as ‘parasitic narcissists’ whose sole goal is to enter a group or organisation to take it over.

This is commonly seen in religions, politics, non profits, other groups, where many group splits occur and reoccur. A solid strong foundation in groups must include the groups purpose, values, safeguarding statutes, knowledge about parasitic narcissism and a clear prevention plan. A third party to assist in preventing and addressing the lack of awareness and insight that this is occurring is essential to the groups very survival.

THIS.

Genspect /SoM seem to have some issues with boundaries. This is hardly the first time they've been called on it and become outraged in response.

Agree.

'gender is an oppressive social construct and should be abolished.'

Right. That's a reductive over simplification and doesn't seem especially helpful.

Feminists - you could call them 'gc' feminists if you like - are fighting for the removal of/mitigation of oppression. Not the removal of 'gender'.

Genspect appear to be saying that AGP is a sexual orientation, according to some posts I've seen on X?

That needs discussed.