What's going on with Genspect?

Well, I've certainly discovered that for some people skirts and heels = nice girl for some anti-genderists just as much as they do for some pro-genderists. They're just quibbling over the detail of who gets to wear them and therefore be a girl.

Are they really or are they actually atracted to being listened to and not described as shrill/ignored/whatever?

I saw James Lindsay yesterday being told by thousands of women what the issue was. Yet a man explains it the same way and he says 'You've got a point there'.

I mean, fucking hell James.

By this logic, we should ban footwear and even socks immediately because there are foot fetishists who get off on them.

Ban the behaviour - the obvious trampling of boundaries for sexual gratification - not the fetish object. The letter means we'll be playing whack-a-mole forever banning everything from shoes to photocopiers in the name of "enforcing social norms."

It’s not that women get aroused putting on bras and nice dresses, which I’ve seen AGP’s claim. It’s that some women are attracted to the idea of themselves as men. He seems to have uncovered some anecdotal evidence to back it up.

Indeed
It would appear that Genspect has been groomed

💯

"Faux cutesy photo" is rather over-egging that picture.

One of the things that first made me GC - way back in the mists of time, before KJK was an activist and well before Maya was fired for thinking women exist as a sex category - was my horror at the lockstep absolutism that was developing under the guise of "kindness" and "inclusivity." If you thought that crossdressing and generally playing around with gender expression was no big deal, suddenly you also had to sign up to this demented new idea that sex is a social construct and actually clothing choices ARE the sex category. Except when it comes to children, when medicalising their misery was the only acceptable option and "just clothes" suddenly not a whole gender identity at all. I rejected that batshit absolutism, and I still do.

So I am not impressed to see there are people in the GC movement who expect us all to have the same mindset on everything and if we don't, we are causing "literal harm" to a a whole new vulnerable group. I resisted that emotional manipulation the first time around, and I'm resisting it now. No thank you, indeed.

Agree @AlisonDonut. I think that's mostly what Safe Schools Alliance were saying.

He makes the argument that there’s an equivalent female condition to AGP - AAP - which I’d never heard before.

That's a claim often made by AGPs, but they never provide any evidence to back it up. Probably because it's not true.

I listened to Jane Clare Jones on Benjamin Boyce where he talked about a woman in her yoga kit passing him in street “dressed sexy” or similar. JCJ explained with the patience of a saint that it wasn’t sexy clothing, it was functional clothing. He only seemed to get the issue with street/sexual harassment when she described her experience aged 12. Let’s just say I think less of him now. Same old, same old.

I think the issue here for me is that queer theory has so ingrained the 'rights' of individuals that we are unable to ask for 'decencies' in our everyday life.

So a conference you could feasibly request 'business attire' but then that will demonise those that turn up in jeans and t-shirt. Because who needs to be in a suit to do business right? And I'm in that jeans and t-shirt group. But I'd wear a suit jacket if a conference called for it.

But if you are hosting a conference where children will be present, and you are swimming in a sea of men who have paraphilias [who you know are a risk as you have said this in your own statement] then you cannot mix the two. Having detranitioners who are vulnerable in one corner making friendship bracelets whilst big old AGPs are performing their fetish in another, means you have to either do the 'support vulnerable people' bit or the 'investigate men with fetishes' bit.

Genspect, who I genuinely think are trying to do the right thing to navigate this, need to really understand forced teaming, coersion and dupers delight. And build that into attendance at future conferences. They really do! If AGPs are turning up, which they will do as they force their way into every space because that's part of the fetish, they need to manage that and not alienate the people that have been on their side.

As for Benjamin Boyce, well I fucking knew it. That's all I can say on that.

I get what you are saying but Blanchard didn't talk to AGPs and then put faux cutesy photos of them on his social media. It trivialises the harm they have caused to women and children. Harm to trans widows, to women like prisoners and patients and refuge users who have had their single sex spaces ripped away because AGPs managed to influence policy. I don't want AGPs to be given legitimacy in a debate that should centre women's needs. Even if they're saying "I'm a massive pervert, you need to do everything to keep me and people like me away from women and children."

Even then I would expect that to happen with appropriate safeguarding, as per SSA.

I don't know this guy. I don't know if his book is a genuine attempt to help understanding or his fetish being played out on a wider stage.

The point is, we're so beaten down that we've set our bar too low. "Look, some men are AGPs therefore we need to rethink GRA2005 and reinforce boundaries around single sex spaces." No! GRA2005 is terrible legislation. Women deserve single sex spaces, not just because perverts, because we want them! We don't need to delve into men's many and varied paraphilia to assert our rights.

Exactly, if he'd turned up to the conference in a gimp suit and nipple clamps we'd be under no illusions as to what was really going on.

I get the feeling from things that happened at WPUK, and now with Genspect, that lots of ostensibly GC women also think we should accommodate these men.

I do not consent to men performing fetishes in my presence, I don’t think anyone should have to tolerate fetishes being carried out in public spaces. I think we really need to fight to enforce a separation of spheres and to insist that people (men) restrict fetishistic behaviour to their private sphere.

Blanchard had this covered years ago (although he thought that women should a accommodate these men so...).

Lots of ostensibly GC men do.

What's a normal man's clothing?

Mr Menno makes a great case for men wearing whatever they want.

Also JKR said the same about wearing whatever you want. Perhaps the small print should be "but not your fetish gear out in public,
thanks". Obviously that's unworkable (given it's impossible to be inside anyone's head) but when an acronym person tells you it turns them on to do so, it's a giant red flag that needs careful management.

We all (the entire population) choose our clothes on a per occasion basis as a matter of routine to make some kind of statement or other. We get dressed up for stuff, we have days when we can't be bothered etc.

The "wear what you like" statement requires self-awareness to appreciate what is in keeping with a particular event, alongside a safeguarding approach when someone who is high risk, wilfully or otherwise, has a different approach to self-awareness.

Agree with this.

I think Phil is quite interesting for what it’s worth. I’ve seen some of the discussions he’s done with Benjamin Boyce where he also speaks about being autistic, which may be relevant. He was wearing similar blue clothing in the Boyce videos so maybe it was a personal branding thing. His outfit was eccentric and incongruent. There’s no suggestion he was behaving inappropriately.

He makes the argument that there’s an equivalent female condition to AGP - AAP - which I’d never heard before.

I very much agree...but, do men like this end up wearing these clothes all the time... do they ever go back to wearing normal men's clothing

Nobody cares if he speaks about it. The problem is wearing his fetish gear to do so and involving unwitting onlookers.

How did Blanchard find out about this? He interviewed thousands of them. He didn't know about it until he spoke to them.

This whole thread is "we need to talk about AGP, but not hear from anyone who has it".

There is this obsession with being afraid that it is normalised, yet what is the alternative? What we currently have. We have activists saying that it doesn't exist, that anyone who has these feelings is because of a "gender identity" mix-up and that transition is the only solution. These people then transition and we then start arguing over single-sex spaces.

I strongly doubt they'd be as many trans widows today as there are if AGP (and the men who had) were able to talk about it. If men were told that they're not trans, but AGP there would be a lot less transitioning going on.

TBH I feel like the people who don't want AGP spoken about are doing the TRAs' job for them. Keep it quiet and let gender identity fill the void.

Stella O'Malley & Sasha Ayad have always looked at the gender issue from the point of view of psychotherapists, rather than feminists. Understanding autogyneohilia in a non-judgemental way is a part of their research and practice, as good psychotherapists.

I also think the work they are doing in platforming autogynephilia is very useful for the 'gender-critical' movement. The more people understand it, the more that the right safe guards can be put in place within society. I think a huge problem atm is that trans-identified males are seen as 'vulnerable and special' and not within the context of fetishism.

That said... difficult waters to navigate with the presence of 'trans-widows' and this individual performing his fetish.... It seems that it is the macrocosm playing out in the microcosm.... what is the solution?

He's written a whole book about how wearing a dress turns him on. This has indeed led me to believe that wearing a dress does, in fact, turn him on.

That said this is hopefully shedding a lot of light. This man is openly a paraphiliac. He's not hiding his fetish.

What about those who are?