What's going on with Genspect?

You’re assuming that a Genspect conference must be only about safeguarding.

Safeguarding has to be at the forefront of everything genspect do because they are focused on gender questioning children and young people.

Looking at the lineup, id be mistaken in thinking that they see it as a free speech issue.

This thread isn't safeguarding. The OP asked what is going on with Genspect. A lot of the answers are insinuation or vague hints.
If you think there's something problematic in the accounts, pay the €5 and read them. If you find something, tell us.
You think there are "red flags". That's vague. You do need to explain.

Who might be harmed, and how?
What action should be taken? Who needs to know?

Sorry, as I said, i'm not very coherent today.
Your question about why some of those people are there is valid, from what I know of them. And i do fear they may be there to distract, duffuse, subvert. Because i have seen that happen to a totally different organisation in a different context.
However, I think the conversations need to be had in private and the objections raised directly with Genspect. Not just assume they are listening in.

It's fair to ask questions and critique in order to sharpen practice and clarify but it's as if people want the whole thing to be brought down and revealed as corrupt and dangerous.

To what end

For me it is because I saw AGPs infiltrating at the last conference and got the heebee jeebees that exactly the same thing will happen at Genspect, the lack of awareness of the deviousness of these men and how they position themselves and the lack of ability to say 'yeah, we got that wrong'.

It is not calling them Nazi adjacent!

I'd just like them to actually appreciate that if you are dealing with vulnerable people, and many people involved were vulnerable kids and are still vulnerable adults, then you need to make sure that your safeguarding is front and centre. We know that predators will go where the kids are so what are they doing to ensure that doesn't happen? It is like they are not willing to take on board someone who will challenge anything they do.

I've dealt with many companies in my working life that got too big too fast and never consolidated and reviewed their apparent success and then it's all blown up and all I can see at the moment is areas being opened up, which is great but I'd be begging them to just take a breath and work out what their end game is.

Is it to just be a network of therapists and if so, how are they going to maintain and weed out bad actors? What is the simple framework that they will all have to sign up to? What promises are they making to parents?
Is it to be podcasters?
Is it to facilitate whistleblowers?
Is it to support detransitioners?
Is it to be working with the medical industrial complex on getting themselves out of the pickle they are currently in?
Is it just to see off WPATH and see people in jail?

They cannot do it all. But it is the ability to self reflect that worries me. I cannot be doing with another 30 years of this!

I think some posters are just naive about how change is brought about within system

Nope. I'm very far from naive. But thanks.

You said 'Undermining, distracting, diffusing, subverting, or destroying trust, are ways to stop Genspect from achieving their original aims.'

So my response was to ask what about a random hodge podge of cancelled YouTubers is helping them achieve their aims, whatever they are.

You're asking here, on this forum.
What action are you hoping readers will take?
I had time to look through the conference details on the website and see some names I trust, some that make me go hmmm.
Lots of readers are going to read and run with only doubt and where does that get us to?

Safeguarding isn't ideologically driven. It's based on evidence of harm.

Like the large and irrefutable body of evidence proving the harm done to people by having to see a man dressed in a blue dress?

I'm sorry safeguarding makes you "uncomfortable".

Stella could have chosen to make their accounts open to all. Instead she used a lot of words not to. And to call anyone who queries her organisation, "conspiracy theorists".

If you can't see the red flags then I can't help you.

@2fallsfromSSA is correct here. Tackling the medical and psychological industry's transing of (often gay) minors (helped along by social media and 24/7 unfettered access to the internet) from anything other than a safeguarding perspective should be challenged.

If an RC or Islamic organisation put their beliefs in front of children, everyone would see the pitfalls immediately. Put "GC" in front of it and the blinkers go on.

No.

Quite. And why should any of us trust them? They've shown time and again that trust hasn't been earned.

You’re assuming that a Genspect conference must be only about safeguarding. There are many to be topic of gender and sex. Prof. Boghossian is a philosopher with interests in this area as well as a public intellectual who does a lot of public work on principles of discussion, debate and freedom of thought and speech.

I agree with @SaltPorridge - some posts on this thread are nit picking to the point of being ill- informed and narrow-minded. Maybe some posters are just inexperienced in the world of research and debate over research.

And at most of the academic conferences I go to, as well as the conferences aimed at a general audience, anyone who’s interested and stumps up the registration fee, is welcome.

Undermining, distracting, diffusing, subverting, or destroying trust, are ways to stop Genspect from achieving their original aims.

What are cancelled you tubers adding to the 'original aims'?

What are their end game aims?

Michael Cashman - a Labour peer in the House of Lords with an appalling record of misogyny and attempting to silence the discussion of safeguarding children in schools.

And (sadly) a gay man.

I say sadly, because the sort of thing he says about safeguarding just plays into the nasty homophobic stereotyping of gay men as paedophiles.

I'm uncomfortable with this thread. It's one thing to be wary and to question/ robustly challenge specific points. However, this thread comes across as mudslinging.
It took me about two mouseclicks to find a very respectable university listing Stella O'Malley as a research student and lead author of a paper.
Another two clicks to see relevant entries on cro.ie (the Irish equivalent ofCompanies House). For a few Euros and some time, anyone can download the accounts from there.
Genspect seems very big, and that makes it a target. Undermining, distracting, diffusing, subverting, or destroying trust, are ways to stop Genspect from achieving their original aims.
The irony is that in questioning carelessly whether Genspect is being subverted, you generate a sense of mistrust.
Absolutely I think questions should be asked I think the where and to who and how you then report what you find.
Sorry bit incoherent this afternoon.

If this is an academic conference, who is it appealing to?

Number one on the call sheet in lionel shiver. Peter Boghossian, Andrew Doyle and Andrew Gold all get mentioned before Sue Evans and Marcus Evans.

I can understand it if they are bringing together a load of their famous friends to raise money, but if this is similar to an academic conference and is a way to inform relevant professionals, whats Peter Boghossian doing there?

Its a who's who of cancelled people, but lots of them know nothing about safeguarding or treating children.

Alison 💐

Thanks for clarifying.

So he thinks that discussing safeguarding is 'right wing' and therefore 'bad'?

Oh boy...

Sorry - should have been clearer:
Michael Cashman - a Labour peer in the House of Lords with an appalling record of misogyny and attempting to silence the discussion of safeguarding children in schools. He once tweeted:
"The right wing in the House of Lords has organised a debate for the 7th of December on safeguarding in schools! We must push back against these people".

I imagine that it's a reference to Lord Cashman. After Rosie Duffield cancelled going to hustings after concerns for her safety, he tweeted that she was 'frit or lazy' IIRC. I think he has had to apologise now.

Some of us did!

What is the Cashman approach?

Another one dismayed that safeguarding seems to be absent from too many issues. And furious to see (a few) posters on this board taking the Cashman approach to it. 😡