What's going on with Genspect?

It was April 2019. I specifically wanted to ask this because I think I had spent 3 years asking myself what the hell was going on in terms of assessing risk and applying measures to mitigate it and was dumbfounded how it had seemed to completely disappear from the conversation. And why were safeguarding measures just being dropped left, right and centre.

Also I was running a quite large DfE funded project and we ran a risk log where we documented every damn risk and looked to take action to address it on a full team meeting every bloody fortnight! And yet Girls Guides were just pretending men were not a risk if they said 3 little words.

Baffling. Utterly baffling.

Perhaps their position has shifted now.

Wow. Given their positions in respective organisations, this is shocking. I’m not so shocked at academics hand waving it away as such but this is wrong.

SG assessments can become tick box. But that is wrong too. Then you must interrogate why they’ve become tick box and what the resultant harm is. It doesn’t sound like they even made it to this point.

They’re representing organisations trading hard on the notion they get it. What I’m getting more and more is that they don’t, and that we are losing those that do such as KPSS.

The panel were:
Jo Phoenix, Nicola Williams, Judith Green, Viv Pointon (Chair)

I think it was Nicola who said it was just a box ticking exercise.

Anyway I only posted that as a small demo of how ignoring safeguarding and assessing risk seems to be a theme somehow. And not just Genspect.

With respect, I wrote a cogent and considered, and well argued post. To quote it all and brush it off, simply sayInc “this is nonsense” with no reasoning or evidenced critique is lazy and rude.

What..?

I remember at a 'Womens Place' meeting asking 'whatever happened to safeguarding and risk assessments' and the panel responded telling me that these were just box ticking exercises.

I've never quite got my head around that.

I'm sorry Stella, I can't be bothered. Ask someone else

@RoseKnows23 This is nonsense

Which part is nonsense, and why?

This is nonsense

Feels like Stella is writing a lot on this thread lol

O'Malley admitted to Boyce and KJK they are a LOBBY group

Blanchard said Illy is making the claim women have their version of autogenophelia but he does not believe it and he wishes that he would not go around saying that because he doesn't believe it to be true

SOM recently stated in a podcast interview (link below) that she, unlike gender critical feminists, cares about transwidows and their children. And that, unlike her, gender critical feminists are failing these women and children because we’re obsessed only with pointing out their husbands’ negative behaviour. I disagree with O’Malley’s account of this situation because her behaviour has never noticeably demonstrated much concern for transwidows in the past.

I’ve also noticed in recent interviews, that I’ve listened to, that O’Malley often takes GC criticisms of her and Genspect and claims them as things that she/Genspect have actually always been concerned about and that people saying otherwise are being mendacious. It makes her a frustrating person to evaluate because her position on events and on issues changes often and it makes it difficult to get a handle on what she really thinks.

And, given that she purports to want to help a vulnerable group of people, I want her to be clear, precise and accountable in her public statements because that will engender trust.

https://shows.podcastle.ai/the-jack-jewell-podcast-7CBF/stella-o-malley-when-kids-say-they-re-trans-012-YIjJYjaL

"it's concerning that I'm being deleted for saying it."

Yes, it is concerning. I wondered what you had said.

I also agree that "her failure to understand the points raised around safeguarding at the beginning is concerning".

It reminds me of her treatment of Jennifer, the transwidow. I wonder if SOM's behaviour is, at least partly, due to prioritising her friendships with men who she considers important over consideration for the feelings of a traumatised woman and her duty of care to children?

Maybe also the same reason she went out of her way to bare-faced lie about Hayton being "silenced" by GC women? For me, the motivation in that case is less significant than the fact that she is capable of such blatant dishonesty.

There seems to be a hard edge inside that fluffy, doe-eyed exterior. She is quite prepared to use it to go on the attack: against women and, in every case that I am aware of, in defence of men.

People with the best possible academic and vocational qualifications can still be rogues or fools. SOM's conduct that has led people to question her background and expertise. They might be exemplary, it is not clear. What is clear is that she cannot be trusted to respect boundaries, to prioritise safeguarding of women and children or to tell the truth.

She could be awarded a medal as Best Psychotherapist in Ireland but it would not change a thing.

I see that I've been deleted for a perfectly reasonable criticism of SOM's behaviour in the Twitter space linked to by a pp upthread.

I stand by what I said, her failure to understand the points raised around safeguarding at the beginning is concerning and it's concerning that I'm being deleted for saying it.

I can't believe feminists on this FWR board have any respect for Jon Uhler, he regularly reveals himself as unhinged. These two threads are very informative about his behaviour: x.com/DistMag/status/1799268062182375436 and https://x.com/DistMag/status/1799619247569584234

I can't believe feminists on this FWR board have any respect for Jon Uhler, he regularly reveals himself as unhinged. These two threads are very informative about his behaviour: x.com/DistMag/status/1799268062182375436 and x.com/DistMag/status/1799619247569584234

I also recall listening to her early podcasts and thinking 'Is this woman actually GC?'

Ms O'Malley has never claimed to be a feminist (GC or not) * in her therapeutic practice, as far as I know. There's a Wider Lens episode where she & Sasha Ayadh work through various perspectives, including the feminist approach. It's clear from that, that they approach this whole topic f gender-questioning children & young people as therapists, not political activists.

So I don't think they can be criticised for not being what they've never said they are!

• And "GC" is not the beginning or end of feminism. Sometimes it's not a particularly informed POV. For example, Kelly Jay Keene doesn't claim to be a feminist as far as I know, but she is "gender critical."

Thank you, Bosky. I have exactly the same gut feelings about Stella as I did about Debbie Hayton and others in the early days. Also have concerns, as I said upthread, about Uhler — because anyone from my plumber to my doctor who tells me 'Trust me, I'm the expert and I'm telling you 100% that I know what the problem is and what to do about it' sets alarm bells ringing. Wise, experienced, confident people don't need to say that aloud and the people who do are almost always overcompensating for some reason or another.

I had a look through that Uhler thread quite prepared to find plenty of evidence to back up my 'grifter' suspicions. Surprisingly I think whoever compiled it is overreaching most of the time. The really concerning issue is his apparent support for LGBTQIA+ conversation therapy — and even there it wasn't clear to me whether he's supporting LGB conversion or just what some people call TQ+ conversion therapy which is a different kettle of fish. So my jury's still out on him.

As for Stella, your discoveries about her qualifications are worrying. Shades of Gillian McKeith. I also recall listening to her early podcasts and thinking 'Is this woman actually GC?' because she seemed to play the girly 'It's all so confusing and who can really know?' card over and over. I got the feeling she wanted to fence sit until she knew it was safe to come down on the GC side. Other people did the work and the research and spoke out clearly and critically, putting their lives and reputations on the line. Stella followed behind, but always with caveats and an air of confusion and contradiction. Very useful tactic if you want to get yourself out of trouble.

John Uhler

It seems that John Uhler might not have the credentials, experience or specialist expertise that he claims:

Twitter thread:
https://x.com/AgainstKookery/status/1225790870332428289

Archived Threadreader version:
https://archive.ph/rhedB

Stella O'Malley

There’s also something just not quite right with Stella O'Malley IMHO

1. She invited Jennifer (Transwidow of seriously scary AGP) to a party in Dublin, didn’t warn her that men in frocks would be present and was unsympathetic when J was upset. She knew all about J’s background so ignorance was no excuse in the first instance and her response to J was not what I would expect from a psychotherapist. https://www.youtube.com/live/gu0PfVPToWE

If you want to go down a Twitter rabbit hole and see tweets from Stella and others as well as Jennifer, this works as a starting point:
https://twitter.com/search?q=%40eyre_ann%20stella&src=typed_query

2. I listened to some of the early “Wider Lens” podcasts and she just seemed very poorly informed and lacking in theory. It was all a bit, “We just don’t know what is going on here” and talking around in circles. I didn't get a sense of someone who was familiar with relevant research, able to critique it and discuss putting it into practice. All a bit, "Wow! Heavy, man!".

This is purely personal reaction, and nothing to do with the content of whatever it is she is saying these days, but I actually cannot listen to her at all now. I find her drowsy, simpering-hippy delivery nauseating. So that might well be my loss.

3. By complete contrast, when I listened to the recording of the Twitter space discussion about AGPs, she was ranting at the other people there. She was also clueless about Safeguarding. I couldn’t believe I was listening to a psychotherapist. The comments under the video are worth a look too.

4. When she has published responses to criticisms of Genspect I feel that she dodged issues that had been raised - I can’t give an example off the top of my head but I recall finding them disingenuous.

5. She did an “Ask Me Anything” session on Mumsnet and some of her advice was IMHO totally bizarre. eg.
   https://www.mumsnet.com/talk/AMA/4777276-ama-with-stella-omalley-author-of-what-your-teen-is-trying-to-tell-you?reply=125209036

6. She claimed in an interview in the documentary by Travis Brown earlier this year that Debbie Hayton has been “utterly silenced” by GC feminists - which is a ludicrous allegation and demonstrably untrue:
   https://twitter.com/Genderwang/status/1756502614164779439

7. Some people on Twitter who claim to be psychotherapists allege that Stella does not have a recognised Psychotherapy qualification. Psychotherapy is not a state regulated profession in either Ireland or the UK so it is not true to say that Stella’s qualification is “not recognised” because there is no state “recognition”.

However, when I looked into this further it would seem that neither the college where Stella studied (ICHAS) nor the Professional Organisation she belongs to (APCP) are held in very high regard.

ICHAS: https://ichas.ie/

APCP: https://www.apcp.ie/

The APCP runs ICHAS and accredits the courses. There are several other Psychotherapy professional organisations in Ireland that recognise various qualifications and courses. As far as I could discover none of them recognise courses run by ICHAS. This means that APCP and ICHAS are closed loop with no external validation of courses or qualifications.

Although ICHAS does run actual courses now I found claims that it and APCP previously operated under different names as an “exam mill”, ie. where the amount of money you paid determined the level of qualification that you bought. I could not find out when Stella gained her Psychotherapy qualification so do not know how much study or practical experience was required at that time.

Ireland has been planning to regulate Psychotherapy for a long time. The state regulator is CORU and issued its latest update on regulation of Psychotherapists in Dec 2023.

https://coru.ie/about-us/registration-boards/counsellors-and-psychotherapists-registration-board/update-on-statutory-regulation-of-counsellors-and-psychotherapists/update-on-statutory-regulation-of-counsellors-and-psychotherapists.html

The latest update on the ICHAS site is dated 2017, although there are mentions of CORU in an article from 2022, and on the APCP site there is just a link to a CORU update from 2022. Unlike other Psychotherapy Organisations in Ireland that I looked at, APCP had not submitted responses to the CORU consultation on state regulation of Psychotherapy.

I found suggestions that when state regulation is achieved that CORU might not recognise ICHAS courses. I found most of the comments about ICHAS and APCP here but some of the discussions are over 10 years old so might not reflect current thinking:

https://www.boards.ie/search?domain=all_content&query=ichas&sort=-dateInserted&scope=site&source=community

and

https://www.boards.ie/search?domain=all_content&query=APCP&sort=-dateInserted&scope=site&source=community

(If those links do not resolve to search results, search the Boards for ICHAS then APCP)

I think that comments about Stella’s qualifications as a Psychotherapist might have some basis but I do not know how significant they are as she has further qualifications.

Several people were accusing her of being “unethical” but when I asked them to clarify, they would not explain why. If they genuinely believe that she has acted unethically then they should report her to the APCP rather than just grumbling about her on Twitter.

I am not impressed by her behaviour but that’s not the same as having reason to report her for being in breach of the APCP code of ethics.

The APCP code of ethics is actually quite vague.
https://www.apcp.ie/code-of-ethics

Hats off to you. I had the fortune to be older and self-employed in a sector where woke has been slow to pervade, so I was able to stand up publicly and participate in the fightback. I certainly don't underestimate the good work being done by people like you, @YourPithyLilacSheep I'm sure you have the undying loyalty and appreciation of many of your students even if they feel they can't tell you.

When the first transwoman applied to join the committee of the women's organisation for which I was a trustee, 17 years ago, several of the women on the committee supported his application: they were convinced they were doing the right thing. I was given a dressing-down for calling him he rather than she. Some of them, having kept their heads down for years and left it to me and other older feminists to put up a fight, have recently emerged as GC and taken over leadership of local GC women's groups. One of their tactics has been to undermine women with the kind of criticism that @SaffronSpice levels. The older women haven't been radical enough: they've done or said or posted something that, a couple of years later, looks misguided... It's quite clear that they are repositioning themselves so that when the pendulum swings they'll be able to walk into opportunities offered by a newly feminist third and public sector. It really pisses me off.

Absolutely, @wizardofsoz

I now have to work under the radar. I'm in a captured profession, and in a highly captured specific workplace (our toilets policy contravenes whatever legislation exists).

I can keyboard warrior all I like on MN, but I need to maintain productive relationships with the young people I teach & supervise - and I can do more active good in that way - I can foster open discussion, and even do a little (old school) feminist consciousness raising along the way. It doesn't serve my pedagogy - or my feminism - to have students hostile & unreceptive.

The sinister element is the arrival of a new brigade of women* — presumably women who haven't been involved in the struggle till now, as they are all shiny and uncompromised — deciding they want to take over from the experienced troops who've got us this far and impose their new purity regulations on the old guard.

I'm one of those has hasn't, in 15 years of fighting gender ideology, compromised on pronouns. But I can entirely understand why someone like Kathleen Stock said they would. Finding their way to saying a flat no to pronouns has been a journey for many — particularly for those who work in environments where refusal could result in loss of employment. Getting from saying 'perhaps, in certain circumstances' to 'no' to pronouns has been a process for a lot of people. Maya Forstater and Allison Bailey have paid big-time in order to establish that gender critical ideas are WORIADS and that refusing to participate in compelled speech is not a sackable offence.

It's troubling that you now seek to characterise those women who said they would use pronouns out of respect, years ago, before any of us understood what was really happening, as flawed and therefore not fit to be included among those representing the GC movement. What do you think all the experienced, battle-scarred women like Stock and Joyce who've managed to prevent Terf Island from being completely invaded* should do?

*continuing your D-Day metaphor here

Shiela Jeffreys and the ‘old guard’ were the ones who refused the pronouns and led to the more recent pronoun-refusers like KJK to understand it is ‘politically essential’ to name men as men. It is the old school who turned the tanker around by refusing to compromise, and thankfully they have been successful when the odds seemed stacked up against them. They alerted women in the UK about what was happening about 13/14 years ago, and that’s why the UK is known as ‘Terf Island’.