No, not a TRA @Cleopatracat. If I am, I'm shelling out all my spare cash every month to the wrong causes and cases. Which would make me a rather stupid one.
Genspect advises parents of, you know, kids - to help these children through their distress and dysphoria. It is a legitimate question to ask them where they are gathering their information from to help these parents, who in turn help their kids. A Wider Lens (no. 34 on that list of achievements) has featured Blanchard this month a "Pioneer", so it is a legitimate question to ask whether Genspect is informed/influenced by the work of someone who currently, publicly supports a pedophile network.
Yes, I know what the Genspect website says about bottom surgery/blockers, but Karen believes, for whatever reason, that there are situations where Genspect would. If that belief is wrong, then "No we don't" is a sufficient answer. As opposed to "why are you obsessed with children's genitals, you pedophile".
Claire Graham is on the team of Genspect. Whether that's paid or not, she's on their website as on their team, and has been the public face for them on a number of occasions. If she can't or won't answer questions posed to Genspect about their policies and affiliations, then all she needs to say is that she is not able to answer/refer to someone else or just block and not engage. Repeatedly attacking the questioner as a pedophile on social media is reprehensible, utterly immature, opens her up for a defamation claim and reflects really badly on Genspect's team choice. And yes, it does reflect badly on Genspect, whether you like it or not. Just like Monica Sulley's inclusion and conduct reflects badly on GirlGuides, when that person's got nothing to do with me or most other grass roots guide leaders. It's made me question my affiliation with GGUK and what on earth they were thinking engaging such a person, and frankly makes me ashamed to wear the uniform, given their unwillingness to engage with basic safeguarding concerns. As it should.
Karen, Exulansic etc are not sacred cows and should be held up to scrutiny when they are talking shit. A lot of their content in about petty grievances and I can't be bothered to get my head into it, but then, I could say the same for Boyce, Glinner, Morty, Helen S, Posie and all the rest of them who have running battles with people all over social media and like to share that with their followers. I admire them all for putting themselves out there publicly and doing the work the rest of us can't do/won't do/too afraid to do. Their tenacity - and frankly, not nicey nicey approach - in the face of public hostility, and making a big noise about this made the public, MPs, institutions, journalists sit up and listen. (The "let's have a polite and reasoned conversation" brigade have a real value, but they are not the ones who have brought about the change in the wind that was urgently needed). Without their contributions Stonewall would have completely taken over this county's institutions. For that, I will not de-platform any of them in my personal capacity to do so by switching them off. I am also very capable of disagreeing with them, questioning their stances on certain issues and rethinking my own opinions about them as their work unfolds. I'm an atheist, I don't believe in gods, and that includes the FWR posters who have been held up as such.
Organisations like Genspect are also not sacred cows, and the people who work for them/represent them are not sacred cows either. They should be held to a higher standard than any of the Karens, Exulansics or Glinners. Like any body seeking to be the official voice or advisor to a group of vulnerable people with serious medical and mental health needs, they need to be open to scrutiny and prepared to answer questions. Even if the questions are relentless, even if the information is on their website, even if the questioner is unpleasant. They have a presence of social media and that is the nature of that beast they have chosen to engage in. They say on their website "We represent 18 different organizations in 16 different countries. We’re not just speaking for a few. We speak for thousands." Your "never ever" claim would need to be very confident indeed to cover all the organisations and all the people affiliated with them. Are you?
You cannot possibly think that it is legitimate to hold bodies like Mermaids up to scrutiny if you are not prepared to do the same for the bodies and people that you support yourself. Sitting back on your 50 achievements laurels, thinking you don't need to answer fairly basic safeguarding questions, and one of your team going on the attack with the defamatory - and potentially career ending - claim that a female, black teacher asking safeguarding questions is a stupid, hard of reading, predatory pedophile is not the sort of behaviour I would expect from the people who are supposed to be the good faith players in all this.