Meet the Other Phone. Only the apps you allow.

Meet the Other Phone.
Only the apps you allow.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Feminism: Sex and gender discussions

Exulansic has reduced following?

306 replies

Linearpark · 01/03/2022 11:54

Are people still following her now she's migrated to Odyssey? Her numbers are way down but you'd think everyone knew where to find her by now. Is there something about the Odyssey platform that is off-putting that I should know about. eg has it got unsavoury content or is it sound and just small and alternative? Or do people subscribe to channels that they aren't really interested in? Just wondered.

OP posts:
Thread gallery
17
Linearpark · 12/03/2022 18:37

That's fine Caillech don't worry. I'm as confused about threads as I am about genspect. I very much want to get to the correct answer.
Why doesn't genspect stop inviting people on interviews who are patrons of vp

OP posts:
Linearpark · 12/03/2022 18:39

It seems straightforward to do this just to demonstrate that they are squeaky clean. For the kids sake.

OP posts:
ATeamAmy · 13/03/2022 10:05

If people don't want Debbie Hayton on UK News discussing this, fine... then show me the other people who will talk about what's happening to our kids.

This is a very unfair statement. UK feminists have been battling to get mainstream media airtime, to do the very thing you want - talk about the damage the trans movement is doing to our children. Time and time again, they were excluded from mainstream media discussion in favour of panels consisting of all biological males, i.e. men who identify as men and transwomen. This happened as recently as last year, when BBC's Moral Maze discussed trans women in female sport. They did not bother asking a woman to participate, instead had 2 trans women with opposing views, Joanna Harper and the ubiquitous Debbie Hayton, who has no expertise of women and sport. In the same week, BBC Women's Hour chose to speak to only a trans woman (Jo Harper again) on Twin women's sport. Dr Emma Hilton (pretty much the expert on the matter) was on standby to speak to BBC Women's Hour on the same topic. She was not called, Emma also asked why Moral Maze had not asked her to speak IIRC. Likewise, the otherwise excellent Nolan Report series gave a prominent, whole episode discussion place to Debbie Hayton, which could have gone to any one of a large number of knowledgeable and keen to talk to the media feminists who would have been more representative of the GC side than Debbie, not to mention, the woman's side. When biological women have been interviewed by the mainstream, they were treated with extreme hostility, a treatment I have never heard Debbie Hayton receive. It is hard to get your message across when you are dealing with an interviewer who sounds like they have already pre judged you as a hateful, bigot and a hysterical pearl clutcher, and this is what female interviewees, got time and time again and are still getting (most recently, Maya Forstater on Woman's Hour last week, and Posie on LBC a few weeks ago). Now, times have changed a lot, and those strong women can more than hold their own when they get that kind of media treatment. Thanks to women not giving up, the public and politicians know what is going on and can see our side. But there was a point, about 4 years ago, when were screaming into the void. Women were relieved that Debbie was being given a fair hearing because we were not, and he gave us a "shield" against accusations of transphobia. Only in hindsight do I realise how crazy that relief was - I view it as a type of Stockholm Syndrome brought about by the sheer frustration and fear, that women were feeling at the time, of being either unheard or misunderstood.

As terryleather pointed out, Debbie Hayton is the person that wrote guidance recommending TW be honoured with pronoun usage and access to female toilets. That's not a friendly or even neutral position to take where your children are concerned. When higher education establishments adopt those sorts of trans friendly policies, it trickles downwards to the institutions that look after your children. We are battling the trans agenda in our schools where it is being used to indoctrinate our little children precisely because the Debbie Haytons of this world have normalised it in the adult world. People like him helped open the doors to a societal shift that you and other parents are struggling to now shield your children from. The TRA agenda is the AGP agenda, and DH has AGP, this is no secret. It's an agenda of validation and normalisation of an adult paraphilia amongst the young, and projecting that onto the feelings of vulnerable children to make them believe they are one and the same. I amazed that you are unable to see that.

Did you know that Stella O'Malley did a documentary featuring Debbie Hayton and his wife, Stephanie, a couple of years ago (2018ish)? Many of us were shocked by the piece, and moved by Stephanie, who seemed miserable. I was appalled by SO'M's interview (on GAWL) with DH at the end of last year, where SO'M basically did a hit piece on her own documentary, claiming it had been edited in such a way as to give the wrong impression to all us idiots who thought Stephanie was distressed, like so many of the trans widows we hear from on this board. I'll copy and paste what one commentator to that interview said, because it basically sums up how I feel on this:

There's quite a bit of defensiveness from you Stella, at the start of this when discussing the film. Apparently viewers misinterpreted how Stephanie felt about Debbie's transition, but that's just because the video was edited out of sequence to make it Stephanie look really sad. Why would you do that then? Isn't it a bit manipulative? I know this is down to the editors and director but you were at pains to point out that Debbie and Stephanie were both happy with the segment before it went out. [Indeed, DH in this interview was very complimentary about the original piece on him and Stephanie, both had been shown it and given their approval before it aired, and both felt like it was a fair reflection of their situation - so why did Stella then diss it?] We're not just basing our impressions on the short segment in your film, there was also the long interview that Debbie and Stephanie did for Straight Spouse Network. [Now called Our Path, where this interview can be heard] As I've said elsewhere, I have no problem with Debbie talking about his own experience, the problem comes when he inserts himself into the women's movement or speaks to the media on behalf of women. It's not an appropriate role for a man with a paraphilia and it makes it very difficult for trans widows or adult children of trans parents to participate if he's on the platform.

I have zero problem with Debbie Hayton having a voice in this game as Debbie Hayton, friendly AGP, who acknowledges his paraphilia and his maleness. That in itself is an important voice to counter the TWAW mantra and the ever expanding trans umbrella. But when Debbie Hayton's voice is substituted for that of a biological woman - as if the agenda of an AGP male can ever be the same as that of biological women - then that is a problem. I understand that you are thinking about your children so you are happy with any voice you feel supports you. We all are thinking about our children, as well as ourselves as women and the vulnerabilities that entails, and our female relatives, especially our elderly. But there is a wider picture. That's the defence of women's ability to speak freely, for ourselves, without deplatforming, and to be given an equal voice in a matter that negatively effects only us in the most fundamental ways. Take away women's right to speak and you may as well kiss your children's welfare goodbye. Women are the gatekeepers of children, that's why TRAs don't want us to have a voice. Every time Debbie Hayton purports to speak for us, one of us is being silenced.

And I have to say, UK women have been on this, talking about this and campaigning about this for years now, certainly the women who first took the Spartacus oath here 6 or so years ago and opened my eyes. That's why the UK is called Terf Island. Please don't lecture us about speaking out and there being no time. We have been. Half the women (and a notable number men) who are prominent in the news as GC commentators learned what they know from these pages. We have supported through donating to crowd funders, written to our MPs, filled out interminable surveys, challenged our schools, supported channels like Stella's and Glinners and spread the word about them, bought the books, tweeted until banned, worn the T-shirts, stood and protested, alienated ourselves from friends and families who think we are unkind terfs. Many brave women no longer sit behind pseudonyms and avatars and have put themselves out there, they and their families subject to threats and vilification. We have done our bit and then some and do so every day. We are allowed to have differences of opinion, we don't have to love everyone in the GC movement or everything they say and believe, and we are allowed to state our opinion without being troll hunted and labelled as TRAs.

terryleather · 13/03/2022 10:23

Indeed ATeamAmy, saying what needs to be said 👏🏻👏🏻👏🏻

264MyShirt · 13/03/2022 13:40

ATeamAmy - We are allowed to have differences of opinion, we don't have to love everyone in the GC movement or everything they say and believe, and we are allowed to state our opinion without being troll hunted and labelled as TRAs.

Ironically, this applies to "both sides" as far as this particular difference of opinion is concerned.

gcrhino - So frustrating. If people don't want Debbie Hayton on UK News discussing this, fine... then show me the other people who will talk about what's happening to our kids. I don't care if it's Posie, Debbie, Joanna Cherry, we need EVERYONE to be talking about this. I have never once met another mum in my parent support group who disagrees with this. We don't have the luxury of time.

Surely "both sides" can be united on this?

Everything that ATeamAmy says is true but it reads as if these parents are chanting "We want Debbie!! We want Debbie!!" - which they are clearly not.

"We don't have the luxury of time."

I read this to refer not to the wider political, campaigning context but to individual parents who are concerned about their children.

  • Children who are at imminent risk of being medicalised for life, of making life-changing and potentially life-limiting decisions, hormonal and surgical modifications to their bodies (including impact on their brains with the early-Alzheimers link for females), sterility, etc.
  • Children who are encouraged to consider their families as the enemy, to leave home and in some cases to turn to prostitution to finance surgery and support themselves (and others?).

I am going to labour the last point a bit by adding some links because it is rare that the GC side mentions prostitution in this context other than in relation to murder rates in Brazil. In other countries, it is young females whose bodies are being exploited to fill the coffers of what, IIRC, has been referred to as the "Gender Medicine Industrial Complex":

"Anorexia, Homelessness, and Prostitution: The Cold Reality of Gender Dysphoric Youth"
Jan 21 2021
www.gendermapper.org/post/anorexia-homelessness-and-prostitution-the-cold-reality-of-gender-dysphoric-youth

"Gender Dysphoric Teen Girls in Sweden turn to prostitution amidst mental health collapse"
June 2 2021
www.gendermapper.org/post/gender-dysphoric-teen-girls-in-sweden-turn-to-prostitution-amidst-mental-health-collapse

"The Shameful Exploitation of Gender Dysphoric Females in Online Prostitution"
June 9 2021
www.gendermapper.org/post/the-shameful-exploitation-of-gender-dysphoric-females-in-online-prostitution

"Dysphoric Females, Only Fans, Online Prostitution and GoFundMe: The Intersection of Exploitation"
June 13 2021
www.gendermapper.org/post/dysphoric-females-only-fans-online-prostitution-and-gofundme-the-intersection-of-exploitation

Parents tell us that Genspect has functioned as powerful advocate and support for them.

  • parents report that Genspect makes a significant, positive impact in supporting them and is a positive force for change through advocacy for parents.
  • Mumsnetters would seem generally to agree since the organisations routinely recommended to parents are
Bayswater Group (UK) Genspect (International) Safe Schools Alliance (UK) Transgender Trend (UK)

On the other hand, a small number of "GC Influencers" and their supporters appear determined to destroy the reputation and effectiveness of both Genspect and the parents who are involved with Genspect:

  • by citing a contrived chain of "guilt by association" links with paedophilia
  • suggesting that finding it offensive that DH was interviewed on "A Wider Lens" equates to a significant, real life, negative impact on "the GC cause" and Genspect is to blame, because "Stella and Sasha"
  • citing something (I am not quite sure what) to do with Stella O'Malley's comments re the editing of "Trans Kids: Time to Talk" in relation to the inclusion of Stephanie Hayton and her spouse.

I do not think that it is either necessary or wise to "destigmatize" paedophilia in order to encourage paedophiles to refrain from molesting and raping children. Otherwise, I think it can only be a good thing if fewer children are harmed by paedophiles. Preferably by paedophiles never harming children in the first place.

(As an aside: Unfortunately, programmes or interventions aimed at paedophiles will do nothing to halt children being raped just because they are easy prey, ie. not to paedophiles but to, for example, their older brothers and step-fathers. It might be a red herring but there is a GC woman who has been casting around for information about the proportion of "female transitioners" who have older brothers or step-fathers, given that it is often mentioned that "transition" can be a response to child sexual abuse and that brothers and step-fathers are, apparently, often the abusers. Note also the evidence of young, dysphoric females being trafficked into prostitution and links between childhood sexual abuse and vulnerability to further sexual abuse.)

Personally, despite some legitimate criticisms aimed at Genspect, I still see Genspect as a force for good, providing support and advocacy for parents.

I also remain unconvinced that Genspect presents any sort of danger, whether to children or to the "GC Cause".

264MyShirt · 13/03/2022 15:46

Further to females resorting to prostitution to finance Gender Surgery, this is now being RECOMMENDED by the NHS!! Shock

Please see current Mumsnet thread:

"NHS booklet promotes prostitution and sex by deception"
www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/4503838-NHS-booklet-promotes-prostitution-and-sex-by-deception

Linearpark · 14/03/2022 14:08

Well I'm still very confused. 1_Nobody seems to be addressing why members of Genspect did interview supporters of VP.
2_Why can't they at least apologise for the perceived inappropriateness?
3_Why do they hang about with AGPs all the time? eg photo of get-together that is circulating.
4_ I'll probably think of more questions later

BTW I am now loathed by KD and SW because I believe, based on peer reviewed evidence, that CAIS women are women. On the other hand I am getting vibes off Genspect that I don't like. I like children's organisations to be squeaky clean and it doesn't seem to be. I think SOM is a naive idiot, from her appearance in Hayton's kitchen to her appearance on a podcast about a 3/4 year old boy who was clearly mimicking his father's AGP activity, and where she joined in with the others on the podcast (Sonia and Bailey I think) by agreeing that AGP was genetic in nature (!). This stupidity was nicely covered by Feminist Claire. I dread to ask whether FC thinks CAIS women are women or not because there doesn't seem to be anyone who agrees with me on both counts. This isn't just me feeling sorry for myself, it's me realising that I have noone to campaign alongside and standing on the street by myself is not going to get the GC movement and it's aims anywhere. It seems you have to have the same exact opinions as your "team". Or am I even more confused than I already think I am? I am genuinely confused and need someone to explain things to me in simple terms as it's all getting too complicated.

OP posts:
Solidarityovercharity · 14/03/2022 14:50

I can't quote believe your obtuse determination to misunderstand things in your post @Linearpark!

  1. Genspect outlined the ridiculous guilt by association idea that is needed for someone to be able to pretend that members of Genspect interviewed supporters of VP. Do you agree with the concept of guilt by association? Do you think nobody should every interview anybody unless they fully agree with every aspect of their work? Is this a productive way to run a podcast?
  2. Genspect explained their rejection of guilt by association and their appreciation of the principles of scientific enquiry in their rebuttal genspect.org/genspect-rebuttal/The podcast that interviewed Mike Bailey - who is the ONLY person who is linked to VP - interviewed him because of his work on AGP not VP.
  3. One photo of a get-together is not hanging around "all the time".
4.I dread your future questions and I must discipline myself not to come back on this stupid thread that is filled with bad faith concern trolls
264MyShirt · 14/03/2022 16:30

@Linearpark

Well I'm still very confused. 1_Nobody seems to be addressing why members of Genspect did interview supporters of VP. 2_Why can't they at least apologise for the perceived inappropriateness? 3_Why do they hang about with AGPs all the time? eg photo of get-together that is circulating. 4_ I'll probably think of more questions later

BTW I am now loathed by KD and SW because I believe, based on peer reviewed evidence, that CAIS women are women. On the other hand I am getting vibes off Genspect that I don't like. I like children's organisations to be squeaky clean and it doesn't seem to be. I think SOM is a naive idiot, from her appearance in Hayton's kitchen to her appearance on a podcast about a 3/4 year old boy who was clearly mimicking his father's AGP activity, and where she joined in with the others on the podcast (Sonia and Bailey I think) by agreeing that AGP was genetic in nature (!). This stupidity was nicely covered by Feminist Claire. I dread to ask whether FC thinks CAIS women are women or not because there doesn't seem to be anyone who agrees with me on both counts. This isn't just me feeling sorry for myself, it's me realising that I have noone to campaign alongside and standing on the street by myself is not going to get the GC movement and it's aims anywhere. It seems you have to have the same exact opinions as your "team". Or am I even more confused than I already think I am? I am genuinely confused and need someone to explain things to me in simple terms as it's all getting too complicated.

Linearpark - 1_Nobody seems to be addressing why members of Genspect did interview supporters of VP.

Have you read what has been posted in this thread?

For example, in my previous post (emphasis added here):

"All the people mentioned as "links" in this "guilt by association chain" (Bailey, Blanchard and Cantor - B,B&C) are researchers whose work and views inform current understanding of the various, possibly unrelated, phenomena grouped under the labels "transgender", "transsexual", "gender dysphoria", "gender identity disorder", etc. etc

"In a contested field of study, unless and until their research is proved misleading and worthless, their views are important and need to be aired, alongside those of the long list of other researchers interviewed by individuals involved with Genspect."

www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/4494001-Exulansic-has-reduced-following?msgid=115798039

264MyShirt · 14/03/2022 16:53

ps. LinearPark - I like children's organisations to be squeaky clean

I am sure we can all agree with you there.

However, Genspect is NOT a "children's organisation".

Please see previous posts on this subject.

I suspect that you are "confused" because you are ignoring all the explanations and information that has already been posted in this thread and by Genspect itself in its "Rebuttal":

genspect.org/genspect-rebuttal/

4_ I'll probably think of more questions later

The Rebuttal includes this paragraph:

"While we hope to provide a comprehensive response, there may be something we miss: if so, please let us know by speaking with us directly. We are open to dialogue, as all people in our movement should be. What we are not open to is the TRA-style behaviour of the hit-piece, which demonstrates nothing but bad faith. Social media is a fraught place; as we take ourselves and our work seriously, we have requested that people email us with any concerns they might have. This has become, however, our first “crime”: requesting emails rather than accusations made on social media. To date, we’ve received eight genuinely concerned emails and we’ve answered them. We believe that social media creates a strange environment which supports petty gossip and where discussion can become heightened. We continue to believe that anyone with concerns should email us first. We would urge you to consider what kind of person would speak about you, rather than to you, if he or she had concerns about you, particularly if the language used was laced with invective and ad hominem."

Your fellow Mumsnetters can only respond by posting our own thoughts and views.

However, if you want answers to questions about Genspect, there is an open invitation to contact Genspect to ask them directly.

In the meantime,

  • please stop pretending that no one has covered these issues
  • please stop repeating misinformation that has already been debunked in this thread.
Linearpark · 14/03/2022 18:22

This reply has been deleted

Message deleted by MNHQ. Here's a link to our Talk guidelines.

Linearpark · 14/03/2022 18:31

Guilt by association. I think it shows a reckless disregard for children's safety to support p supporters by hosting them on your show. If that's guilt by association so be it. Why would they do that? Why would they be guilty of associating with these people by associating with them? Would you have these fellows round to tea? Would you be concerned if your friend had them round to tea? I know I would. Also dies noone here admire Feminist Claire and her deep knowledge and excellent judgement regarding child safeguarding? She doesn't approve so there's no need to make me sound like a plotting imbecile is there? I just have a difference of opinion. Is that not allowed?

OP posts:
LangClegsInSpace · 14/03/2022 21:51

@Linearpark

Well I'm still very confused. 1_Nobody seems to be addressing why members of Genspect did interview supporters of VP. 2_Why can't they at least apologise for the perceived inappropriateness? 3_Why do they hang about with AGPs all the time? eg photo of get-together that is circulating. 4_ I'll probably think of more questions later

BTW I am now loathed by KD and SW because I believe, based on peer reviewed evidence, that CAIS women are women. On the other hand I am getting vibes off Genspect that I don't like. I like children's organisations to be squeaky clean and it doesn't seem to be. I think SOM is a naive idiot, from her appearance in Hayton's kitchen to her appearance on a podcast about a 3/4 year old boy who was clearly mimicking his father's AGP activity, and where she joined in with the others on the podcast (Sonia and Bailey I think) by agreeing that AGP was genetic in nature (!). This stupidity was nicely covered by Feminist Claire. I dread to ask whether FC thinks CAIS women are women or not because there doesn't seem to be anyone who agrees with me on both counts. This isn't just me feeling sorry for myself, it's me realising that I have noone to campaign alongside and standing on the street by myself is not going to get the GC movement and it's aims anywhere. It seems you have to have the same exact opinions as your "team". Or am I even more confused than I already think I am? I am genuinely confused and need someone to explain things to me in simple terms as it's all getting too complicated.

I'm just back from my hols and catching up.

You are not alone.

I have said what I have said on this thread about exulansic's views about people with DSD. I have also said what I have said about genspect. I stand by everything I have said and I am in nobody's tribe.

I agree with most of what you say here.

This ego-driven tribalism is very bad for safeguarding and I include ALL the big egos on various 'sides' in that.

It's bad for safeguarding because it stops people listening.

It does not seem possible to raise valid safeguarding concerns without being automatically lumped in with people who think genspect is a paedophile network (WTF??), or with people who think that those with CAIS should be treated as men (also WTF??)

Those who don't understand why this is an issue obviously don't undertand the recent history of terrible safeguarding failures we have had in the UK.

Lots more to say tomorrow if anyone still has the energy to continue this thread.

LangClegsInSpace · 14/03/2022 22:31

@264MyShirt I watched the videos you linked.

I don't disagree with anything kjk said and I'm curious why you posted this in response to my post. If it was meant as a rebuttal to something I said then you need to be much more specific.

I have a lot of things I could say about Stella O'Malley's interview with Benjamin Boyce. Happy to discuss this tomorrow if anyone's still interested.

Or we could all decide to ignore ALL the raging egos and focus on things like the interim Cass report, Scottish GRA bill, MF's employment tribunal or anything else that's important long term for women's rights or for child safeguarding.

LangClegsInSpace · 14/03/2022 23:02

But I can't leave this thread without posting Claire's video in response to a short segment of the Bailey interview.

Stella O'Malley and Sasha Ayad have never acknowledged that a very young child, dressing in his mother's clothes and masturbating, is a serious safeguarding issue.

Instead, they choose to misrepresent these concerns and pretend that people are saying they should be responsible for what happened to a particular child several decades ago.

There are trolls. Genspect are being attacked. If they want any kind of credibility then they need to get a proper gip on safeguarding.

Iike KJK I am 100% on the side of parents and children. So safeguarding comes first.

Cailleach1 · 15/03/2022 10:34

Yes, op. Really like Feminist Claire. Her 'Labour Losing Women' video is close to the bone. I would have veered towards Labour and Lib Dem previously. Wouldn't even dream of voting for them now. I do feel politically homeless; based on the Suffragettes advice of 'No self respecting woman should vote or work for the success of a party that ignores her sex^ (Susan B Anthony). I don't know who is the least worst option. To me, it appears they are trying to profess that a woman isn't even a real or proper classification. Just like the 'miscellaneous' line on the accounts ledger.

As an aside, I received greetings from offspring on International Women's day. Important women (to offspring) were mentioned. Quite tongue in cheek as I had to point out that our fabulous (but incorrigible) girl cat was not an adult human female. Maybe Keir Starmer meant it is something that shouldn't be said, it is not not right about only women have a cervix as other female mammals do too. Straw and grasp.

Linearpark · 15/03/2022 10:42

Thank goodness to hear some sense, I was beginning to think I was getting dementia, and I'm not kidding. Have started watching the interviews between John Uhler and Jenn Smith and John is very illuminating. Blanchard is basically calling all men p__s to one degree or another with a strange application of a normal distribution to age preference. There are many different mathematical distributions to choose from, but he decided on a normal distribution. This goes way beyond what his data actually shows.

OP posts:
ATeamAmy · 15/03/2022 11:26

Feminist Claire is wonderful. I would love to see her and Helen Staniland team up for a regular podcast.

Also see Rubble of Empires content over the last couple of days.

ATeamAmy · 15/03/2022 13:43

Langcleginspace if you have the energy or inclination for it, I would love to hear your analysis on the matter. Totally understand if you'd rather move on though.

Linearpark, I've just seen what your deleted post referred to (on Lesley F's substack). What a disappointing way of conducting themselves from a bunch of people I used to admire. "We ARE the movement"??! Fucking hell, the arrogance.

ScreamingMeMe · 15/03/2022 14:16

My head's in a whirl like yours LinearPark,

But I would say no, we don't have to agree on everything. Please don't beat yourself up too much about it all xx

SeansName · 17/03/2022 15:58

To the “I just wont to know why” crowd. Suggesting Genspect is suspect because it interviewed some people who had some questionable opinions is like trolling though the some journalists interviews because he interviewed Russia’s president Putin 10 years ago, thus suggesting the journalist is ok with the invasion of Ukraine. For gods sake people look at the extraordinary good things that Genspect has done over the Last year and Stella over the last 4 years. Get a grip, go do something positive yourself, get out from behind that armchair and actually contribute to the fight.
It has been for a long time a classic TRA tactic, throw out a smear, an accusation, then quote the smear (he has been accused of....). Discredit someone with some unfounded accusation and then refer to such person as "being discredited". You have to admire the tactic it certainly works, soon everyone is quoting the accusations and not what the victim actually does. Karen Davis has adopted these TRA tactics to a key, but one must ask why, Cui Bono, who benefits, this is an important investigative tool, Cui Bono? Well, the Trans Agender benefits, so does that mean the Karen Davis is a trans activist? Certainly, Genspect which has been in its short lifespan one of the most effective organisations in providing support to, providing facts figures and information to the besieged parents of trans indoctrinated children like ourselves. So attacking Genspect, Cui Bono? Karen Davis says, "are they being supported by Pritzker", next thing on mumsnet someone says, "well i just want to know where they get their money". Well, they get their money from donations from parents like me who have appreciated their help and support. If you want to support the fight against trans ideology then YOU too should support GENSPECT, and you should go do it now.

LangClegsInSpace · 18/03/2022 00:54

Langcleginspace if you have the energy or inclination for it, I would love to hear your analysis on the matter. Totally understand if you'd rather move on though.

I was going to move on but as the thread has been bumped ...

Near the beginning, Stella says something like, 'if you're putting the movement before personal integrity then you've lost your way'

I totally agree, but she does not recognise that some (not all) of the criticism of genspect is coming from exactly that place - personal integrity. Being an upstander, not a bystander.

There's an exchange at around 45:50, BB says something like - only if people share his best interests can he listen if they say he is wrong, so it's necessary to locate the good faith actors.

Stella says, 'I agree, but it's too tiring and distracting and pointless. It's a waste of time.'

This is exactly the point I have been making throughout this thread: This ego-driven tribalism is very bad for safeguarding because it stops people listening.

Stella has basically said she has stopped listening, there might be good faith actors but it's too tiring and distracting and a pointless waste of time to work out who they are, who the upstanders are, who is coming from a place of personal integrity.

One person who I 100% believe IS coming from that place is Claire, who made the video I posted above.

When discussing the MB interview, Stella expressed astonishment that Claire had made this video - 'believe it or not, a video was made!' (even aside from the safeguarding issues, why would anyone find this hard to believe? That's how YT works - people post videos and sometimes other people post videos in response Confused)

She misrepresents MB's anecdote - she say's it was about a 5 y/o masturbating while wearing 'some sort of women's clothing'. In fact, MB talked about a 3-4 y/o masturbating while wearing his mother's underwear. This anecdote is similarly downplayed in the 'rebuttal'. I don't believe Stella hasn't listened back to what MB actually said, especially as she said this is one of the issues raised that really upset her. I can think of no good reason for this continual downplaying. MB's actual words are out there anyway.

Stella doesn't appear to understand what is meant by 'red flag'. She says a young child masturbating is not 'always' a red flag. She seems to think that red flag = abuse is definitely happening.

A red flag is a sign that abuse might be happening and it should always be taken seriously, at the very least noted, and if it's a big flag, or one of several, it should be investigated. A red flag does not mean abuse is always taking place but a red flag IS always a red flag. It should always be taken seriously even if it amounts to nothing in the end. This is how we keep children safe.

A 3-4 y/o who is putting on his mother's underwear and masturbating, and who has a father or an older brother who secretly cross-dresses for sexual reasons, is flying all the red flags and all the bunting.

Even if a predisposition for AGP turns out to be heritable, if we hear hooves, can we please keep an eye out for the horses, before we start searching for fascinating but elusive zebras? CSA within families is horribly, horribly common. I thought we all knew this by now.

We also all surely know by now that sexual cross-dressing is extremely common in men with all sorts of abusive fetishes. If you think you've found a zebra that's even more of a reason to keep an eye out for the horses.

No-one sensible expects Stella to get in a time machine and safeguard a child in the 1990's. Quite a few sensible people think she should do what she can to safeguard children now (as we all should) and not let glaring red flags pass without comment on her channel.

Publicly broadcasting something and then insisting on only private feedback - denouncing people who publicly respond - is totally unreasonable. The Bailey interview has 1400 views on YT (I think it's also on other platforms?)

The priority must be to inform all parents that a child behaving like this is quite likely being abused - so if their own child is behaving like this, parents can safeguard them now.

LangClegsInSpace · 18/03/2022 01:06

Sean's post is exactly what I'm on about. It's a load of hyperbolic stuff about what a youtuber has said. It doesn't engage with what people are saying on this thread.

Lineaxxxxcc · 18/03/2022 11:15

Great analysis Langclegsinspace. I totally agree with everything you said.

Genspect, as a charity that works with the parents of extremely vulnerable and mentally ill children, requires a first-class culture of child safeguarding.
Several issues have made me doubt that that is the case.
1The simple naivity with which members have interviewed the sex researchers associated with vp. It is not necessary to meet these people to study any of their research which is of interest and value. This doesn't make me think they are p _s, but it does raise a red flag and it makes me feel disappointed that they have no idea how things look to others - and it's important how things look, this is a serious business were talking about, where children get damaged for life, you can't afford to f$#k about; and surprise that they don't seem to experience any revulsion at the thought of associating with people who support the vp site.They were part of a working group with them too. Pure idiocy.
2 The appalling programme where they visited Debbie Hayton's House. They showed a complete lack of empathy and insight into the dynamics of the situation in front of them, and children were present. They failed to have a serious attitude to a situation which was extremely serious for the children involved, and for Debbie's wife. 3The particular episode where the 3/4 year old child was masturbating in his mother's underwear: he had an AGP father and it was clearly a safeguarding issue, while they went along with a theory of inherited agp. 4They appointed a creepy pornographer to the board. 5_They are always hanging about with AGPs and seem to value these people, and these peoples' thoughts, more than the thoughts and opinions of the actual victims of behaviours they claim to stand against Taken together, these issues convince me that the organisation has no clue about safeguarding and wouldn't spot eg a child being transed for ulterior parental motives, rather than due to being hoodwinked purely by societal trends/friends/Internet.

LangClegsInSpace · 18/03/2022 19:36

They appointed a creepy pornographer to the board

Important correction - that was Gender Dysphoria Alliance, not Genspect.

Swipe left for the next trending thread