What's going on with Genspect?

[MalagaNights]

I've seen Stella O'Malley tweet about being unfairly attacked.
I've seen a weird exchange from James Lindsay about feminists trying to take down Genspect.

But I can't work out what's happened or who is fighting with who.

Any ideas?

I have become Mary Whitehouse and I don't care.

Interesting thread: https://www.mumsnet.com/talk/womens_rights/4497416-Mary-Whitehouse-a-reappraisal

A woman who correctly interpreted what was happening with PIE and the Home Office.

https://whatcanidoaboutit.wordpress.com/2013/01/22/mary-whitehouse-versus-pie-the-home-office-1978/

Mary Whitehouse and her letter to BBC's Director-General, Charles Curran about the song:

https://droppedthemoon.blogspot.com/2017/03/the-great-chuck-berry-has-passed-away.html

Maybe this should have been discussed in the public arena but how many more instances like this would have occurred, and, given the period, how much of it would have been dismissed as Boys will be boys?

You’re not a prude, you’re someone with common sense boundaries who thinks people should have consideration for others. There’s a happy medium between Victorian formality and Hippie love-ins, our society seems to have forgotten this.

It’s easy to dismiss women’s concerns by calling us frigid, prudish, batty, etc - male sexuality dislikes limits being put on it and reacts very nastily to women who try to restrain it. Helen Joyce & Trish Wood discuss this in a recent podcast (from 30 mins forward)

https://overcast.fm/+dqD_2FBBs/33:01

My Mum's advice was that you were probably dressed appropriately if you were presenting the weather and nobody noticed you.

Genspect doesn't work with children and never did. It's so strange the way everyone on this thread appears to believe it does

'Gender Critical' popped up out of nowhere in about 2018 and it never applied to just feminists. It has always been an 'umbrella' term or, as Genspect like to call it, a 'Big Tent' or, as I like to call it, 'forced teaming'.

People in the 'Big Tent':

• Feminists, some of whom adopt the GC label, many of whom never have
• Women's rights activists who say they're not feminists
• Parents whose children are affected
• Transwidows, children of trans, siblings etc.
• Lesbians
• Gay men
• Free speech campaigners
• Detransitioners, both male and female
• DSD rights campaigners
• People who care about safeguarding
• Philosophers
• Sexologists
• 'Rational trans' in all its dismal iterations (the chap in this case is an example of this)
• Biologists, and scientists more generally
• Sportswomen and sports fans who care about fairness
• Religious people who know what god made woman as
• Right wing people who know what a woman is
• I'm sure I forgot a few, it's basically everyone who is no longer willing or able to suspend their disbelief.

This article linked upthread is a great example of why 'Gender critical' is a problem:

https://medium.com/@amykronenberg1/phil-illy-and-genspects-autogynephilia-problem-54fabf3fcc68

It speaks repeatedly of 'the gender-critical movement' and 'the gender-critical community'. It describes Genspect as a 'gender-critical organisation' and describes 'angered gender-critical reactions' to what has happened. The author then says:

In my opinion, this controversy is emblematic of a larger issue facing the gender-critical community — one that threatens to cleave it apart from the inside: The inherent contradiction between radical feminists and other interest groups.
(my bold)

But this is not a new issue! 'Gender critical' has always been a problem since it was first coined. It has always meant that feminists should team up with some really nasty men and should STFU about anything that alarms us so as not to harm the wider 'gender critical cause', or else be 'driven out' as the author suggests. And some women have been driven out.

This 2019 thread is a good discussion of the issue:

https://www.mumsnet.com/talk/womens_rights/3647573-Dickpandering-in-feminism

'Gender Critical' has always been a contested term. If you've been around FWR for a long time then you should know that. There have been plenty of threads.

Nevertheless, there have also been many interesting discussions here about what 'gender-critical' might mean as a feminist term - what it might mean to be critical of gender and whether that's the same as wanting an end to sex-role stereotypes, where 'gender' ends and biology begins etc. I just don't see why that needs a new term, surely that's just feminism.

The Forstater judgment sets out what 'gender critical belief' means in terms of legal protection in the EA.

The original judgment said:

"The core of the Claimant's belief is that sex is biologically immutable. There are only two sexes, male and female. She considers this is a material reality. Men are adult males. Women are adult females. There is no possibility of any sex in between male and female; or that is a person is neither male nor female. It is impossible to change sex. Males are people with the type of body which, if all things are working, are able to produce male gametes (sperm). Females have the type of body which, if all things are working, is able to produce female gametes (ova), and gestate a pregnancy. It is sex that is fundamentally important, rather than “gender”, “gender identity” or “gender expression”. She will not accept in any circumstances that a trans woman is in reality a woman or that a trans man is a man. That is the belief that the Claimant holds.”

The appeal judge said, 'We refer in this judgment to that belief as the “gender-critical belief”' and the judge upheld the appeal.

https://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKEAT/2021/0105_20_1006.html

This is 'gender-critical belief' as protected in UK law. It's not particularly a feminist belief, or a belief at all, it's just stating facts. It's arguably a belief that it's sex which is fundamentally important, rather than gender, but that's all.

Matt Walsh would absolutely be protected for sharing these 'gender critical' beliefs in the UK and I'm completely fine with that. I don't think anyone should be discriminated against for stating facts about sex even if they are an arsehole in many other ways.

As we have all seen, it is mostly women losing their jobs and it is the most vulnerable women, girls and children who are harmed when women are prevented from speaking up. So I don't care if it's not technically a 'belief'. I think Maya Forstater's ET was a superb practical thing to do which has made a huge difference, not only to women's employment rights, but also to the safety of children and vulnerable adults - because the women who speak up for them can no longer be sacked with impunity.

@MalagaNights you say, 'I am a sex realist interested in women's issues, but I'm not a GC feminist.'

Do you consider yourself 'gender-critical'? What is your own relationship to that term?

I wouldn't describe myself as gender critical @PencilsInSpace as for me it is closely associated with feminism and has other beliefs that tag on alongside (for many people.)

Just the words themselves Gender Critical describe something: criticizing gender.
Which is how I've I've seen it argued by feminists. Gender is something oppressive.

I noticed someone mentioned Helen Joyce doesn't describe herself as GC. I wonder if that's for similar reasons?

And yes Matt Walsh may fall under the belief system as defined in the Forstater case but I think to call him GC would be adsurd and he'd reject it. He is not critical of gender at all.

Gender Critical is too associated with feminism and assumed to be aligned with views held by some feminists to work as a big tent.

Hence the confusion. I think the term sex realist much better describes the Big Tent position.
That's the thing we have in common. Not criticising gender.

You can tell me I'm wrong all you like, but my experience, and the actual words in the term GC just don't communicate to me what you insist they should.

Is Maya a GC feminist or just gender critical?

The legal case rightly chose the most central and defendable belief of GC feminism to argue for protected beliefs.

But people who are not 'critical of gender' also believe that.

I admit if I found myself in the legal system on this issue I would use this case and claim GC beliefs as described in the judgement applied to me. Because they do. But I've experienced it's also often more than that and you get criticised for not subscribing to everything criticising gender suggests.

I wouldn't particularly like using this case, I don't like the fact biological sex was positioned as a belief.
But I'd do it to protect myself and strengthen the law for alk women trying to talk about reality, as we have to use the laws we currently have.

But I'd probably spend forever after explaining why my other views don't align with gender critical feminism and that I'm not a feminist.

Basically GG is too associated with feminism and the words describe criticising gender.

I'm not a feminist and I'm not necessarily critical of gender.

And the unsatisfactory, albeit truly amazing outcome, argument in Maya's case can't undo that and force us all into line.

But why does it matter to you what I call myself?

I'm on the same page on core issues and in the fight with you, I'm just not a GC feminist and GC is too synonymous with that for me.

'Gender critical' can refer to the beliefs as set out in Forstater:

'Gender-critical beliefs include the belief that sex is biological and immutable, people cannot change their sex and sex is distinct from gender-identity.'

https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/employment-tribunal-rulings-on-gender-critical-beliefs-in-the-workplace/

It's more useful to refer to 'gc beliefs' than 'gc people', given that the latter includes almost everyone, which gives a category so large and so full of people with other wildly conflicting ideas as to be almost useless. It's similar to 'spherical earth' beliefs, I suppose.

'Gender Critical' has always been a contested term. If you've been around FWR for a long time then you should know that. There have been plenty of threads.

I agree. I use it because there needs to be an umbrella term for the fightback against gender identity ideology and it's a broad church. But I would specifically call myself a GC feminist rather than GC.

Same, Eresh. I'm not really interested in what labels may apply. I'm just a genderfluid nonbinary demifemi frostsexual post-Marxist kinda guy. I mean gal.

The appeal judge said, 'We refer in this judgment to that belief as the “gender-critical belief”' and the judge upheld the appeal.

This is 'gender-critical belief' as protected in UK law. It's not particularly a feminist belief, or a belief at all, it's just stating facts. It's arguably a belief that it's sex which is fundamentally important, rather than gender, but that's all.

Does the judge using this term in the judgment mean that "gender-critical belief" now has a legal meaning in UK law, or is that term used by the judge just as a convenient shorthand for what might otherwise be a long paragraph setting out the definition?

If this is now the legal meaning of "gender critical" in the UK, does that mean that those of us who thought this term meant "critical of gender" in a more general sense now have to find a new term for "critical of gender", so that the term "gender critical" can be used to mean "sex is biologically immutable. There are only two sexes, male and female...etc" as in the judgment?

It's all a bit confusing, because people outside the UK (as well as those in the UK who haven't read the whole Forstater ruling) might continue to use the term "gender critical" to mean "critical of gender".

I don't know enough about law to comment on your question, OldCrone, but the judgemetn certainly seems to have been accepted in the UK as 'gender critical' beliefs broadly, especially when people are talking about discrimination, etc.

I agree that I would have said all feminism is 'gender critical' - and I'd suggest it has the second meaning of the word 'critical' - questioning, considering, not necessarily merely 'criticising', sexist stereotypes.

1. expressing adverse or disapproving comments or judgements.

"I was very critical of the previous regime"

1. expressing or involving an analysis of the merits and faults of a work of literature, music, or art.

"she never won the critical acclaim she sought"

(Google's Oxford definition).

Which, OP, might affect your stance on feminists being 'critical' of gender. It's not about feminists saying 'gender is bad and wrong' it's about feminists interrogating, analysing and talking about 'gender'.

Even in the US. I know quite a few conservative American women. There are certainly some differernces in their political views, but they look nothing like what people who want to say they think "gender is innate" seem to think they believe. They are just normal people, they have careers, they send their daughters to university, expect them to be good at maths, etc.

Although less of this view than there was 4/5 years ago when it was pretty much the consensus/ majority view? Has anyone else noticed that shift?

I think one positive effect of gender ideology is that a lot of feminist have had to look back at their ideas and prune out the deadwood. It's become clear that it's not as simple as abolishing all social differences around sex categories, and that some of the ideas pushed about the interchangeability of men and women, particularly in media and film, may have been misguided. That there is an essential embodied element to womanhood and we can't pretend it's insignificant.

Unless idea get challenged, they never have to be refined and people get away with sloppy thinking.

I think one positive effect of gender ideology is that a lot of feminist have had to look back at their ideas and prune out the deadwood.

Yes, I've seen that shift in myself. Sometimes you don't see the flaw in an ideology until you see its consequences. I took a much longer time to accept that there really are innate physical differences between men and women that women can't overcome by training and lifestyle than I would have done if the question of men taking over women's sport hadn't arisen. I would have continued to hope that the gap would narrow and maybe I would have still assumed all the differences could be overcome. But (to be fair to myself) I still wouldn't accept letting men into women's sport before that happened!

I despair of us being able to get Genspect-related people to understand why AGP is a safeguarding issue - they just seem to be wilfully refusing to address concerns.

Nina Paley is defending the man from the conference and telling women off for scapegoating him. She is taking the piss out of women pointing out the sexual nature of his behaviour by posting a photo of herself wearing the same outfit as he did and tweeting it (see link below). 🤦‍♀️🤷‍♀️

https://twitter.com/ninapaley/status/1725174605101326781

Tweet text:
@ ninapaley
Forcing others to be unwilling, nonconsenting participants in my kink is no less than public sexual assault. And I should be treated the same way as a rapist caught in the act.
3:30 pm · 16 Nov 2023 ·21.8K Views

So many people in this who just don't get it.

Which I guess is how we got into this position in the first place.

Odd response. Why the hyper focus on 'scapegoating'?

Paley is responding I presume to discussion focused on one person. And empathising.

Completely missing the performative aspect of the fetish.and the nature of exhibitionism.

Yes, she’s empathising with the individual involved but she’s also making the point (I think) that the clothes aren’t inherently sexual. Which is missing the point, because it’s completely ignoring the fact that it’s the actions that are being objected to.

Context is important and, for some reason, Paley et al seem to be unable to understand that. In fact, her wearing the outfit proves the point that it’s not the clothing that’s the issue, it’s the behaviour 🤷‍♀️

<Sigh> Nina Paley gave herself a hostage to fortune in the future for a tweet that is likely to be quoted out of context from its thread (one PP posted).

I'm surprised and disappointed at Nina Paley. I thought she got it. Does she really not understand the sexual aspect of crossdressing in males? Particularly in one who has admitted that for him it's a sexual act.

I’m also surprised at how obnoxious she’s being. A lot of Genspect-supporting biggish online names (Boyce, Exulansic, Lindsey, O’Malley, Cohen) are being obnoxious and trolling rather than engaging on the substance of the argument.