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?

He was awful wasn't he?

Prior to all of this, I had already pushed through my disappointment in Benjamin Boyce, having previously watched hours of brilliant and empathetic interviews... and then joining Twitter (in July I think) to discover that he came from the Matt Walsh school of "the purpose of women", for want of a better phrase 🤦‍♀️ He excelled himself in this misogynistic capacity with how he acted in the immediate aftermath of the Genspect mess.

However.... If he can engage his very good critical thinking skills (sadly very lacking so far in the Genspect issue), he is a good facilitator in reasoned and calm discussion. If he can draw out the best of KJK (completely right to call out the fetish here) and Stella (completely right IMO to engage in scientific debate with open curiosity... as long as she is thinking critically about people's motivations and mitigating for risk.... and not shouting down the people who point out the failure to do this).... then this could prove to be a useful conversation.

In theory, all three of them could come out of this looking positive, with a united front regarding the Genspect conference. To do so, each of them will have to overlook some things that have annoyed them recently... or at least air these and then push on through to have a discussion that has value. It will take good self control and good listening skills from all three of them. Otherwise it's just a variation of the Hunger Games to see who comes out winning - and I'm not really sure what that would achieve.

Ps regarding his sucking up to James Lindsay.... from what I could see, this seemed to stop when James went in to a full-on battle against feminists, with all the hag name-calling etc.

If KJK whips out the "I'm not a feminist" card in the discussion, she'll need to do so very carefully. On this particular issue I would hope that she demonstrates how she stands with what feminists are calling out regarding the risks associated with fetishes.

There are homosexuals all over the world. Many cultures also have an equivalent of HSTS, e.g. fa'afafine or hijra - but as far as I can tell, AGP appears to be a peculiarly western phenomenon. I think Helen Joyce has said similar.

So I would say it does not belong in the same category as sexual orientation.

I wrote a transcript of this when it first aired:

[56:20]

SOM: Do you think AGP arrives, let's say, post-puberty, pre-puberty, have you got any kind of thoughts around this? Because, you know, there's a lot of conversation on that point.

MJB: Yup, so it is generally first evident when boys are in adolescence and they're getting a sex drive, and it's quite fascinating actually, because there's no way they learn this from other people, but they typically learn that they enjoy wearing their sister's or their mother's lingerie in private, looking at themselves in the mirror and masturbating. But for 90% of autogynephilic males, that's the first step.

However, Ken Zucker published a fascinating case report of a little boy, I think he's three or four, who's brought to the clinic because he is wearing his mother's panties and getting erections and masturbating. And he told me - wait, I think this is in the case report, I'm going to tell you anyway - that, in discussing this case, he learned that the father of this little boy was a secret cross-dresser.

SA: I've heard a lot of stories of father and son cross-dressing.

MJB: It is - there are only isolated case reports and anecdotes, but I believe that there is a strong genetic component in this and we can't - it's hard to see how we - you know, I can't be sure, but based on these case reports and stories I hear, I just believe that, that is true.

SA: Well, Mike Bailey, it was a really interesting conversation, we're so glad to have had you on.

MJB: I had a great time and - yeah, so I'll try to send you the link to the free version of my book and everybody should read it and have their parents and their children read it too.

[laughter]

SOM: Yeah, you're right!

SA: Read it to your five-year-olds before bed as a nice bedtime story.

MJB: Yes, and send Andrea James an email about how much they enjoyed it.

SA: Oh my gosh, I definitely will. [laughs] Thank you so much Mike, I hope you have a fantasic rest of your night.

MJB: Thank you, great to see you.

SOM: Thank you.

MJB: You too, you too.

Where on earth does Bailey get 'strong genetic component' from in that story?!?! It seems much more logical and likely to me that the young boy has been either abused or influenced by the father. How is that not seen as a precipitating factor and a case for involving the authorities by these 4 people trained in psychology?!?!

Of course it's not the same, it's a different thing. But it is similar in the sense that claims of a kind of scientific knowledge are made when the evidence simply isn't there, and people are criticized for saying so, not on rational grounds, but moral grounds.

There are people in most, though not all, cultures that have sex sometimes, or a lot of times, with people of the same sex.

But this is not typically understood in the same way we understand sexuality as such. And there are huge historical variations in which people had same sex sex, and under what circumstances too. It's clearly a culturally influenced phenomena.

Even in a western context, one of the huge issues in studies about sexuality is how you decide to define a person's sexuality for the purposes of the study, which has to have a consistent criteria. And we still have no clear idea what causes differences in sexuality. It does not seem to be the same in all cases.

If people are required to believe stuff because it's a moral imperative, don't be surprised if they think the same way about other things.

Was gonna say, it's a belief. Just that:

"I believe that there is a strong genetic component"

Do you now?!

I think he's saying that it's something he suspects, this is an example.

If you read about the origins or first experiences boys have of fetishistic arousal, of all kinds, it seems to come largely out of the blue. Often attached to events that have no apparent sexual connotation at all, triggered by objects that have no sexual connotations. Though there are certain types of objects, like shoes, that appear again and again.

I imagine there isn't much data looking at generational incidents of this kind of thing, so speculation is likely to be pretty wide and is going to be driven by the clinicians personal observations.

There is data. Kinsey data. Which cannot be used or trusted yet which has permeated so much of the "thinking" about "the child as a sexual being".

More on Kinsey and how he got his data here:

It should probably be said that the Yorkshire film/C4 video above contains discussions of child sexual abuse which some people might find quite upsetting.

A 3-4 y/o child behaving in such a precociously sexualised way is a HUGE red flag for CSA.

To uncritically present this as a thing to be speculated about - 'fascinating case ... maybe it's genetic?' without even a nod to safeguarding is appalling.

Safeguarding should be at the absolute forefront of any professional's mind who works with children, or families, or advocates for them, or seeks to influence policy on their behalf.

This is the problem some of us have with Genspect.

I see what you’re saying and I understand what you mean but I’m more inclined to think that the crossdressing father is the significant factor in this boy’s life and I’m not inclined to think the child’s unusual behaviour is something that would develop naturally at such a young age.

I could believe it might happen to a boy going through puberty who begins to fixate on something to the point where it gets reinforced in his mind and he believes he’s always been that way. But I think a very young boy with a paraphilic father is a safeguarding concern, and I’m horrified that Zucker didn’t notify the relevant child protection authority. And I’m equally concerned that Bailey and O’Malley aren’t seeing this as a worrying story.

Uhler said all three of them were mandated reporters.

Not everything that is passed on from parents is passed on by genetics. We could be kind and assume that Zucker had already ruled out abuse. But when you have a 3 or 4 year old behaving in such an adult sexualised manner you'd at least have to wonder about abuse regardless of the trans.

I'm not clear how endemic this problem is to Genspect. I have noticed that Sasha and Stella are very much "the parents are the ones who care about their children, the parents are the authority" and while that's usually true there are going to be exceptions.

A 3-4 y/o child behaving in such a precociously sexualised way is a HUGE red flag for CSA.

That's safeguarding 101.

This is where we see academics loosing sight of the reality of coal face safeguarding thanks to theories and academic freedom of speech.

I’ve come across another article re Genspect and what’s been happening - this article makes the argument that this ‘turmoil’ is a mixture of class differences, centre-right male trolling owing to a dislike of feminism, a strong dislike by libfems of radfems, a perception that women criticising people (particularly men) is a form of bullying, and a general lack of knowledge of political theory and safeguarding.

It’s a long-ish but very interesting read and I think it makes good points.

https://msediewyatt.substack.com/p/agp-gate

One thing this article has made me wonder is how on earth Peter Boghossian manages to get on with Helen Pluckrose and James Lindsay - he seems so much more knowledgeable, and less obnoxious and contrarian than they do.

I think Peter Boghossian probably agrees with Helen Pluckrose. He's never struck me as someone who 'gets' feminism or safeguarding. Both probably believe that this is all at least partly feminists' fault and that there are some people who are 'really trans' and that feminists should stop 'being mean' to them. All three have done important work which is useful to feminists but none of them are feminists.

But neither Helen Pluckrose nor Peter Boghossian are in the same category as James Lindsay. Neither have called us thick old hags or whatever he said. Only James Lindsay has lost control of himself and spilled his woman-hating rage all over the place. Have either of them reacted to his tantrum?

this ‘turmoil’ is a mixture of class differences, centre-right male trolling owing to a dislike of feminism, a strong dislike by libfems of radfems, a perception that women criticising people (particularly men) is a form of bullying, and a general lack of knowledge of political theory and safeguarding.

Yes, add in a sprinking of men in dresses and all their fucking reasons and this is an accurate description of 'Gender Critical'. It makes no more sense as a label than LGBTQIblabla.

If you are really interested in Peter Boghossian, it is worth watching his interview with KJK and his misunderstanding of the 'benefits' of prostitution.

So many of the people involved with what we may call 'The Gender Wars' apparently on the side of 'reality' are in no way on the side of women or girls. They all seem to have blind spots and alot of these blind spots seem to be men with AGP. Look at Glinner and Stella's adoration of Debbie Hayton, whilst not being able to comprehend that he is the reason that girls do not have access to female only spaces in schools.

He wrote the fucking policies that got males into female toilets for fucks sake! He is not a fucking hero.

This AGP blind spot is a recurring theme. AGP is not 'gender non-conformity'.

Jesse Singal is interesting on this in the most recent episode of Blocked and Reported. He’s quite scathing about James Lindsay.

I once had a run in with Helen Pluckrose on Twitter. Years ago - about these paygap, which she maintained was a bitter feminist error. She was nasty and several of her acolytes piled on. Then she blocked me. It was really OTT in terms of what I’d tweeted.

So I never understood the awe some people hold her in. She seemed to me to be an academic wannabe who couldn’t land an academic post.

So many people say ‘wear what you want’ whilst ignoring that these aren’t fashion choices men are making.

My first thought would also have been some kind of influence, even if it was just the son observing something he wasn't meant to have seen. But I don't know that we are given enough information on the case to make much of a judgement. Kids are very exposed to sexual content just in the world around them. If there is a pattern some people see in clinical settings it's something that might be worth further investigation.

3-4 year old children are not 'very exposed to sexual content just in the world' unless they are severely neglected. They are only exposed to the sexual content that their care givers expose them to. Because they are three. They're not in their rooms doing their own thing on the internet like they will be when they're 15.

2021: 'Hi, We're Genspect, we're a new organisation set up to provide a voice for parents with gender-questioning kids.'

2023: 'Hi, were Genspect, we're an international alliance of professionals, parent groups, trans people, detransitioners, and others promoting a healthy approach to sex and gender. What's that, parents with gender-questioning kids? We can't quite hear you. This man in a dress has quite a loud booming voice so you'll have to speak up'

What has become apparent to me is that some people 'get' safeguarding and some people just don't.

I used to think that anyone who had ever had a frontline job working with children or vulnerable adults would have a sound understanding of safeguarding but Stella O'Malley and Sasha Ayad do both see children and families individually as private therapists and neither of them get it.

I never expected Genspect to be particularly feminist. I did expect them to understand safeguarding, given their original aim.

I am not at all surprised that SoM has once again been having visceral reactions to feminists asserting sexual boundaries in a twitter space.

I agree that some people just don’t seem to get safeguarding but I wonder why - it’s a pretty straightforward concept, I think. Some people seem to almost resent it as being OTT and worrywarting, that attitude really baffles me.

Dr Em has written an interesting blogpost about the phenomenon of people refusing to see/acknowledge the safeguarding issues related to occasions like the multiple attendees at Genspect etc:

'When people argue ‘not my Nigella’ or ‘not all Trans’ they are really saying that this time, this person has a lady brain rather than a dangerous fetish. Yes, clothes are magical and defining. They are telling you to ignore the pattern, ignore the mounting evidence, submit to the ideology, just this once.'

https://uncommongroundmedia.com/understanding-your-nigella-the-harms-of-transvestic-paraphilia/

I'm beginning to wonder if there is a danger of 'safeguarding' becoming easily ignored or meaningless if it is overused as a blanket term, one word, which really means unacceptable.

Almost the same way transphobic has become meaningless.

I've seen the TRAs now use safeguarding in their arguments. Stating having their demands met is a safeguarding concern. Because they know it has power. Everyone should respond whenever anyone mentions 'safeguarding'.

I think therefore when invoking safeguarding we should be clear on the risks and the steps which should be followed otherwise it's all becoming a bit nebulous.

I'm not clear myself what the 'safeguarding' is for an agp man in a dress at a conference?

I don't like it. I wish it wasn't acceptable in the workplace. But I'm not sure how it's safeguarding.

I think we're in danger of thinking 'safeguarding' is the ultimate trump card and overplaying it and in doing so minimising it's impact.

It's as if it's become the only rationale we have left to object, as the social contract has been discarded.

It's a bit like consent being the only mortality remaining in sex, once we threw out all socially acceptable boundaries of behaviour, but there are some situations in which safeguarding or consent don't quite work sufficiently and what we really need is: socially acceptable norms.

Safeguarding means protecting from things/people that are harmful/dangerous not things that are unacceptable. It’s a framework used to prevent there being gaps or weaknesses that predators can use to their advantage. It means setting up consistently followed sensible policies and procedures. It’s formal and accountable and should be open to objective reassessment. I genuinely don’t intend to be obnoxious when I say this, but if you can’t see the difference between the two things then I don’t know how to explain it any better.

If it’s being diluted as a concept or framework it’s because people aren’t carrying it out properly and are viewing it as a tickbox exercise rather than an effective way to prevent harm.

TRAs are magpies and they nick anything they think will give them leeway to keep doing what they want. I’m not too worried about them parroting phrases they don’t understand; narcissists grab at anything they think will give them the upper hand in a situation.