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?

That's my point really. I think we've lost language to object to things being socially unacceptable, and therefore are using safeguarding in its place, which should be for harmful and dangerous, and applying it to unacceptable.

And I think that could actually be harmful.

I've noticed I'm becoming a bit desensitised to the shouts of safeguarding. It seems to be becoming a blanket and vague term.

Also one a small group claim they have unique understanding of, others don't get it, but it's not being explained so the unique knowledge seems to remain with this morally superior group.

What is the safeguarding concern about an agp man in a dress at a conference?
Please explain.

I think it should be socially unacceptable, but that ship seems to have sailed. We have a wear whatever you like culture now.
So we're left with only safeguarding.

How is it a safeguarding issue?
Genuine question btw.

We can't safeguard because it makes us uncomfortable.
We can't safeguard because it feels creepy.
We can't safeguard because of things he might be thinking.

How do we apply safeguarding in this case?

I'm on another thread at the moment where there's been the commonly occurring comments I referred to here earlier: we're fine with men in dresses.

Which men in dresses are feminists fine with?

Do you think there are a subset just doing it for fashion reasons?
There used to be. That's not what we're seeing it now.

But once we've said it's fine, we're left with only being able to object if they've declared they're agp.
All the others we have to go along with?

Do feminists really not see how they've gone along with the dismantling of gender norms (which is also part of queer theory) and now discovered some of those norms had a role, and once you've dismantled them and said it's a free for all, it's very very hard to try to put rules back in place for a small subset of people.

You are left trying to do this by arguing safeguarding only which is a high bar to reach in many of these cases, for something which really is about men deliberately making women uncomfortable.

Our discomfort is not safeguarding.

I would say there is unlikely to be a direct safeguarding impact of an AGP man at such a conference.

The safeguarding concern would be from the follow on effect: people see an AGP man with horrible views about paraphilias being welcomed and accepted at a conference, ergo other men of similar ilk are welcomed and accepted at events with a direct safeguarding concern. Normalise men exhibiting their fetish in public, and it’s only a matter of time - likely days, the way these men are 🤨- before they push their luck crossing a boundary somewhere else.

That would be one view.

@MalagaNights I really get where you're coming from.
I wrote a post further up this thread and I mentioned the word safeguarding a lot in reference to several different aspects of it for different purposes.

When I mentioned safeguarding in reference to the conference, I was thinking about some guardrails that would limit the potential for fetish performance. Perhaps things like a conference rule that all attendees need to use the toilets for their natal sex or unisex facilities and another around dress code. The dress code one would be tricky but "smart casual or business casual" would probably be enough for someone to then challenge anyone who is wearing a clearly incongruous dress. Obviously there could be other acronym people there also performing (when wearing clothes similar to everyone else) but it's about lowering risk rather than strict rules that limit the goals of the conference. If Genspect wants to include all voices who wish to participate (someone mentioned further up the thread that WPATH was also invited) then safeguarding is important to manage the risk that comes with doing so.

And then there is the safeguarding for children and young people which needs to be considered when creating the framework, so that the (inevitable) ideas that are received via casting a wider net are filtered through this lens. The acronym does appear to be quite the blindspot here for lots of otherwise sensible people.

But yes, to your point, the word feels like it's in danger of losing its meaning.

It will be interesting to see how the Big Conversation unfolds tonight. If Benjamin Boyce chooses to be impartial, and asks curious open questions, it could go very well. If he chooses to (continue to) downplay it, and KJK bites, it will be 2v1 and will simply end up being a destructive bun fight. I really hope KJK is going to play it smart and will take the time to help them to understand, rather than just shutting down what they say. For clarity, I'm completely on her side regarding the fetish issue here and she's absolutely right with what she's calling out. I'm just not sure that her default approach is going to help move the discourse on positively. In theory both Stella and Benjamin are capable of listening to reasoned argument. But they need to be gently pulled across the bridge in to the sunlight. Anything else just won't work.

You are left trying to do this by arguing safeguarding only which is a high bar to reach in many of these cases, for something which really is about men deliberately making women uncomfortable.

Our discomfort is not safeguarding.

My view would be that safeguarding as a direct responsibility applies at a small scale only e.g. a school, a specific event.

Everything else is just the law (with safeguarding principles built in) and the "social contract". It would be unworkable and undesirable to have a law which stipulated the clothing that people wore. The social contract in wider society relies on people using their judgement. We're generally pretty good at this, with the exception of spotting these acronym people (and others who get in to influential places and pose risk). I get the feeling that what's happened recently in women's sports and the sunlight that's still pouring in on sex crimes committed by transwomen will recalibrate enough people. I don't know the history of how DBS checks came to be in schools and youth groups, for example, but I'm assuming that it followed a similar path once enough people understood what they were looking at following the PIE debacle.

Unfortunately Bonfirelady, most safeguarding legislation has followed from serious harms or deaths in high profile cases. The DBS (formerly CRB) was brought in after the murder of Holly Wells and Jessica Chapman I believe (happy to be corrected). So something awful had to happen before action was taking. I think that's pretty much the pattern in the history of safeguarding.
It's a really interesting history to look at.

For me, it’s something akin to safeguarding. The trans activism movement has a strong history of “give ‘em an inch, and they’ll take a mile.” This is not exclusive to the sexual fetish side, but also with violence, laws enacted, free speech impacts, and so on. The movement has an especially strong history of red flags being ignored at the time of no harm, to see harm eventually being perpetuated. This is what DameMaud means in other areas. Examples in trans activism:

Men parading in front of children at DQSH. Red flags. No harm initially. Inevitably a man found to be an offender.

People like Sarah Jane Barker given activism platform. Red flags. No harm initially, just let them speak! Inevitably violent threats made against women.

And so on. There are countless examples.

This man has red flags galore. He’s open about his fetish and trying to normalise paraphilias, including criminal ones. Genspect knew this beforehand, and gave him a platform, because they believe - rightly - that his presence at the conference would not cause harm at the time of the conference (in relation to his AGP and beliefs, as opposed to him being insensitive).

But they’ve failed to heed the strong history of what men like this do. He’s been given an inch. If he doesn’t take a mile, they’ll get away with it. But if he does take a mile, they can’t say it’s not on them, because anyone with any nous could predict it happening.

Well yes, but this then depends on us knowing a man's motivation for wearing a dress.

Most are not as open as Phil.

It's a bit like the: we'll just let the nice men into the women's toilet argument. How do we know who the nice ones are?
Do we rely on them telling us?

Except now it's the feminists arguing, it's ok for the nice men to dress as women. We'll just ban the ones who tell us they're bad.

Many feminists here promoted the idea men in dresses is fine. Which ones?
We'll rely on them telling us to spot the ones who should be banned? All the others are fine?

I can understand why feminists are getting pushback on this issue. They continue to argue that men in dresses is fine, great even, but fail to see that the consequences of dismantling these norms is that it's socially acceptable for creepy men to perform their fetish and very hard to put the genie back.

It's a good example of Chesterton's fence to me: don't dismantle the fence until you are sure it has no utility and wasn't there for a reason.

@DameMaud @NotBadConsidering that all makes a lot of sense.

I might be entering tin foil hat territory here but I keep thinking back to Freda Wallace talking about the fact that women were "falling in to my trap" when they were calling out the fetish performance aspect of the IEA conference. Then along comes Phil Illy and women (understandably!) shout louder.... but this time many more women and GCs jump to Phil's defence and push back. During that phase, Phil is pushing the idea that the acronym is a sexual orientation (therefore firmly teamed with LGB etc, according to Phil). Next in line, Julia Malott is now talking about the idea that it's awful that Julia doesn't pass as an adult and perhaps we should be transing "some" kids after all... followed by a diplomatic rowback to say (paraphrased) "no, no, you're missing the nuance... I meant we just need to think about the needs of adults who don't pass if we don't trans kids". What does that even mean? Is passing now the goal? If so, why?

Was Freda part of a plan that was indeed working after all? To normalise the acronym by splitting apart the "GC" community?

Or have I just conspiracy theorised my way in to madness?!

Whether I've finally lost the plot or not, the conversation this evening will certainly help to show which way the wind will blow on how Genspect will handle the acronym issue in their framework.

Was Freda part of a plan that was indeed working after all? To normalise the acronym by splitting apart the "GC" community?

I think Freda, as a narcissistic opportunist, has correctly identified that there are a lot of people who are confused about safeguarding etc, and simply enjoys the power trip, like many of these males do. I think Freda can spin it to other TRAs that Freda's behaviour is all part of a considered strategy but I think Freda simply likes winding people up.

• Many feminists here promoted the idea men in dresses is fine. Which ones? We'll rely on them telling us to spot the ones who should be banned? All the others are fine?*

But wtf would the proposal be otherwise? Banning men in garments that don't have bifurcated leg attachments? Banning kilts? Banning men from wearing make up? None of this is feasible, let alone desirable.

Aye, it's just trolling.

And if men's clothing is going to be policed in that way, aren't women also going to find that there are certain items of clothing that they are not allowed to wear?

If men have to wear trousers and are not allowed to wear skirts, then they might argue that the opposite should be true for women. Why should women have the right to choose between skirts and trousers if men are not allowed the same freedom?

It's a good example of Chesterton's fence to me: don't dismantle the fence until you are sure it has no utility and wasn't there for a reason.

OK, what do you think is the utility of "traditional" clothing styles for men and women?

Just for clarity. This was in in specific response to @BonfireLady re DBS in schools.

Regarding Illy-gate- I'm still trying to work out my thoughts on this. I'm listening to all arguments and reading articles from all views and looking forward to Boyce live tonight (I think!).

One thing is defintely clear to me so far though- there is a frustrating lack of understanding from the Boycey side, of even where those objecting to what happened and what the issues might be, are coming from.

It is not dresses that is the issue, it is dressing in women’s clothes. With ‘women’s clothes’ defined by cut and culture. Let’s not pretend we don’t know exactly why men wear women’s knickers.

It was never banned. There were just social norms.

The whole idea of norms has been deliberately eroded. See people wearing pyjamas to shops as another example.

Feminists have promoted the wear whatever you want mantra, the dismantle norms narrative, which has given narcissistic men permission to flaunt their fetish.

This is what no norms look likes.

Of course dress norms change over time, but it's usually organic and with concensus. This is different this is not a new norm this is permission to transgress norms and force people to accept your fetish or attention seeking.

The problem is that many people seem to have convinced themselves that men wear women's knickers because they have ladybrains and girly feelings and that it's absolutely nothing to do with the f-word. Those people are either very innocent and naive or they have their eyes firmly shut (while shouting "be kind") to avoid facing the truth.

I think some social norms around dress are essential.
I'm not wedded to what they are, fashion changes.

But I think some norms related to sex will always emerge and any movement which says you can transgress the norm will serve narcissistic attention seeking fetishistic men.

Every time.

There’s no need to ban men from wearing women’s clothes. The AGPs will always stand out. Because they won’t be able to help themselves. There’s nothing in it for them to wear “conservative” women’s clothes, it would be like wearing men’s clothes. I mean seriously, are people we can’t tell who the fetishists are, just like we can’t tell people’s sex? It’s always as plain as day.

Which ones are not the fetishists?

Men have never been banned from wearing women's clothes.

It's just they've now been given permission, and celebrated.
Partly by feminists.

Please stop blaming feminists for something that has come about due to changing attitudes in society generally. Feminists have never had the power to change anything without the consent of wider society. It's not our fault that men have taken advantage of these changes. If anyone is to blame it's the men taking advantage followed by the whole of society for allowing it. Stop trying to make out that women are responsible for what men do.