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?

Some of them definitely get off on wearing "conservative" women's clothes. Look at Debbie Hayton, a self-confessed AGP, for example.

The uncomfortable truth is that everyone knows what it is when men wear women's clothes. Whether or not we are comfortable with naming it, is another issue.

Wow I'm not sure why I'm getting deleted!

Maybe because I'm not sticking to the abolish social norms, there'll be no consequences, it'll just be lovely free self expression mantra.

When you abolish social norms you don't get freedom you get tyranny by the minority of narcissists.

Let's see if this more vague post remains...

I'm not blaming feminists for men's behaviour.

I'm suggesting that feminists reflect on the consequences of some ideas that they continue push such as: there shouldn't be social norms in clothing, men in dresses is fine.

Individuals have responsibility for their behaviour but ideas have consequences.

I'm raising this as it's a feminist board and I see a contradiction in the positions taken here. Not because I think feminists are solely responsible.

This is why I don't think boys should be allowed to wear skirts and dresses to school.

It will largely be attention seeking boys who enjoy the social transgression who will do so.

(Obviously little boys playing is fine and not part of this, they don't yet know the norm so they're not transgressing)

Wearing a dress is not essential for anyone so preventing it doesn't harm anyone.
But allowing it for boys distorts norms and power and so has negative consequences for the group.

If however there is a time when men's skirts have become a normal dress code, I'd have no objections to this being introduced to school for boys.

I'm against allowing attention seeking people to dominate everyone else by transgressing norms.

Norms will always emerge and there will always be a minority who seek attention through transgression.

Go to art college. But don't be expected to be accommodated at school or work. The norms have a function for the general group there.

Post modernism has arguably deliberately sought to dismantle normative social mores.

Feminism has sought to question, criticise and dismantle oppression based on social stereotypes. Stereotypes are not the same as 'norms'.

Possibly. Personally I suspect Hayton is one of the few intelligent enough to know to reign it in once in a while to try and gain some notion of respectability. Which has worked on some people🤨.

The reason I think men in dresses should be fine is because it seems that if you say it's not fine, the next step is dictating what is and what is not acceptable for everyone. If we ban men from wearing dresses couldn't it be argued that we should also ban women from wearing trousers?

I disagree that it's feminists pushing the "no social norms" more generally. It's the "bring your whole self to work" proponents who are pushing this. There's no need to "bring your whole self" to work. It's sometimes acceptable to have a dress code.

@Ereshkigalangcleg@ArthurbellaScott thank you for helping me to see sense on the limitations of Freda's abilities 😁 It's annoyingly coincidental that it's all blowing up at the same time.

If Benjamin Boyce can behave himself in facilitating the conversation this evening, it should be possible to probe the question around freedom of dress choice, societal norms and fetish with the guests that he's got and feed this positively in to the discourse... and therefore Genspect's work. This also relies heavily on KJK helping to lead both him and Stella, not just block, and on Stella taking on board the balance of healthy open curiosity and sensible guardrails to treat the mental illness where someone is at odds with their body. Distinguishing between a fetishist (who most likely wants enablement) and someone in genuine distress is key. It's also important that they don't just stay on the subject of the conference itself during the discussion. That's important of course, because of the distress and furore that it caused, but the bigger issue is how all of this impacts the framework that Genspect is building.

In theory, good facilitation is what he intends to do. Although arguably his promotional tweets leading up to this (with photoshopped imagery of himself doing the facilitation in a blue dress) suggest a different picture. He certainly has the capability to facilitate this well, based on his past interviews. It remains to be seen whether he gives enough of a shit to do that or if he just wants to stick the knife in to feminists for a laugh and some clickbait as part of his current mockery.

Screenshot from a few days ago...

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

It's just they've now been given permission,

”given permission” is a problem for them and why Grayson Perry says it not longer so arousing for him. It is the breaking of norms that is the thrill. When a norm is dismantled the thrill is gone so they have to push further to transgress.

They might be in some cases.

Dress codes are norms. Feminists have promoted abolishing dress codes around sex. They still are.

How has promoting men wearing dresses dismantled women's oppression?

I'm saying it hasn't. It's the opposite. It's given a small group of men another way to intimidate women.
Unforseen consequences.
Chesterton's fence.

I’m pretty sure in his interview Grayson Perry indicated it’s no longer arousing to him because age has tempered his erections, not that the permission has diminished its allure.

No, he said both. Definitely said that it lost its charge/thrill now that it was more accepted.

'Feminists have promoted abolishing dress codes around sex'

They have? Where? What 'dress codes'?

There has never been a ban.

There was a view that people should stick by the code of the day or fear social judgement.

Social judgement is now banned. Safeguarding is the only objection allowed.

I agree about the bring your whole self to work. And I think the work code should reflect the social norm, which is different codes for men and women, so the transgressive minority cannot utilise the loophole.

I think what I've realised is that no rules or code just means the majority will establish a norm anyway which a minority will enjoy transgressing.
So a code for everyone is essential.

It may change over time but with consensus and for everyone, and will probably need to always have some differences for men and women as norms for men and women will always get established even if what they are changes.

Who issues this 'code'?

Yes repeatedly.

Saying men in dresses is fine.
Boys should be allowed to wear dresses to school.

On numerous current threads. For years.
Please don't gaslight me by pretending this isn't the case.
On this thread (see comment earlier about men in conservative dresses being fine)

Men and boys in dresses is a transgression of the current social norm, an abolition of the current dress codes around sex. Promoted by feminists.

Safeguarding is the only objection allowed.

Don’t be silly. Safeguarding is a transphobic dog whistle….

Norms are established through mimetic culture in groups.

The code is observed and understood and copied.
Transgressions of the code are usually seen as a threat to the group.
Change occurs and new codes established through group acceptance of a benefit to change. Or enforced through dominant tyranny.

The idea there are no norms or codes and the group has to accept all transgression, or there is no transgression just lovely self expression, is a very new one, which doesn't appear to be working very well as the flaws become apparent, and I predict won't last.

I just wonder what we'll learn from it?

That's the attempt to remove the final objection. The only objection left in the way of queer theory implementation.

This is the one I remember. I can’t recall him saying it’s because it’s now permissible. Doesn’t really matter I guess. I’m just not sure such men would object to women making it permissible and want to keep it as objectionable, in my view they seem to think the more who see them as a woman sex object the better.

Does he still find it sexually exciting? “Oh yes,” he shouts excitedly. “Yeah!” But there is a problem, he says, with being a very public tranny. You mean, you couldn’t be seen at the Royal Academy in a nice frock and a stiffy? He nods enthusiastically. “You couldn’t do it. If I could manage it, I’m sure I’d be thinking how to do it. But I can’t.” He pauses. “My days of a spontaneous erection are long gone, anyway,” he adds a little sadly.

https://amp.theguardian.com/artanddesign/2014/oct/04/grayson-perry-dress-tranny-art-who-are-you-tv

I'm not sure that it's ever been promoted by feminists. More that it wasn't seen as a problem. Also that feminists have campaigned to do and wear things that were previously only for men, so to me it seemed reasonable that some men might want to do and wear things that were previously only for women.

But as with so many differences between the sexes, there are different reasons for men wanting to wear "women's clothes" and women wanting to wear "men's clothes". Trousers are practical and allow women to do things that they couldn't do in skirts. There is no similar argument for wearing skirts.

I don't think there has been a campaign by feminists for this though. Surely it's down to men to campaign if this is what they want. But somehow I think it's likely to be only the fetishists and a few arty types who actually want to.

The conference allowed him to make contacts/friends with parents who would otherwise never meet him.

Feminists and Queer Theorists: it's fine for men to wear dresses.

Feminists: but not if they're AGP.

Problem is which ones aren't?

I think feminists thought they were supporting expanding fashion choice and instead got kink.

But as with so many differences between the sexes, there are different reasons for men wanting to wear "women's clothes" and women wanting to wear "men's clothes".

I agree, and I think this is what's been missed in the men in dresses is fine rhetoric.