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 mostly wear men's clothes. Loads of women do, it's just normal.

@MalagaNights I just came across this article and thought it relevant to this thread, and the livestream that happened tonight, ie people displaying their fetishes shouldn’t be around children (I would argue they shouldn’t be around women either but I’ll prioritise children).

https://scottishunionforeducation.substack.com/p/scottish-union-for-education-newsletter-68d

Just finished the livestream and very glad I watched it - it was just what I hoped it would be: constructive and civilised. Good discussion of the various topics.

We need more examples of this. It would be great if more groups like WPUK got involved in conversation with the women who need their help. Professionals and civilians working together rather than professionals telling civilians what they should/shouldn’t think.

No, it's possible to say that fetishistic cross-dressing is a particularly male behaviour because fetishistic anything is a particularly male behaviour.

It's not about the clothes/balloons/feet/smoking/dead bodies/nappies/used sanitary products etc. It's about the fetish.

There are a few women who are into BDSM but they are dwarfed by the number of men who are into it, as well as much weirder shit and, I would argue, for very different reasons.

'If it exists, there will be porn of it on the internet' is a (very old) meme for reasons which have nothing to do with the behaviour of women.

When women campaigned to be allowed to wear trousers they campaigned for Rational Dress. They campaigned for clothes that they could move normally in, and which would not cause them pain. The racier women campaigned for clothes in which they could ride a bicycle.

Sure, they were labelled perverts but the difference is that they weren't perverts and these men are.

Hence, millions of women leaving the house in trousers every day in 2023 without having any sexual thoughts about it at all. It's just normal.

So if men want to wear dresses then they should explain why that would be rational. Otherwise it's not unreasonable to assume that they are getting off on it because nobody wears that shit for comfort.

What's a 'born woman'? Do you just mean a woman? How is contemplating yourself in the nude in any way gendered? You are just contemplating your naked sexed body. Most people are at least partially naked in their sex fantasies because sex involves getting your bits out. This is really not difficult.

Why does nobody get off on imagining themself in y fronts or boxers?

Could it be that male and female 'cross-dressing' are not the same, however much some men would like to pretend they are?

Could it be that Blanchard devised a shite questionnaire that has nothing to do with women and is not women's fault or responsibility?

'Autoandrophilia' is not a thing.

I doubt many women on FWR watch MAFS and if they do I imagine their main complaint would be the whole setup of the programme. Why single out this one instance that you think we should busy ourselves write letters about?

I doubt many women have ever started wearing mens clothes by secretly buying/stealing underwear and then progressing to trousers in public.

I agree with this, if I’ve understood correctly. The problem at the moment is not that some men are wearing clothing that is seen as women’s clothing, it is that some men are wearing clothing which appears sexualised and sets off alarm bells. Those men are either naive and don’t know what effect their clothing has on other people, or they do know and they don’t care or they enjoy transgressing the social contract (the norms most of us expect). The social contract, that men don’t wear dresses or skirts apart from some cultural exceptions (kilts and other national costumes), has now been queered, so many of us don’t quite know what the norms are. This is uncomfortable, and it makes it very easy for men with bad intentions to confuse organisations and individuals.

I see the confusion all over the place, in organisations whose members and leaders want to be nice, and to be seen to be nice, and in people like myself, who also want to be kind but also are concerned about truth and about consequences to, among others, vulnerable (and indeed all) women.

None of these men are naive. They all know why they want to wear 'women's clothes'. None of them have ever campaigned for 'Rational Dress' as women have been doing for the past 140 years. There's a reason for that.

The tw sixth formers are nice kids who are weirdos who don't fit in well as boys. Tbh not as girls either. 15 years ago they were emos. They are probably not wearing skirts as a fetish, I do not get that vibe and I always get the vibe. Like always. I have never been surprised by a celebrity or former student etc.

It worries me to wonder what such men would do instead, in order to get the type of thrill they crave. But there may well be a strong tendency to graduate to more transgressive behaviour anyway. This is why I would prefer to see societal boundaries and norms set in quite conservative positions, so that only those people who are comfortable with pushing hard against them do significant damage, and most people are protected by their own and other people’s consciences.

I really don't think all men wearing skirts are perverts. Some people prefer skirts. Some trousers. Other countries men wear what looks like skirts.
Yes Some fetishists wear very sexualised clothing but again as a pp said if it's arousal at the thought of oneself as a woman rather than other people seeing you as a woman or fearing you then it's not that different to wearing sexy underwear because it makes you feel good. Which personally I find ick, wtf would you? Nice big cotton knickers and t shirt bras make me feel comfortable. Trousers recently but for about a decade I wore dresses. Before that mainly skirts to work. Mostly due to body shape and getting trousers to fit my used to be skinny lanky body!

This essay, written by an AGP man comparing himself to women, might help you understand the difference in mindset:

https://archive.is/2pQIq

Maybe its time to bring back the 21s century version of the Spanish Inquisition, where we round up all the men wearing things that may be giving them sexual thoughts, ship them off to some interrogation rooms for some serious questioning to find out the truth.

Some of these disgusting creatures might doing it secretly, with just undergarments, so let's get the police to do some random stop and searches to put the fear into them. They're not getting off any less just because you can't see it. Getting a boner in public is suspicious, so instant search for any man with one of those

This all feels a bit sexist to be honest. The horror and the shock is not manifested by the wearer, they cannot control the observer and make them feel that way. It's fully produced in the heads of the observer, and those thoughts are rooted in sexism and stereotypes present in society as a whole. The moment nobody cares, there is no thrill, no "taboo", its just another outfit a person wears. There are men, for sure, who are put off by all the "blah blah blah" about what's allowed and not allowed. It's disappointing, for me, to see women getting upset because well .. it wasn't too long ago they'd be abused in the street for wearing trousers, they had to tread cautiously and start with bloomers first. It was mere decades ago the rules changed allowing women to wear trousers in the US senate which is why women there like their trousers and suits so much more than female MPs in the UK.

All that really matters, objectively, is whether its generally acceptable for any person to a wear a thing in a particular context.

If society has to push back towards a more conservative split of gendered clothes, the reason why will be just like every other rule or law of society: a small group of men have ruined it for the rest of us.

Exactly, women who wear jeans didn't start by stealing yfronts off washing lines, and then taking them home, sniffing them, putting them on and masturbating themselves into a frenzy.

The same way that females transitioning is completely different to males.

Some women much prefer wearing mens clothes, mostly for comfort, we all accept that. Some men really enjoy wearing women's clothes, for style, drama and prettiness. Many of these men are AGP, some aren't.

This essay is fantastic.

I'm sure lots of posters are already clued up to this level but personally I still had a few dots to join up (I already knew most of it, just not laid out in this way) and this really helped. There's obviously lots more to add e.g. the role of gaming and avatars in how young acronym people are finding the pull towards starting this journey very easily. Especially if they are socially isolated and mostly communicating online (and the specific impact on transwidows and any children in the family isn't covered).

But it certainly helps to lay out the basics of the acronym. This person seems aware to a point, but perhaps mostly unaware, that left unchecked (which most acronym people would presumably have little desire to do), it's going to escalate. So being "proud" to be an acronym person is rather misplaced to say the least.

I had a look at the thread that @MalagaNights copied in. I'm one of the first posters on it and my position has definitely moved a little since then. I'm still of the opinion that the social contract is already in place (and on a basic level, Nick is just a man in a dress selling dresses in a dress shop). However, my opinion would now be that if Nick identified as a woman, I would most likely avoid any pronouns at all and would be more cautious to the idea that Nick could be of this persuasion. Given Nick is working with children in the Disney shop, I would expect all the normal protocols and checks to be in place, regardless of whether Nick was a transwoman or a man.

If I take that thought forwards and combine it with Stella's call to raise awareness of the acronym in public, I would want such protocols to take this specific risk in to account. It's unlikely that it will be because of the general blindspot in the public discourse on this. If there is no obvious sign that someone (e.g. Nick) has the acronym, there is no reason to restrict what is being worn as long as it is within the normal social contract IMO. Wearing a Disney dress in a shop that sells Disney dresses is arguably just that, regardless of anyone's sex. However, if there is an obvious sign (such as someone like Phil declaring their paraphilia), this changes the risk profile considerably. It also means that no self-declared acronym person should be a teacher... as discussed on the YouTube conversation last night.

Social norms are great because they help set the "rules" for what's acceptable and safe so that it's easier to see what's not. But personally I don't feel it has to be rigid and conservative. It's about what is being worn when. Nobody would turn up to a funeral wearing a bikini, just as nobody is likely to spend a day on the beach dressed in typical funeral attire. As a society we are generally pretty good at spotting red flags - there just needs to be a recalibration when it comes to the acronym. It's far too well buried under the whole Be Kind blanket.

To add:
Regardless of whether Nick was a transwoman or a man
**
That's very lazy wording on my part. It avoids the unfortunate word salad I end up with distinguishing between whether Nick identified as a woman (therefore "transwoman") or had no gender identity at all (therefore "man").

I'm fully aware that transwomen are not women and I'm fully aware that there are two sexes. I choose to challenge the impact of the belief that we all have a gender identity, not the belief itself.

You know this? On what research? Did the first trousers worn by women magically appear?

Some history, there was resistance to women wearing trousers. So much so, that it was considered safer wear bloomers, baggy and easily mistaken for a skirt but definitely trousers like. Trousers gradually came over decades. By resistance, I'm talking abuse and violence. Now, I don't know for sure, I might dig into this, but I wouldn't be surprised in such an atmosphere if they were stolen and secretly worn by some women. The catholic church considered it part of cross dressing, and therefore heresy, and in the late 19th century the French had a decree that a woman had to get permission from a police man to wear trousers. It was repealed in 2013 or so.

Policing the wearing of everyday clothing styles, for one sex only, is literally propping up the patriarchy. Women do as they please, low status and they look pretty so who cares, but men must stick to their uniform to mark them as superior. Diviate, and your status and respect is deminished to that of a woman. You can see this in way that people use "just a man in a dress" as a phrase not just to say what they think but also dehumanise and mock people who consider themselves trans. The implication is often not just "sex is real" but "sex is real AND you shouldn't dress like that"

Of course there's inappropriate dressing, but nobody has to deviate from stereotypes to do that. I can just pop out to the shops in my underwear & vest for that. It's a separate subject entirely, tho.

Very glad you found the essay interesting @BonfireLady 😊

With regards to your discussion of the male staff wearing women’s clothing at Disney World’s princess boutique, I’ll admit I’m not in favour. My reasoning being did the men ask to wear women’s clothing and be put on the rota for a shop that sells almost exclusively to young girls? If they didn’t ask, why would Disney be motivated to rota male staff to that shop where little girls are trying on dresses?

Men asking to work there is a red flag to me and, to be honest, it would also be a red flag if Disney was insisting that some men work there. It shows ignorance of safeguarding protocols in both situations and, because of this, now Disney will attract job applications from men who want access to both women’s clothing and young girls - not something that is considered a safe idea (borne out by decades of offending patterns in both USA and Europe).

It fascinating to see where your thinking has changed on various threads and topics - I do find your posts interesting and I hope you enjoy these discussions 😊

@spookehtooth You might find these articles interesting, I know I did 😊

https://helenrappaport.com/footnotes/rational-dress/

https://blog.newspapers.com/the-rational-dress-society-and-victorian-dress-reform/

https://sageandsavant.com/2018/04/09/background-information-rational-dress-movement/

Quote from one of the articles: 'By changing the fashion, Rational Dress speakers claimed women would gain great social mobility, independence from men, and the ability to work for comparable wages.'

I think men have worked in the Bibbity Bobbity shop for a while, but there is a male costume for them?

Presumably he asked to wear the women's costume instead?

Maybe it's:

Because it's essential for his 'mental health' that he gets to wear what he wants at all times even at work?
or
Because he just happens to love women's dresses as a fashion choice?
or
Because men getting thrills and validation from dressing like a women and performing it in front of children is now supported and celebrated by idiot companies like Disney and many parents.

We don't know why, because he doesn't have to tell us. But I know which seems more likely to me.

@BonfireLady my views have shiftded on this over the past couple of years too.

I was very much in the 'just let boys wear dresses to school, it's only clothes' camp a couple of years ago.

A few things shifted for me, mainly linkded to the erosion of norms and consequenecs to that I hadn't fully anticipated. I thought more about the whole queering agenda, the public kink of pride, and dots began to be joined.

My first shift was on boys in dresses at school, when I realised this queering of a norm was being promoted to children when the norm hadn't yet shifted in society, when normally it would be the other way around.
I realsied children are being used to make the changes to norms around gendered clothing that some adults want to normalise.

I thought 'if it's only clothes' just wear your trousers kid, you don't need to wear a dress, it won't hurt you, until the aduts have worked this out. Which I don't think we have.

I also thought a lot about why I felt uncomfortable around men dressing as if they were women and really tried to look at where that comes from. Was it just I'm a big bigot and not used to it yet?
Maybe.
But I realised it's about a delibrate and gratutitious transgression of something quite fundmental and not really about clothes.

I don't feel uncomforable in men in weird creative feminine fashion (I know a lot of fashion students) so I'm not just a everyone should wear a twinset and pearls type person (as you all proably imagine me!)

Maybe people felt the same way about women in trousers and I am just a big bigot. But I think there is something else going on with most of these men that our intuition picks up on.
With most I think it's AGP, and I think pretending that the bloke in Disney is just a lovely thing, and Phil is dangerous predator, is delibrately naive. I think they're the same thing.

But my views on this have evolved, and so will probably continue to evolve and I appreciate the space on FWR to think them through with you all. Even if I sometimes feel out of place.

@UtopiaPlanitia those images show that women in trousers was an evolution from skirts to trousers and that it took time and the women had a good rationale which was eventually persuasive.

They didn't start suddenly striding about smokingg pipes, wearing their husbands 3 peice suits, and have a short back and sides.
(although a few probably did)

They weren't dressing like the men, they were changing the boundaries of women's clothes.

Even now womens trousers are mostly designed and diffrenetiated from men's trousers. (yes, yes except for the women on fwr who all wear men's clothes, I know. But most women don't.)

I agree with your analysis 💯 and we are not seeing this fashion revolution in men’s clothes, probably because a lot of clothing made for women is less comfortable and less practical., but also because men who dress as women see it as losing status by emulating women and they often get off on that 'humiliation'. Whereas the women fighting for rationality in clothing were trying to improve their lot/status in society.

I came across an essay on gender roles in other societies that you might find interesting. I remember reading this years ago, before non-binary really took off as an ideology, and it gave me the tools to examine the arguments made by TRAs about two-spirit, Hijra etc meaning other cultures accepted transgender identities more than white cultures.:

'American Indian nations that had more rigid gender roles and assigned women less power historically felt the need to strip male/female identities from non-conformers, while more egalitarian societies with less gender socialization lack two-spirit people because of, rather than in spite of, their lack of emphasis on sex-assigned gender roles.'

https://culturallyboundgender.wordpress.com/2013/03/09/toward-an-end-to-appropriation-of-indigenous-two-spirit-people-in-trans-politics-the-relationship-between-third-gender-roles-and-patriarchy/

Haha I wouldn't call that an essay in any academic sex. I fully understand the differences thank you, my first degree is in applied psychology and I worked in sex offender treatment. I've taught and read pretty much all the original literature.
I now teach mostly sociology and pshe so I am extremely clear on what paraphilias are and why.
I stand by my post though. There is no difference as long as its a thrill to yourself like wearing sexy clothes and not about others reactions. Agp is personal. Additional paraphilias about shame and exposure are additional.