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?

Who is this 'celebrity author' with 'thin credentials'?
If you think Stella O'Malley is a celebrity author, you don't know much about her, do you? Or do you think that only 'celebrities' write bestsellers in the area they specialise in?

I was using your description ”People outside Ireland may not be aware that as well as being a practising psychotherapist, Stella O'Malley was already a well-known broadcaster and author of bestselling books”

Nothing in your description of her suggests a heavyweight in the field of evidence based medicine. Or even psychotherapy.

There's a difference between being well-known and respected for something specific, and being a 'celebrity.'

Although this is 3 hours long, I watched the first hour and he does start ramping up and talking about Stella O’Malley and Genspect after about half an hour. It’s disturbing how he is so clear and unequivocal about his “100%” claims - which amounts to there being no acceptable cases.

I found Uhler unsettling when I first encountered his advocacy but, in retrospect, it was only because he’s so extremely blunt and doesn’t couch things in polite terms. His experience of working with sex offenders is both valuable and worrying for those working to protect women, children and the vulnerable because he is very frank about the intentions of predatory men and how much effort they will put into finding and exploiting the chinks in every system’s armour. And he’s also very frank about how little can be done to change the behaviour of predatory men.

I'm about an hour into listening to Uhler. I'm troubled by how inarticulate and all over the place he is: minutes go by and I have no idea what he's talking about. I would have hoped that someone in his position would have refined his argument by this stage. Not everyone can be as crisp and thought-through as Helen Joyce, but most are more coherent.

I'm also concerned about the 100% and his absolute certainty about several things. I'm sure that a lot of what he says is accurate and very concerning, but I have real concerns with anyone in any walk of life who is so sure they are right and everyone else is wrong. Even though I'd like to believe him, I know life isn't like that.

Years ago, handing out WRN GC leaflets in a town centre somewhere, a man stopped, read the leaflet and then talked to me for about 20 minutes. He had been a psychologist working in a men's prison and he wanted to be sure that I knew just how predatory and devious male sex offenders were. He said that women had absolutely no idea how far sex offenders would go, and how much time and thought and energy they will invest, in achieving their aims. He talked about how many men disappear into an underworld of fantasy in a way women don't. He shared a lot of Ulher's opinions.

His explanation of deviancy is really good, that there is a slippery slope from sociopathy to psychopathy, that a lack of conscience starts to slide towards the enjoyment of causing harm. Also that an incidence of #bekind enabling, where public deviance around vulnerable people isn’t managed appropriately, sends out a beacon to predators to flock.

He's good on the clinical side of things, but he's dissed Julie Bindel, Bari Weiss and other reasonable women commentators and complained about all the women who've blocked or unfollowed him. Red flags galore. I have no doubt he's right about many things but he's not the calm, thoughtful, informed authority I was hoping for.

I didn’t watch the whole thing, but his complaint about JB was that she was extremely rude and hostile towards him - which I think she wouldn’t lose sleep over, but also her hypocrisy and male deviance enabling - as the co-/founder of projects to help vulnerable women, that she would be photographed with her arm around DH - the signal this sends out.

He does have moments of ‘Where are the feminists on this?' But I see him as being no different to any other man who doesn’t take the time to educate himself on the different schools of Feminism.

In fact, society erroneously equates Liberal Feminism with Feminism as a whole and, while it infuriates me, I can see why this is the case: Liberal Feminism is the least threatening strand of feminist thought in terms of challenging patriarchal structures in our society and so it’s been promoted by the media and the establishment as almost a form of social inoculation against other more challenging schools of feminist thought.

I agree with his critique of Bindel for her promotion/acceptance of Hayton. And I think that after Hayton’s recent article criticising JK Rowling that Bindel herself regrets their association.

You're correct about what he said and I think a lot of GC women have felt concern about the way DH has been feted, particularly by WPUK and Julie Bindel. I'm also with him on the Genspect issue. He's clearly no fan of Stella, and neither am I.

He's clearly also pissed off a number of other reasonable female commentators (I couldn't catch how or why) and also Benjamin Boyce of Calmversation fame. When all those people are unfollowing or blocking you maybe you need to take a moment to reflect on why that is? Maybe Julie Bindel was rude to him for a reason. I'm not saying that he's not allowed to be pissed off with people, but the way he expresses himself is raw and unfiltered and I'd prefer my experts to have processed their stuff and show better judgment.

He may be absolutely right on the clinical analysis stuff, but for me the rawness, the lack of clarity of thought, the 'I'm the only expert' chest-beating and the absolute certainty that he is right and everyone else is wrong is distracting from the good stuff he says. He's coming across as a loose cannon, and that's a pity because if he could damp the ego down and focus better he could be a fantastic advocate.

When all those people are unfollowing or blocking you maybe you need to take a moment to reflect on why that is? Maybe Julie Bindel was rude to him for a reason.

May be because you are right and that makes others who have compromised in one way or another uneasy?

I think he clearly has made a number of women feel uneasy — possibly not because he's right.

Hey man I'm just repeating what I have been seeing other people say, by convincingly, and I am disappointed with the divisive interview that she gave about feminists and I agree that Jen Specht seems all over the place, I don't have an opinion one way or another but I'm just interested that's why I'm on the thread there's no need to be rude

Benjamin Boyce is a man who I find very confusing in his attitudes to women and feminism: he'll interview feminists and women's rights advocates for content for his YouTube channel but also pose daft sexist questions to them during the interview, or publish sexist MRA-type bilge on Twitter (as well as supporting James Lindsay who frequently publicly attacks feminists of every stripe).

I think Uhler takes a very strict approach when it comes to protecting women and children from sexual assault and predation; he makes no exceptions for men claiming any special exemptions.

I agree he could be much more effective if he were less personal in his critiques of certain people and their approaches/advocacy positions in this area of discussion, but I try to bear in mind that he's American and Americans are often more direct in their speech; that he's spent a long career dealing with sex offenders and thus has no patience for proposals (from those he sees as insufficiently experienced) that allow predators any potential to cause harm; and that he would need a strong sense of self and a strong sense of certainty to be able to survive the career he chose. I also try to bear in mind that his YouTube channel is his personal channel and that in a professional setting he might well express himself differently.

I think what I'm trying to say is that, for me, he doesn't have to be someone I like personally for me to agree with some of the points he makes. There are quite a few people espousing GC arguments that I find irritating and sometimes obnoxious but, in the end, it's all hands to the pump in trying to improve safeguarding, but I also wish the mix of strong personalities was less combustible.

The mix of personalities is bound to be combustible, because each one has been brave enough to speak out. And if you are brave enough to speak out over the TRA bullying and harassment, then you can butt shoulders with other people whose views do not completely 'align', to use a common phrase here, with your own.

But Julie Bindel really fucked up with her DH support and she knows it.

AI fail?

Too long to watch and a shame he’s not over his rejection from JB as the material on deviance and prey/predator split for TW was beginning to be interesting. I’ll go back and listen more later. Thinking is allowed to evolve though and even JB is allowed to make mistakes in thinking this TW is the ‘right’ kind before time and experience and reflection changes her mind.

He is clear he respects and values her work, but doesn’t like her as a person and also felt it was inappropriate and dangerous for her to be photographed with DH.

But Julie Bindel really fucked up with her DH support and she knows it.

And she's said so, if you read her Substack. Although I think "fucked up" is too strong a judgement.

I think there is a big difference between the low stakes of writing on an anonymous message board, or under a pseudonym on Twitter, or in private conversations, and doing what Ms Bindel does: she earns her living as an investigative journalist and as a real-world activist. There was a moment, back in 2018, when the TRA stuff really kicked off, that public commentators such as Ms Bindel needed to show that they were not "transphobic" towards individuals - that it is the philosophy & push to change legal structures which have a major impact on women's rights, which they opposed. So I can see why there was an acceptance of an apparently sympathetic person like DH (or Miranda Yardley).

Politics in the real world (as opposed to online) is about pragmatism, driven by clear aims & ideals, of course, but it's about small steps towards getting things done.

JB knew that DH had written the guidance that removed the rights of female teachers and girls to single sex spaces in schools.

We knew this years ago.

I could never understand why they were all over him. I wouldn't go near him with a barge pole.

Lots of people in the GC movement don't like each other on a personal basis. They take an adult, professional approach though, and don't make a thing of it.

DH isn't and never was in the 'GC' movement!

I could never understand why they were all over him. I wouldn't go near him with a barge pole.

Listen to Uhler and his link between psychopathy and cross-dressing/ fetishes. JB, WPUK, Graham Linehan et al were taken in by DH in the same way that the boards of banks and major corporations are taken in by people like 'corporate psychopath' Fred the Shred. These people know exactly how to play others.

I wasn't talking about DH. I'm talking about the women (and probably some men) active in the GC movement from the top down to local level who button their lips and behave like professional adults because they know the cause is more important than their personal feelings.