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?

This is an earlier post on this thread ^^ where I raise my issues with the safeguarding rationale being overly stretched beyond its usefulness.

and this ^

You posted this: think we've lost language to object to things being socially unacceptable

And also this:I think an area where difference will persist and has to be lived with is in personal use of preferred/ requested pronouns. Although a decision on how this is managed in schools and workplaces is required.

Not only have we lost language to object to things being socially unacceptable, you are suggesting we have to live with losing language to describe the thing at all.

SaffronSpice · Today 13:00

I think what needs to happen is as things get corrected the ‘old guard’ of GC have to step away and let those not trapped by earlier argument become the louder voices. This may seem harsh to those who feel they were on the front line and want to feel the satisfaction of having shifted opinion to their position, but however successful we were at getting the troops off the beaches at Dunkirk, it took D-Day to win the war.

I find this really sinister. 'As things get corrected'? With the implication that women have gone wrong along the line and have to drop out if they've misjudged something? Purity spiral stuff? 'You once said xyz, so you need to retire, grandma, and let the bright young things who know better take over'? Fuck that, @SaffronSpice No one's trapped. The path from where some of us started 18+ years ago has never been a clear straight line. Just because Kathleen Stock and Helen Joyce have had changes of heart and mind along the way, as the facts have accrued and knowledge increased, doesn't mean they're trapped or tarnished.

Are you one of the new wave of recently signed up GC women who managed to ignore all the concerns I and my cohort of tedious old-school feminists were raising over the years. Are you one of the women who, a few years ago supported men in women's DV shelters and women's centres before seeing the way the wind is blowing and deciding that now is the time to step up and take over from the nanas? I'm seeing you all over the place. I'm hearing conversations among the young grifter-women who have been taking public money to inculcate GI and are now planning to set up new training companies and new versions of feminist and women's networks to replace those they helped destroy when they went in preaching TWAW and Stonewall Law.

JB's been fighting for women for nearly 30 years. What have you done, @SaffronSpice ? We've been in this battle ever since the first men who said they were women rocked up in our unions and workplaces and universities and on the boards of charities 18 years ago and started telling us that TWAW and they were here to educate us. It's been a long, slow learning process: we've had to try and second guess the agenda and the psychology. We've had to learn the language — it's only in the last 18 months or so that we've been permitted to write AGP here on Mumsnet. How bloody dare you tell us it's time to retire and let you take over just as the battle is won and when we're the reason the UK's known as Terf Island. Without us the UK would be Canada or New Zealand by now.

'This may seem harsh'? Not harsh. Foolish and disingenuous and patronising. Show the women who've got this far the respect they deserve.

This is real fifth column stuff.

I'm suggesting that we have to live with others making personal choices on how they use language we disgaree with.

But that there should be clarity on language in professional spaces whihch probaly requires legiataion, or guidance, or legal ruling.

Brava @wizardofsoz

I think this is a very long game, and it's not just about the incursions of extremist gender ideology. Indeed, I think that extremist gender ideology was able to take hold because many women of the "liberal feminist" generation (so about 20 years younger than I am as a 1970s women's libber) took their eye off the ball, and thought that they didn't need to be feminists any more. That women like Julie Bindel - and before her, Germaine Greer, and so on - had done the work, and we were OK now.

So I welcome the peaked GC women (some of whom are feminists, but not all) but they might do well to learn a bit of women's history, I think, and also understand that the fight back against transactivism is only part of the struggle.

Glad I'm not alone, @YourPithyLilacSheep So many of the women who signed up for TWAW were the same 'feminists' who back in the noughties told older lesbians that their feminism was old-fashioned and laughable and needed to be more accommodating. Those new 'feminists' went on to destroy every single women's and lesbian network in my area in the name of inclusivity. Now the tide's turning and they're looking for new opportunities. They're welcome to come to the events I'm involved in, to participate, to come up with their own ideas. But telling those of us who've led this for years that we need to stand down so they can take over — no way.

Feminism isn't protection of safeguarding. Safeguarding is not protected by a movement.

And as to the original Genspect issue, had they had a safeguarding approach, it would not have happened. SSA point out it's a culture and I would add that you can only legislate to a point. The particular approach that would have helped them is safer recruitment - which is underpinned by legislation yes - but it's ongoing reflection, practices and culture.

https://x.com/safeschoolsuk/status/1723794527813587166?s=46&t=WHoOZZ_3Kv5G6-FyQuvE0LQ

But I don't think Genspect is a child safeguarding organisation. I'm not entirely sure what they are, who funds them or what their real purpose is. Regardless, I don't think they get it and I don't think they ever will, hence I think feminists buddying up with them are potentially making a mistake.

I agree with you about GenSpect, @ResisterRex I've been watching and listening to Stella O'Malley for years, uncertain about where exactly she stands. I'm none the wiser. She's said some shocking stuff: most recently I see she was (rightly) criticised for asserting that lesbians got the same sexual charge from wearing male clothing (I'm presuming shirts and trousers) as autogynephiles posing in women's underwear.

This response from her didn't help:
https://stellaomalley.substack.com/p/so-ive-been-publicly-shamed-again

I don't have a problem with people making mistakes: this area is a minefield and full of bad actors and we've all encountered people who seemed amazing until suddenly they weren't. But SOM's insistence on being the victim here is concerning.

All of what you've said @wizardofsoz is what I was thinking of. Can't see it ending well.

I am not thinking of this as a feminism movement but one trying to reclaim truth, safeguarding and scientific rigour. So I come at it from a different place. But when you have people who have stood up and said as part of their campaign “I am happy to use preferred pronouns and keep the GRA so long as men have to get a diagnosis and it only applies in a few situations” how do they then move to “preferred pronouns is lying and destroy female language, and the GRA must be repealed” and retain credibility? Yet the latter situation is where we must go. Using language demanded by TRAs, and the fact that GRCs exist, regardless of who has one, is what has destroyed women’s rights. It is the wedge.

If those who compromise over having our language stolen at all, and the GRA, are the voices that are heard we will never leave the mire. To suggest it is sinister to say this is another version of #BeKind and #NoDebate.

Yes, Repeal is the next thing, and removal of PC of GR. Repeal has to happen as the GRA is just awful law, every which way you look at it.

Shiela Jeffreys and the ‘old guard’ were the ones who refused the pronouns and led to the more recent pronoun-refusers like KJK to understand it is ‘politically essential’ to name men as men. It is the old school who turned the tanker around by refusing to compromise, and thankfully they have been successful when the odds seemed stacked up against them. They alerted women in the UK about what was happening about 13/14 years ago, and that’s why the UK is known as ‘Terf Island’.

The sinister element is the arrival of a new brigade of women* — presumably women who haven't been involved in the struggle till now, as they are all shiny and uncompromised — deciding they want to take over from the experienced troops who've got us this far and impose their new purity regulations on the old guard.

I'm one of those has hasn't, in 15 years of fighting gender ideology, compromised on pronouns. But I can entirely understand why someone like Kathleen Stock said they would. Finding their way to saying a flat no to pronouns has been a journey for many — particularly for those who work in environments where refusal could result in loss of employment. Getting from saying 'perhaps, in certain circumstances' to 'no' to pronouns has been a process for a lot of people. Maya Forstater and Allison Bailey have paid big-time in order to establish that gender critical ideas are WORIADS and that refusing to participate in compelled speech is not a sackable offence.

It's troubling that you now seek to characterise those women who said they would use pronouns out of respect, years ago, before any of us understood what was really happening, as flawed and therefore not fit to be included among those representing the GC movement. What do you think all the experienced, battle-scarred women like Stock and Joyce who've managed to prevent Terf Island from being completely invaded* should do?

*continuing your D-Day metaphor here

Absolutely, @wizardofsoz

I now have to work under the radar. I'm in a captured profession, and in a highly captured specific workplace (our toilets policy contravenes whatever legislation exists).

I can keyboard warrior all I like on MN, but I need to maintain productive relationships with the young people I teach & supervise - and I can do more active good in that way - I can foster open discussion, and even do a little (old school) feminist consciousness raising along the way. It doesn't serve my pedagogy - or my feminism - to have students hostile & unreceptive.

Hats off to you. I had the fortune to be older and self-employed in a sector where woke has been slow to pervade, so I was able to stand up publicly and participate in the fightback. I certainly don't underestimate the good work being done by people like you, @YourPithyLilacSheep I'm sure you have the undying loyalty and appreciation of many of your students even if they feel they can't tell you.

When the first transwoman applied to join the committee of the women's organisation for which I was a trustee, 17 years ago, several of the women on the committee supported his application: they were convinced they were doing the right thing. I was given a dressing-down for calling him he rather than she. Some of them, having kept their heads down for years and left it to me and other older feminists to put up a fight, have recently emerged as GC and taken over leadership of local GC women's groups. One of their tactics has been to undermine women with the kind of criticism that @SaffronSpice levels. The older women haven't been radical enough: they've done or said or posted something that, a couple of years later, looks misguided... It's quite clear that they are repositioning themselves so that when the pendulum swings they'll be able to walk into opportunities offered by a newly feminist third and public sector. It really pisses me off.

John Uhler

It seems that John Uhler might not have the credentials, experience or specialist expertise that he claims:

Twitter thread:
https://x.com/AgainstKookery/status/1225790870332428289

Archived Threadreader version:
https://archive.ph/rhedB

Stella O'Malley

There’s also something just not quite right with Stella O'Malley IMHO

1. She invited Jennifer (Transwidow of seriously scary AGP) to a party in Dublin, didn’t warn her that men in frocks would be present and was unsympathetic when J was upset. She knew all about J’s background so ignorance was no excuse in the first instance and her response to J was not what I would expect from a psychotherapist. https://www.youtube.com/live/gu0PfVPToWE

If you want to go down a Twitter rabbit hole and see tweets from Stella and others as well as Jennifer, this works as a starting point:
https://twitter.com/search?q=%40eyre_ann%20stella&src=typed_query

2. I listened to some of the early “Wider Lens” podcasts and she just seemed very poorly informed and lacking in theory. It was all a bit, “We just don’t know what is going on here” and talking around in circles. I didn't get a sense of someone who was familiar with relevant research, able to critique it and discuss putting it into practice. All a bit, "Wow! Heavy, man!".

This is purely personal reaction, and nothing to do with the content of whatever it is she is saying these days, but I actually cannot listen to her at all now. I find her drowsy, simpering-hippy delivery nauseating. So that might well be my loss.

3. By complete contrast, when I listened to the recording of the Twitter space discussion about AGPs, she was ranting at the other people there. She was also clueless about Safeguarding. I couldn’t believe I was listening to a psychotherapist. The comments under the video are worth a look too.

4. When she has published responses to criticisms of Genspect I feel that she dodged issues that had been raised - I can’t give an example off the top of my head but I recall finding them disingenuous.

5. She did an “Ask Me Anything” session on Mumsnet and some of her advice was IMHO totally bizarre. eg.
   https://www.mumsnet.com/talk/AMA/4777276-ama-with-stella-omalley-author-of-what-your-teen-is-trying-to-tell-you?reply=125209036

6. She claimed in an interview in the documentary by Travis Brown earlier this year that Debbie Hayton has been “utterly silenced” by GC feminists - which is a ludicrous allegation and demonstrably untrue:
   https://twitter.com/Genderwang/status/1756502614164779439

7. Some people on Twitter who claim to be psychotherapists allege that Stella does not have a recognised Psychotherapy qualification. Psychotherapy is not a state regulated profession in either Ireland or the UK so it is not true to say that Stella’s qualification is “not recognised” because there is no state “recognition”.

However, when I looked into this further it would seem that neither the college where Stella studied (ICHAS) nor the Professional Organisation she belongs to (APCP) are held in very high regard.

ICHAS: https://ichas.ie/

APCP: https://www.apcp.ie/

The APCP runs ICHAS and accredits the courses. There are several other Psychotherapy professional organisations in Ireland that recognise various qualifications and courses. As far as I could discover none of them recognise courses run by ICHAS. This means that APCP and ICHAS are closed loop with no external validation of courses or qualifications.

Although ICHAS does run actual courses now I found claims that it and APCP previously operated under different names as an “exam mill”, ie. where the amount of money you paid determined the level of qualification that you bought. I could not find out when Stella gained her Psychotherapy qualification so do not know how much study or practical experience was required at that time.

Ireland has been planning to regulate Psychotherapy for a long time. The state regulator is CORU and issued its latest update on regulation of Psychotherapists in Dec 2023.

https://coru.ie/about-us/registration-boards/counsellors-and-psychotherapists-registration-board/update-on-statutory-regulation-of-counsellors-and-psychotherapists/update-on-statutory-regulation-of-counsellors-and-psychotherapists.html

The latest update on the ICHAS site is dated 2017, although there are mentions of CORU in an article from 2022, and on the APCP site there is just a link to a CORU update from 2022. Unlike other Psychotherapy Organisations in Ireland that I looked at, APCP had not submitted responses to the CORU consultation on state regulation of Psychotherapy.

I found suggestions that when state regulation is achieved that CORU might not recognise ICHAS courses. I found most of the comments about ICHAS and APCP here but some of the discussions are over 10 years old so might not reflect current thinking:

https://www.boards.ie/search?domain=all_content&query=ichas&sort=-dateInserted&scope=site&source=community

and

https://www.boards.ie/search?domain=all_content&query=APCP&sort=-dateInserted&scope=site&source=community

(If those links do not resolve to search results, search the Boards for ICHAS then APCP)

I think that comments about Stella’s qualifications as a Psychotherapist might have some basis but I do not know how significant they are as she has further qualifications.

Several people were accusing her of being “unethical” but when I asked them to clarify, they would not explain why. If they genuinely believe that she has acted unethically then they should report her to the APCP rather than just grumbling about her on Twitter.

I am not impressed by her behaviour but that’s not the same as having reason to report her for being in breach of the APCP code of ethics.

The APCP code of ethics is actually quite vague.
https://www.apcp.ie/code-of-ethics

Thank you, Bosky. I have exactly the same gut feelings about Stella as I did about Debbie Hayton and others in the early days. Also have concerns, as I said upthread, about Uhler — because anyone from my plumber to my doctor who tells me 'Trust me, I'm the expert and I'm telling you 100% that I know what the problem is and what to do about it' sets alarm bells ringing. Wise, experienced, confident people don't need to say that aloud and the people who do are almost always overcompensating for some reason or another.

I had a look through that Uhler thread quite prepared to find plenty of evidence to back up my 'grifter' suspicions. Surprisingly I think whoever compiled it is overreaching most of the time. The really concerning issue is his apparent support for LGBTQIA+ conversation therapy — and even there it wasn't clear to me whether he's supporting LGB conversion or just what some people call TQ+ conversion therapy which is a different kettle of fish. So my jury's still out on him.

As for Stella, your discoveries about her qualifications are worrying. Shades of Gillian McKeith. I also recall listening to her early podcasts and thinking 'Is this woman actually GC?' because she seemed to play the girly 'It's all so confusing and who can really know?' card over and over. I got the feeling she wanted to fence sit until she knew it was safe to come down on the GC side. Other people did the work and the research and spoke out clearly and critically, putting their lives and reputations on the line. Stella followed behind, but always with caveats and an air of confusion and contradiction. Very useful tactic if you want to get yourself out of trouble.

I also recall listening to her early podcasts and thinking 'Is this woman actually GC?'

Ms O'Malley has never claimed to be a feminist (GC or not) * in her therapeutic practice, as far as I know. There's a Wider Lens episode where she & Sasha Ayadh work through various perspectives, including the feminist approach. It's clear from that, that they approach this whole topic f gender-questioning children & young people as therapists, not political activists.

So I don't think they can be criticised for not being what they've never said they are!

• And "GC" is not the beginning or end of feminism. Sometimes it's not a particularly informed POV. For example, Kelly Jay Keene doesn't claim to be a feminist as far as I know, but she is "gender critical."

I can't believe feminists on this FWR board have any respect for Jon Uhler, he regularly reveals himself as unhinged. These two threads are very informative about his behaviour: x.com/DistMag/status/1799268062182375436 and x.com/DistMag/status/1799619247569584234

I can't believe feminists on this FWR board have any respect for Jon Uhler, he regularly reveals himself as unhinged. These two threads are very informative about his behaviour: x.com/DistMag/status/1799268062182375436 and https://x.com/DistMag/status/1799619247569584234

I see that I've been deleted for a perfectly reasonable criticism of SOM's behaviour in the Twitter space linked to by a pp upthread.

I stand by what I said, her failure to understand the points raised around safeguarding at the beginning is concerning and it's concerning that I'm being deleted for saying it.