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 a good point. What are people helping create?

It’s a normal model for professional / medical / science conferences, before anyone decides this is further evidence of a conspiracy.

Interesting. What other conferences are like this, @nutmeg7? It would be interesting to see. And to see how they explain their finances too.

Another thing I cannot get my head around is the lack of self reflection about what is happening here.

I am totally on board with defeating WPATH. And burying them. But what is the end game here?

A worldwide professional association of gender health therapists? WPAGHT?

I’m in full agreement with this. Reflection is needed. Not a leap to another unknown international approach.

I’m thinking of every academic conference or professional association conference I’ve been invited to. They all cost money to attend.

Practically every medical conference is like this. Select a venue. Open registration. Charge a fee to pay for costs of conference and probably add a bit to coffers. Remember it’s in Lisbon because WPATH’s conference is in Lisbon at the same time. And I wonder if Lionel Shriver is appearing for free or for a fee.

If organisations make money from charging to attend their conferences as a general rule, fine. But that still doesn't tell us how Genspect is funded. So far we know parents of distressed children fund them but not to what degree or how that is used. And we can speculate that they are making some money from this conference. However, as there are no accounts published for them, we don't know what difference - if any - that would make to their baseline.

Look how FWR is interested in Stonewall and Mermaids' accounts. Why would Genspect (who seem to have come roaring out of nowhere) be any different? They are no different. Perhaps though, the fact SOM is a mandated reporter is an important difference in respect of the other key issue - their approach to child safeguarding.

TLDR: we're still no further along with them.

Rather than how can they afford to run conferences, are the conferences funding Genspect? Its nearly €100 for an online ticket, and €500 in person.

Pretty normal registration fees for academic conferences in the field.

We were very disappointed in the lack of public support for a public inquiry from many organisations.

So much sense being talked on this thread by @ResisterRex @WarriorN and others who clearly understand safeguarding.

Any organisation which is involved with children in whatever capacity needs to have safeguarding principles embedded throughout.

If the GC community had come at this issue from a safeguarding perspective rather than a rights/beliefs one we would be in a very different position.

Yes it is. But academic conferences are run by professional associations with memberships, academic publications, education programmes etc. The costs of running conferences in lovely locations are extremely high I grant you but I'm not sure you can compare them with academic conferences.

Why are you saying there are no accounts published?
They have to submit accounts like everyone else.

https://core.cro.ie/e-commerce/company/search/4962362

Right. So there are accounts. But they're nowhere to be seen on the Genspect site. And you have to pay to access them.

Sorry but can they not see how this looks? Parents have been tearing their hair out with shadowy organisations hiding things from them as regards gender ideology. Children have been harmed. Detransitioners have been trashed.

Any organisation that purports to be a good solution to this and especially one which has directly (supposedly) challenged WPATH has to be transparent.

This isn't transparency.

"If the GC community had come at this issue from a safeguarding perspective rather than a rights/beliefs one we would be in a very different position."

This.

Safeguarding should be front and centre - everything else will follow from that.

Another one dismayed that safeguarding seems to be absent from too many issues. And furious to see (a few) posters on this board taking the Cashman approach to it. 😡

What is the Cashman approach?

Some of us did!

I imagine that it's a reference to Lord Cashman. After Rosie Duffield cancelled going to hustings after concerns for her safety, he tweeted that she was 'frit or lazy' IIRC. I think he has had to apologise now.

Sorry - should have been clearer:
Michael Cashman - a Labour peer in the House of Lords with an appalling record of misogyny and attempting to silence the discussion of safeguarding children in schools. He once tweeted:
"The right wing in the House of Lords has organised a debate for the 7th of December on safeguarding in schools! We must push back against these people".

Thanks for clarifying.

So he thinks that discussing safeguarding is 'right wing' and therefore 'bad'?

Oh boy...

Alison 💐

If this is an academic conference, who is it appealing to?

Number one on the call sheet in lionel shiver. Peter Boghossian, Andrew Doyle and Andrew Gold all get mentioned before Sue Evans and Marcus Evans.

I can understand it if they are bringing together a load of their famous friends to raise money, but if this is similar to an academic conference and is a way to inform relevant professionals, whats Peter Boghossian doing there?

Its a who's who of cancelled people, but lots of them know nothing about safeguarding or treating children.

I'm uncomfortable with this thread. It's one thing to be wary and to question/ robustly challenge specific points. However, this thread comes across as mudslinging.
It took me about two mouseclicks to find a very respectable university listing Stella O'Malley as a research student and lead author of a paper.
Another two clicks to see relevant entries on cro.ie (the Irish equivalent ofCompanies House). For a few Euros and some time, anyone can download the accounts from there.
Genspect seems very big, and that makes it a target. Undermining, distracting, diffusing, subverting, or destroying trust, are ways to stop Genspect from achieving their original aims.
The irony is that in questioning carelessly whether Genspect is being subverted, you generate a sense of mistrust.
Absolutely I think questions should be asked I think the where and to who and how you then report what you find.
Sorry bit incoherent this afternoon.

Michael Cashman - a Labour peer in the House of Lords with an appalling record of misogyny and attempting to silence the discussion of safeguarding children in schools.

And (sadly) a gay man.

I say sadly, because the sort of thing he says about safeguarding just plays into the nasty homophobic stereotyping of gay men as paedophiles.

Undermining, distracting, diffusing, subverting, or destroying trust, are ways to stop Genspect from achieving their original aims.

What are cancelled you tubers adding to the 'original aims'?

What are their end game aims?