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?

You’re assuming that a Genspect conference must be only about safeguarding. There are many to be topic of gender and sex. Prof. Boghossian is a philosopher with interests in this area as well as a public intellectual who does a lot of public work on principles of discussion, debate and freedom of thought and speech.

I agree with @SaltPorridge - some posts on this thread are nit picking to the point of being ill- informed and narrow-minded. Maybe some posters are just inexperienced in the world of research and debate over research.

And at most of the academic conferences I go to, as well as the conferences aimed at a general audience, anyone who’s interested and stumps up the registration fee, is welcome.

Quite. And why should any of us trust them? They've shown time and again that trust hasn't been earned.

@2fallsfromSSA is correct here. Tackling the medical and psychological industry's transing of (often gay) minors (helped along by social media and 24/7 unfettered access to the internet) from anything other than a safeguarding perspective should be challenged.

If an RC or Islamic organisation put their beliefs in front of children, everyone would see the pitfalls immediately. Put "GC" in front of it and the blinkers go on.

No.

I'm sorry safeguarding makes you "uncomfortable".

Stella could have chosen to make their accounts open to all. Instead she used a lot of words not to. And to call anyone who queries her organisation, "conspiracy theorists".

If you can't see the red flags then I can't help you.

Safeguarding isn't ideologically driven. It's based on evidence of harm.

Like the large and irrefutable body of evidence proving the harm done to people by having to see a man dressed in a blue dress?

You're asking here, on this forum.
What action are you hoping readers will take?
I had time to look through the conference details on the website and see some names I trust, some that make me go hmmm.
Lots of readers are going to read and run with only doubt and where does that get us to?

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

So my response was to ask what about a random hodge podge of cancelled YouTubers is helping them achieve their aims, whatever they are.

I don't understand the level of criticism Genspect get or the attacks on Stella O'Malley.

It's fair to ask questions and critique in order to sharpen practice and clarify but it's as if people want the whole thing to be brought down and revealed as corrupt and dangerous.

To what end?

They are holding conferences alongside wpath where there is discussion of the harm of gender ideology where evidence dismissed or ignored by wpath is being raised and debated.

They're bringing together a range of people who want to do this: media people, GC feminists, therapists, academics and they're really trying to dig into what has happened and what should be happening.

This is huge and productive and is really helping to change the landscape in what can and will be talked about, developing understanding and giving professionals a basis from which to challenge.

This is needed so much.

I think some posters are just naive about how change is brought about within systems. It's as if some people think; well we've worked out the right position so everyone should just be told to do that.

That's a great strategy for Posie, but if you're a professional instead of an activist you have to be seen to approach it differently.

When you are within the system you need allies, you need momentum, you need evidence (even sadly for the thing which should be obvious) you need to shift the power away from where it currently lies, towards you.

Genspect is doing this. It hasn't got everything worked out, because it can't have. There isn't consensus. No doubt it's going to morph, clarify and maybe change it's role or aims over time, or maybe it'll implode and something else more readily established will take it's place.

But at the moment Genspect and Stella O'Malley have managed to do something bloody amazing: they're shifting the influence away from wpath, they're saying there're things that need to be discussed here, and they're bringing people into that space.

It seems so bloody foolish to try to tear them down unless you're ready with something better to replace them.
I really don't understand the level of attack from those who want this gender ideology discredited. Genspect may not be doing it perfectly but they're getting somewhere and moving things forward.

So my response was to ask what about a random hodge podge of cancelled YouTubers is helping them achieve their aims, whatever they are.

They are providing a platform for the debate that Genspect want to happen.
They are prepared to speak to people who will challenge gender ideology and they're prepared to challenge it themselves and tolerate the attacks that come with that.

Those 'random YouTubers ' are really helping move the discourse. They're discussing this in ways which just isn't happening on mainstream media.

Genspect need them. They support Genspect.

It seems an obviously good strategy for them to work together. Why the hostility?
It's very weird to me.

It almost feels like the threads which want to bring down KJK.

I think some posters are just naive about how change is brought about within system

Nope. I'm very far from naive. But thanks.

It's fair to ask questions and critique in order to sharpen practice and clarify but it's as if people want the whole thing to be brought down and revealed as corrupt and dangerous.

To what end

For me it is because I saw AGPs infiltrating at the last conference and got the heebee jeebees that exactly the same thing will happen at Genspect, the lack of awareness of the deviousness of these men and how they position themselves and the lack of ability to say 'yeah, we got that wrong'.

It is not calling them Nazi adjacent!

I'd just like them to actually appreciate that if you are dealing with vulnerable people, and many people involved were vulnerable kids and are still vulnerable adults, then you need to make sure that your safeguarding is front and centre. We know that predators will go where the kids are so what are they doing to ensure that doesn't happen? It is like they are not willing to take on board someone who will challenge anything they do.

I've dealt with many companies in my working life that got too big too fast and never consolidated and reviewed their apparent success and then it's all blown up and all I can see at the moment is areas being opened up, which is great but I'd be begging them to just take a breath and work out what their end game is.

Is it to just be a network of therapists and if so, how are they going to maintain and weed out bad actors? What is the simple framework that they will all have to sign up to? What promises are they making to parents?
Is it to be podcasters?
Is it to facilitate whistleblowers?
Is it to support detransitioners?
Is it to be working with the medical industrial complex on getting themselves out of the pickle they are currently in?
Is it just to see off WPATH and see people in jail?

They cannot do it all. But it is the ability to self reflect that worries me. I cannot be doing with another 30 years of this!

Sorry, as I said, i'm not very coherent today.
Your question about why some of those people are there is valid, from what I know of them. And i do fear they may be there to distract, duffuse, subvert. Because i have seen that happen to a totally different organisation in a different context.
However, I think the conversations need to be had in private and the objections raised directly with Genspect. Not just assume they are listening in.

This thread isn't safeguarding. The OP asked what is going on with Genspect. A lot of the answers are insinuation or vague hints.
If you think there's something problematic in the accounts, pay the €5 and read them. If you find something, tell us.
You think there are "red flags". That's vague. You do need to explain.

Who might be harmed, and how?
What action should be taken? Who needs to know?

You’re assuming that a Genspect conference must be only about safeguarding.

Safeguarding has to be at the forefront of everything genspect do because they are focused on gender questioning children and young people.

Looking at the lineup, id be mistaken in thinking that they see it as a free speech issue.

Of course it must be at the forefront. It isn’t. If it was, they’d not have an AGP there. And they’d have listened to people who pointed out the issues with this at the time. They’d have reflected. It is that simple.

This thread has given over and over, what’s wrong with their approach. No I will not pay to find out what they should be making public. One more time: they could have chosen full transparency. They chose to play the man not the ball instead.

Anyone who cannot see what is wrong with how they handled the issue at the time and since, is exactly why we need safeguarding.

The whole gamut of you tubers, ex gender medics, professional whistle blowers, grievance study peer review ex university lecturers, twitter files investigators and not one thinks 'hang on, we need to ensure safeguarding, transparency and what our end game or exit plan is here'?

Apologies @AlisonDonut I did t mean to insinuate nobody joined our call for a PI, many, many did and lots of people completely understand the SG concerns. There are some highly knowledgeable women on n this thread alone.

My more general point was that as a movement there has been very little understanding of SG and if that had been the driver for much of the push back against gender ideology we would not be where we are now.

"Maybe some posters are just inexperienced in the world of research and debate over research."

Wow, how patronizing. I think you will find that many posters here are well-versed in research and the debate over research. But what we are dealing with here is the widespread and institutionalized grooming of a generation of children. Many of them, as adults, will never have a functioning sex life, have children, or lead a normal life let alone get their bodies back to any kind of pre-op state. They were let down badly by those who should have protected them. There can be as many conferences and academic debates as you like on the concept of "gender" but until any organization involved with helping children experiencing "gender" distress understands this ideology as an organized, strategic attack on children then they will fail. How anyone believes that understanding the mind or perspective of the adult AGP will help girls and boys who have been groomed into believing they have been born in the wrong body is beyond me. These children have most likely been affirmed by every professional they ever meet (health, MH, social workers, teachers) and their parents signposted to the likes of Mermaids. They have never had a chance to explore why they were feeling this way - normal safeguarding protocols have been thrown out of the window, children are not being helped and this has not happened by accident. This is not about understanding "gender" and "academic debate" this is about recognizing that the massive leap in referrals to gender clinics over the last 10 years is because children have been groomed and all of the agencies who should have noticed and protected those children colluded in the grooming. Once you give too much credence to the concept of "gender identity" then you have demonstrated your lack of understanding about the reality of what has occurred.

This is why people on this thread are banging on so much about safeguarding

This.

1000 x this.

I know - that's why I asked about it when I went to A Woman's Place back in 2019.

Gosh, grooming. I remember when we used to talk about that here, and when the nation even started to have some awareness of what it is.

We've been going in the wrong direction for a while, and we must get back to having these conversations.

Are we allowed to talk about grooming on here now? A year or two ago, posts mentioning grooming were being deleted. (As were those that mentioned AGP, so things seemed to have changed recently.)

We'll soon see if I get deleted I suppose. And if I do, further evidence of the systematic dismantling of SG.

This might also be a good place to share our open letter to Professor Arif Ahmed, Director for Freedom of Speech and Academic Freedom at the Office for Students, to raise concerns relating to the influence of experimental academic discourse on public policy.

safeschoolsallianceuk.net/2023/11/13/academic-experiments-and-child-safeguarding/