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?

Yes it is a good thread

This is interesting. I wonder whether groups based around oppression identies are particularly at risk from this phenomenon?

The positioning as victim or oppressed demands others acquiesce whilst giving power.

I've seen some people argue that all woke ideology is basically cluster B personality traits being given social power in groups.

There is a strong movement now that ND children should not be taught social norms.

The world must adapt to them.

Which of course opens up another huge route for dark triad types to use this label to their advantage.

It would damage their mental health to conform.

There's nuance, context, ages and stages. It's really complex.

An age 7 child who has very little ability to communicate and socially interact at all needs a very different set of social parameters and expectations, which can also be holistic while boundaried to an age 7 child who does have more of these skills. Also, the level of emotional regulation skill is key too. That needs to be a priority and also explicitly focused on an taught.

Again, too many literal interpretations being flung about and picked up and misunderstood.

This shit gets blown up and lost online though

I agree.

But it gets warped by people with cluster B type personalities who find a way to utilise it to wield power over others.

It's just another example of how Be Kind, without clear boundaries, opens the door to dangerous narcissists.

I mean, not wanting to get back to toilets, but keeping facilities single sex where they need to be is precisely because of this issue.

There are many people involved in autism who feel that the ND as a positive identity movement is being used by narcissistic people for advantage and attention, taking away focus from those with serious disability.

It's the same phenomenon.

Thanks for posting the article Malaga!

I fully agree with this part:

'Even if it is true that any particular man will not behave in a predatory way to women, the public display of fetish opens up doors to predators who would. We had a social contract that did a good job of keeping women safe. Public display of fetish begins to dismantle that contract.

The fact that Phil is not himself a creep thus does not render his behavior harmless. He is breaching a social contract by walking around in hyper-feminine garb, causing people’s brains to throw errors and—for women—to become hyper-vigilant about what it means and how to react. The indirect effects of a man—even a good man—walking around in stereotypically female dress, in an era when other men who do this expect to be allowed in to female only spaces, to be treated as if they are women—are negative. I suppose that this is too bad for Illy, and others like him, that they should be expected to curtail their behavior because of other bad actors. But it is far worse if he does not curtail his behavior in public, far worse for the 50% of the population who are now on high alert at all times, protecting ourselves and our children against the compulsions of a few.'

I listened to that Heterodorx episode with Phil Illy on that was linked to earlier in the thread, and would recommend others to. He really doesn't come across as the kind of monster many are assuming, nor does the preference for dresses come across in the kind of one-dimensionally sexual way they are assuming.

I'm not sure I understand the safeguarding angle. It wasn't a conference aimed at children or at any particular vulnerable group (not that I would see a man wearing a dress as a dangerous act even if it was). What kind of safeguarding responsibilities to people think Genspect have toward them that this would have infringed? You might see a man in a dress in the street, on the tube, at a concert or anywhere else, and have to deal with it. It's not Genspect's responsibility or anyone else's to edit your environment to make it easier for you.

It's just not realistic to restrict people's freedom and participation in events based on your own conclusions about their mental state. There is no way to reliably test for it and know who is thinking exactly what. You can either ban all men wearing dresses from your event - including Harry Styles, Eddie Izzard and any man who happens to like wearing a dress for any AGP or non-AGP reason whatsoever - or none of them. You might think or say you're banning it because of non-consensuality in how some individuals use it as a fetish or whatever, but ultimately what you're banning is the behaviour for all individuals, regardless of their personal reasons for it. It can't be anything else.

And I find it extraordinary that people who call themselves gender critical can be suggesting people should be excluded from an event for not conforming to gender norms of appearance.

He's not a monster. He's a common or garden fetishist. He has written a 600 page book about it.

Who suggested he should be excluded?

Maybe this will help you understand the objections - extract is from Heather Heying’s article (link posted above by MalagaNights):

'Even if it is true that any particular man will not behave in a predatory way to women, the public display of fetish opens up doors to predators who would. We had a social contract that did a good job of keeping women safe. Public display of fetish begins to dismantle that contract.

The fact that Phil is not himself a creep thus does not render his behavior harmless. He is breaching a social contract by walking around in hyper-feminine garb, causing people’s brains to throw errors and—for women—to become hyper-vigilant about what it means and how to react. The indirect effects of a man—even a good man—walking around in stereotypically female dress, in an era when other men who do this expect to be allowed in to female only spaces, to be treated as if they are women—are negative. I suppose that this is too bad for Illy, and others like him, that they should be expected to curtail their behavior because of other bad actors. But it is far worse if he does not curtail his behavior in public, far worse for the 50% of the population who are now on high alert at all times, protecting ourselves and our children against the compulsions of a few.'

I found that part most interesting too.

Particuarly This: "He is breaching a social contract by walking around in hyper-feminine garb, causing people’s brains to throw errors and—for women—to become hyper-vigilant about what it means and how to react."

I do find men in women's clothes makes me uncomfortable. Regardless of whether I know about their background. Yes it throws 'errors', it puts me on alert, it signals I don't know what's going on.

This would also be context dependent. i wouldn't feel like this in adult type club, I think I'd then know what it was, a display of sexuality and kink in a environnment where peoiple were conseting to that.

I've been trying to work out my thoughts on this for a while and I've been moving away from the 'it's just clothes, wear what you like' thinking I would have positioned as a few years ago.

Clothes are a signal. We use them to signal sexuality, power, money, we use them to signal when we're opting out of those things to. But you can't wear clothes without there being a signal.

So we do need some norms and boundaries around clothing, otherwise some people will use clothing to make others uncomfrtable and enjoy this, and I think inevitably some of these norns will apply diffrently to the sexes, which then becomes 'gender.'

I was thinking a lot about this with regard to the Disney employee and also to boys wearing dresses to school.

I think this case has added more to my thinking in illuminating an unintended cosequence of removing gendered clothing social norms, is it will embolden without censure, those who get a thrill from transgessing.

I suppose once/if dresses ever became genuinely gender neutral by consent across society, the thrill would disappear, but I suspect other norms would arise which could be transgressed for thrills if we maintained a wear whatever you want value.

Basically, 'wear what you want' seems far more simplistic than I realised, and some social norms about men and women's clothing actually protects women.

Also, it's fairly straightforward - nobody has suggested that men in dresses should be banned. Women have laid out very clearly that a man who openly uses others' non consensual participation to get off attending an event in his fetish costume will mean that many women will self exclude.

A man who has literally written a book about his fetish and performs it at an event where women who have been harmed by the same fetish attend is a tricky situation.

I find it unbelievable that anyone can't grasp why.

I do find men in women's clothes makes me uncomfortable.

This man wasn't in just 'womens clothes'. He was in performative ridiculous clothes. The discomfort of others is part of the fetish.

the transgression of norms is the point

Yes, the specific items of clothing is immaterial (forgive the pun).

The point is outraging/confusing/puzzling/discombobulating/humiliating/disgust etc.

Maybe we need Wesley Yang to tell people (it suddenly became comprehensible when he told James Lindsay what people’s objections were) 😬

I know.

I am saying though that I find all men in womens' clothes make me uncomfortable.

I know you are not supposed to say that and be cool with it just being clothes etc etc.

But I'm not. It sets of 'errors' and puts me on alert. It spikes my uncanny valley feeling and I don't like it.

I find it always performative.

I don't have the same feeling to men in feminine clothes, or styling, in fact I often like that.

But men obvioulsy presenting 'as women' sets off my radar.

As I think they want it to.

It's not just clothes, it's performance, attention, power, thrill and submission.

I think that's true of this bloke Phil and the bloke at Disney.
Otherwise why do it? No one needs to wear a dress to work.
There's a reason they want to, even if if not classic agp, I think it's a power thing which throws me an 'error'.

I'll probably get delted for this post, but for me each case is clarifying for me why we shouldn't just abondon socila norms in favour of individual expression as the highest value.
Unintended consequences.

There is a strong movement now that ND children should not be taught social norms.

When these people say ND they don’t actually mean ND, they mean autism and, at a push, ADHD. It is another example of forced teaming but only one/two conditions count.

I agree.

Which is why 'wear whatever you want' turns out not to be a simple as I presumed and social norms have a role and need to be shifted gradually through consent.

But 'wear whatever you want, unless you are agp' is not going to work, the norms have to be applied generally.

And anyway I suspect nearly every man wearing dresses to work is doing so for thrills and attention, so the idea there is a subset of men we're cool with wearing dresses as long as they haven't written a book about agp strkes me as naive.

There's no need for a man to wear a dress to work.

Thinking about it more, I do think SSUK got this right.

If Genspect had not only a safeguarding first approach but also if they centred those who've been the victims of gender ideology, they couldn't have done as they did.

That is because they'd have understood the risks posed by a fetish. And what violating boundaries means. They'd have understood those risks to vulnerable people, and they'd have understood the entirely predictable response from those who've been hurt by fetishes. When people (women in this case) have experienced trauma - as those married to AGPs have done - they will react to an event like this. Telling them we need to understand a fetish will obviously elicit a reaction. One borne out of trauma.

It's not a distant academic inquiry for many. It's real. It's hurt them. It's hurt their children.

Their response was just not right. They should (as SSUK say) reflect on it.

the norms have to be applied generally.

I just can't see how this would work, nor how you'd go about doing this.

In many cases you may not know if someone's performing a fetish. However in this instance, the man literally wrote a book saying he does.

Actually, it's interesting - the advance of promoting transgenderism as anodyne, non-sexual and completely acceptable has probably spoiled the fun for some fetishists, compelling them to act more outrageously to achieve 'transgression'.

Grayson Perry talked about how he no longer gets 'a stiffie' from dressing up as a young girl, because it's now so accepted - even expected, in his case.

So for someone looking to transgress, they have to push the boundaries further. They may do this by, say, publishing a whole book on how they are getting off. And then going ahead and parading their fetish in public.

It's caught the public in a bit of a bind - acceptance of him in his outfit gives the 'dupers delight' supply of having fooled everyone, whereas outrage/anger/disgust gives the thrill of humiliation/attention, etc.

Not easy to try and apply boundaries, rules, or standards when somebody's whole intent is to subvert, transgress, or undermine them.

I agree with everything posters have said about his likely motivations and that it is unpleasant for women to have to deal with. But what is the proposed rule or policy that you would use to prevent him attending or to control what he wears if attending? It becomes as controlling as a TRA safe space. Again, obviously this is not a women only or a therapeutic space, for which there would be clear steps that could be taken. I think the cost of trying to exclude a man in a dress from a conference is higher than the cost of putting up with it. Fine to complain about it and try and establish a social norm, but damaging to turn into an attack on the organisers or a demand that something similar be somehow prevented from ever happening again.

He really doesn't come across as the kind of monster many are assuming,

No-one has to be a monster to behave badly. Good people who get it wrong apologise (and mean it)

But 'wear whatever you want, unless you are agp' is not going to work, the norms have to be applied generally.

If you have a rubber glove fetish then don't wear rubber gloves to the conference. The person who cleans the bogs can wear rubber gloves, you can wear knitted ones. If you have a knitted glove fetish then don't wear knitted gloves either. The general norm is: if you have an X fetish then don't wear X to the conference. If you have a frock fetish then don't wear a frock to the conference. Other clothes exist. If you are so AGP that all women's clothing is a fetish then wear gender neutral clothing.

And don't expect the conference organisers to share pictures of you happily wearing your fetish gear, whether it's rubber gloves or frocks. That's a mistake too.

It's really not difficult.

Yes. Rules wouldn't be about clothing. They'd be about not performing your fetish.

Basically fetishists need to be told it's not okay to use other people for their own pleasure. They may choose to disregard the request, but what we need to stop doing is saying 'it's fine to perform your fetish in public, do what you like'.