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?

According to Blanchard, there are also the homosexual transexual, who have gender dysphoria since early childhood, but are attracted to males. Most of male children with gender dysphoria grow out of it by puberty, but for some it persists. I've heard that the homosexual transexual are the minority of the trans(women) population, but I've never tried to find the original source, so I don't know if it's supported by data.

Many feminists don't though.

There was a consensus on the Disney employee thread, where he was wearing the women's uniform in the Bibbity bobbity boo shop that it was positive gender non conformity we should celebrate.

It must have been ok because he hadn't written a book about being an agp.

Message seems to be: if you pretend you're not agp we'll celebrate it. If you admit it we'll shun you.

What a load of bollocks. Literally.

GC isn't an ideology, it's not a label that most normal people recognise. The only common factor is that they know that people can't change sex and they're not afraid to say so. That this requires a label shows how ridiculous this debate has become.

It's like labelling people who think the world is round "Globularists" à la Simon Edge's book. They're not round world ideologues, they're normal, rational people.

Unless and until he says or acts in a way which tries to involve or compell me in his delusion
this is precisely what’s happening - he IS involving you in his delusion for sexual thrills by virtue of the fact that you’re highly unlikely to be honest and tell him he's just a man dressed up as a woman.

Re my post thread about the attitudes of psychiatrists etc when it comes to dealing with paraphilic men, here’s a recent tweet by Blanchard:

https://twitter.com/BlanchardPhD/status/1724058470670868688

Text reads:
@BlanchardPhD
In my view it’s irrelevant whether a man can become a woman or vice versa. What’s relevant is whether individuals tormented by the desire to be the opposite sex are happier when they present that way, and whether or how much the majority of society is willing to accommodate this.
1:35 pm · 13 Nov 2023
·85.9K Views

AGPs aren't tormented by the desire to be a woman though, are they? They're aroused by the thought of themselves as women. I don't think society needs to be willing to accommodate this at all. Any more than society needs to accommodate any other paraphilia.

And I disagree that it's irrelevant whether a man can become a woman. If it were possible to change sex, then there wouldn't be an issue. But the fact that it's not possible means that we should be looking at other solutions for people who are tormented by a desire to be something which they are not and never can be. Especially since their pretence to be something which they are not has such an adverse impact on other people.

Message seems to be: if you pretend you're not agp we'll celebrate it. If you admit it we'll shun you.

From whom?

It's well documented that Blanchard's diagnostic work was good, but his recommendations were entirely free from concern for women.

How surprising from a man.

That's not GC feminism.
Otherwise Matt Walsh and Donald Trump would be GC feminists.

Many GC feminists should I've interacted with on here.

Disney bloke was positive gender non conformity.
Phil is negative agp.

I reckon they're the same

I have no idea what the Disney thread is that you are referring to, I'm afraid.

Genspect is not a women's rights organisation, was not established for that purpose and makes no claim to be one.

It's an organisation advocating for evidence based approaches to gender dysphoria. There's no reason why an AGP man should have input to that organisation like anyone else.

Fair enough.

It was about a Disney employee who worked with kids and wears the fairy godmother dress.
Most feminist posters thought this was positive gender non conformity.

I suspect the only difference between him and Phil is Phil is open about his agp.

On a side note - it's amazing we can now have a thread talking about agp men in dresses and not be deleted.

Times are changing...

I don't know about a bad person but yet that's lazy thinking. It's pretty silly to imagine you know the internal sexual nature and motivations of every individual member of a huge and disparate group, just because of how they dress.

@OldCrone

AGPs aren't tormented by the desire to be a woman though, are they? They're aroused by the thought of themselves as women. I don't think society needs to be willing to accommodate this at all. Any more than society needs to accommodate any other paraphilia.

I'm not clear what you mean by society "not accommodating" it. Do you mean society should tell them they're not allowed to be aroused by the thought of themselves as women? Or that they're allowed to but are not allowed to wear certain clothes - even ones that other people ARE allowed to wear - because it might let other people know of such arousal? Or something else?

I took Blanchard's comment to refer to practical "accomodations" like using cross-gender toilets etc. Somebody going about their life while wearing a dress that covers their private parts to a normal standard of modesty is not being accommodated in anything, or asking to be.

@MalagaNights on a point of information, I deliberately said "GC" and not "GC feminist" in my post. That's what I mean about it being a meaningless label. Everyone bar a few brain addled gender muppets knows that it's impossible to for men to be women.

How many 'normal' blokes may see a sexy woman and go home and wank about her later. Are they co opting said woman unwillingly in sexual behaviour?
Why is that OK and the malaga airport crew not?

What are the reasons men would want to wear dresses?
I can think of:

1. it's transgressive and exciting.
2. I'm an edgy fashion student.

And I know the way 1 & 2 look would be very different.
1 would be a parody or cos play of women.
2 would be a mixing of styles to create something interesting.

What other reasons are there?

I do not believe that wearing a dress is essential for anyone yet some men insist it's so important to them rules must be changed. Why?

Excerpt from his book. There's no such thing as transsexual 'juveniles'!
Genspect did delete their tweet promoting his book, yet, they still did.

Many won't agree but AGPs are getting much cleverer at winning the hearts of women. They're wolves in gender-critical sheep's clothing. I can't see how critical thinking people cannot see this.

@EatMyHead are you missing a "not" in that last paragraph?

You are of course right, Genspect as an organisation is not "for women", although all the evidence is that women are overwhelmingly disadvantaged by the wholesale adoption of gender identity ideology. Yet in their "the split" statement Genspect explicitly align themselves with women's groups, and they say that their "framework prioritises women and children’s safety". So it's not a complete picture to say they are entirely divorced from the feminist agenda, nor that they don't want support from women's advocacy groups.

Ok but gender critical still doesn't mean just knowing what biological sex is.

That's sex realism.

Honestly, American right wing Christians know what biological sex is but they're not critical of gender roles and norms, they embrace them.

I really think you've taken one aspect GC share with sex realists and you're then applying that to everyone.

It's absurd to suggest everyone who recognises biological sex is GC, it really is.

Everyone who knows what biological sex is is a sex realist. GC feminists are sex realists as are right wing America Christians.
They're not all gender critical.

Exhibitionism depends on the response of other unwilling parties. The flasher gets off on shocking onlookers with nudity. The AGP likewise, with clothing and behaviours.

So no, fantasising about somebody is not at all the same as involving them in a paraphilia.

The former is entirely based on one's own thoughts and imagination; the latter involves provoking a response.