Did anyone watch Stella O'Malley's critique of GC feminists on YouTube?

[Betweenthe2]

l

I'd be interested in opinions on this from people who have watched it (rather than dismissed it out of hand because of the title)

stella wouldn’t be in such hot water if she had quoted evidence that butch women are butch for sexual thrills.

personally, that’s one of the most offensive things I’ve heard in this and I’ve been around a while.

Perhaps you'd have got more from it if you hadn't watched nearly four hours of footage in under 40 minutes.

Arguing amongst ourselves is never a way forward.

I find debate really helpful for clarifying my thoughts. What a shame, after all those years of #NoDebate, to see it denigrated as 'arguing amongst ourselves.'

We know our shared GC goals lets stick to that.

Do 'we'? Genspect's goal appears to be to normalise AGP. No thank you.

I am sick of the forced teaming that is 'The GC Movement™' I'm here for child safeguarding and women's rights. That's it. All the pseudosexologists and the men's tights activists with their nasty little sobstacks can fuck right off. I am done with the lot of them.

From Genspect website: "Our international organisation includes professionals, trans people, detransitioners, and parent groups who work together to advocate for a non-medicalised approach to gender diversity."

It's a good aim, but is it GC?

To help individual children, the best action isnt to say 'theres no such thing as GI, find a hobby', it is to use their language, listen and use therapy to help them without surgery and medicine.

But thats private, individual therapy, not part of a GC movement. If we accept someone can be trans, how is that critical of gender? What makes someone trans if it not gender?

Stellas work is important, but so is standing up to the invention of a special class of men with gender. By critising women for doing this, she isnt being gender critical herself.

I find as it was left unbacked up, that it lacked qualification and can be all too easily interpreted different ways.

Because in listening to lesbians,
their ‘presentation, is about many other aspects of life (including one close to my own heart, comfort!) and not about dressing for a ‘sexual charge’. Leaving it open the way Stella has, means it really can be said to be homophobic. And making something very rare into a general descriptor.

No. I don’t believe the two scenarios men cross dressing and lesbians presenting as men are generally comparable. I would think the over lap is very small and she should back this with data now because she has put it out there. Also that those female who are supposedly AGP act in the same ways that male AGPs do. To the point where the public are involved in non consensual sex acts when they interact with those women.

Yet Stella is using it as a dismissive direct comparison for what we should do about safeguarding vulnerable people from sex fetishists. That is wrong from someone who is in a position of expertise as she is, imo.

She edited her post to make another slight towards Kellie-Jay and any woman that supports her. This was not in the heat of the moment. She actually thought about it and added it.

She mentioned she was a misogynist in her childhood but I feel like she might not have grown out of it as much as she thinks.

What on Earth is she thinking? This is shocking and upsetting. I cannot comprehend how anyone could conflate a masculine lesbian to a paraphilia such as DH tells us all about. Lesbianism is not a fetish or a compulsion. Why in gods name are we letting these people detract us from our support of women by denigrating our sisters and putting the almighty penis first. I’ve tried very very hard to really understand where Stella and others are coming from. I’ve given up now. I will not be supporting any of these people with my subscriptions, views or my money. I’m not an “Ultra”, I’m not an extremist, I am a woman without a platform and I won’t be supporting them to monetise women’s struggles.

Well if you get sexual feelings around children then no, you shouldn't be a teacher, and if you get sexual feelings from being called 'she/her' or wearing a dress to school as a teacher then you shouldn't involve the children you are teaching and supposed to safeguard as unwilling participants in your fetish.

Anyone who is defending normalising this is also on very shaky safeguarding ground.

Pretty much all the women I know can tell the difference between men with a fetish and those who are gender non conforming. Aja nails it https://twitter.com/Aja02537920/status/1727745772970471686

The men on the bottom line, if teachers, would be really clear to do what's best for the children, I'm sure, even if that meant slightly modifying the way they dress. MOST teachers do this, they don't come to work in pyjamas for example whilst expecting the kids to wear school uniform.

The very fact of putting your wants (non-normal pronouns) above the children's needs (ability to recognise sex without censure, freedom of belief and expression, developing understanding of English, lack of confusion that pronouns are suddenly an individual thing) is a safeguarding red flag. Stella deals with children right?

She seemingly can't grasp basic safeguarding principles and she can fuck off with her condescension when she's failing to grasp something so basic that most women instinctively understand.

Arguing amongst ourselves is never a way forward

I agree. Discussing is always helpful but not in this way.

I think people are underestimating the power of BigPharma and believe that the time has come when we can fall out with each other over differences.

Personally I'm in this for the rights of women and children. We need to discuss theory, but not throw each other under the bus. I have issues with some GC feminists but it is not helpful to create rifts.

We have to speak about safeguarding concern. Call it creating rifts or stopping free speech if you want, but it needs to be said.

I have been following the blow up, and the impression I get is that there are some big accounts who have very big egos. They perceive any disagreement, of opinions they've expressed in the public arena of X, as an attempt to shut them down rather than hold a debate. Plus the accusations against women of homophobia on the basis of one or two bad actors.

That's unreasonably harsh. Those "big accounts" publicly stuck their necks out on this issue long before it had any traction. Of KJK herself disagrees with their stances that's one thing, but when an army of safely anonymous Posy fans pile onto them for not being Posy enough that's quite another.

After observing this rumble on and with some reflection, I think that many people are now hurt and very angry and failing to be their best selves on both "teams" so I'll withdraw my previous comment and not add fuel to the very unpleasant fire of what is now going on.

I think though cats, that you might have had a point as to the origin of the issue.

I agree. I found out about this whole issue from Mumsnet. Without Mumsnet, I’d have probably been one of those lefties vaguely mouthing TWAW because I thought I should, without really understanding what it meant or what the issues were. I now do what I can within my work and women’s group to combat GI.
Mumsnet is a great source of info on this.

This is the core issue I think.

Most people can not deal with social media and do not understand how it works.

Everyone wants to join in a conversation at the same time and when loads of people disagree with you, people experience it as a "pile on".

Weird people never feel "piled on" when they have 200 people agreeing with them.

It's not a pile on. They aren't being threatened. There is a disagreement on social media. That is it. I know it feels awful because our dino brains can't deal with so many people at once, but nothing is happening really.

You want to be a big shot on the internet than take criticism as you take the compliments and get on with your life.