42
GC Social MediaTrans-identified Male Appointed CEO of Women's Endometriosis Charity
Explain to me why a group of women who should know better are trashing each other over a man? Again. Don't they have anything more interesting to talk about?
I got through about 2/3rds of it. It was 90% Stella justifying why she behaved as she did IN THE MOMENT. (E.g. Long discussion about her safety concerns for participants in a “public carry” gun state, the “normal” behavior of AGP man, the legal inability to refuse his admittance, whatever whatever.) I suppose I can empathize with that pressure at the time, but what I didn’t hear in the almost hour I listened was any apology for how she behaved towards the women who raised concerns. For that she DID have the benefit of sober reflection and time to think and parse her words. And the words she had for us was STFU.
She did do a lot of explaining (and evading of KJK's first two tries to get her to directly answer questions about David Hayton). Genspect does have a fraught history of banning earnest dissenters, and that alone doesn't help . . . there's been a general lack of humility around what they don't know, and starting out, that was quite a lot. Instead of listening to and learning from family survivors and radfems, or taking on early feedback that (for instance) porn stars weren't great brand ambassadors, they banned, blocked, and moved on. Striking out on SM at people who know what they're talking about, and have been engaged in fighting against gender madness for significantly longer than five years -- not a good strategy.
For anyone interested, here's the video link via KJK's YT with some topical timestamps, quotes, and paraphrases (it's a long vid).
https://youtu.be/OqG2gYvXm9A?feature=shared
6:53 KJK on Stephanie Hayton's treatment in "Trans Kids: It's Time to Talk" (2018) [What SO'M actually said to Stephanie Hayton was 'But you got through it.']
10:07 SO'M's account of the filming and editing of "Trans Kids: It's Time to Talk" (she didn't know what AGP was when she was first hired to do the documentary; David Hayton was featured for being GC)
20:14 KJK ". . . People come at this with different experiences, and I think there's a lot of women injured by . . . autogynephiles . . . And so obviously women who've been victims of abuse are going to . . . focus on that bit because what they're hoping for in that exchange is that somebody recognizes what's happened to them. And what they didn't get from that is that recognition. They didn't get any acknowledgment of their own pain and suffering."
23:56 SO'M on organizing the Genspect Conference in Denver
28:18 SO'M "The man in the dress" arrives at the conference
29:38 SO'M "I'm very well aware that people are telling me he was performing his fetish. That's presuming that every minute of his life is pathologized, that every moment of his life is consumed by autogynephilia. I don't know the man -- maybe it is, maybe it isn't." She gives her reasons for not asking him to leave, including his nonsexualized behavior and his clothing not being outside social norms.
32:35 SO'M "Autogynephiles -- they are tricky at the best of times. I don't approve of much of what Phil Illy ["the man in the dress"] said on Twitter after the event. I was recommended his book . . . by three people who I couldn't be closer to professionally, who I really rate . . . within that book there's something about medical transitioning of children, so we shouldn't have taken it. One thing we've learned is we'll tighten up our policies around anybody recommending anything."
37:03 KJK responds to SO'M's account of Phil Illy at the conference; AGPs should be refused entry because "it puts the more vulnerable people who get the most out of your work . . . at risk." Also "when we talk about Debbie Hayton and his 'pink mist' . . . do you think it's right, then, that he teaches teenagers?"
40:33 SO'M on AGP (a journalist's reluctance to take it seriously despite it being "in the DSM, it's been there for 30 years . . . it's frankly very similar to some other fetishes that are causing huge harm to society"). Public awareness around AGP versus normalizing AGP.
43:40 KJK "But he [David Hayton] was normalized, though . . . I believe what you want to do is you want to eradicate it and you want to help in stopping children transitioning . . . but I just don't think . . . it's coherent messaging if actually these men feel welcome at Genspect . . . there's obviously a culture that doesn't see these men as particularly terrible . . . What I would like from this is that there is a period of reflection [about whether AGPs belong at these events, should be allowed to disrupt them, how to protect the focus and integrity of events].
46:49 SO'M "I think our campaign, which is to raise awareness for autogynephilia, ROGD, detransition, and all the other aspects of gender ideology . . . The campaign to raise awareness of
48:45 KJK "If loads of people think you have great sympathy for AGPs, and actually what you're trying to do is to warn people about AGPs . . ." (requests clarification)
50:06 SO'M (Genspect as a lobby and advocacy group rather than a therapeutic organization)
52:30 SO'M (The mistake of the Tweet promoting Phil Illy)
56:30 SO'M (Coherence in messaging)
58:15 SO'M (Says she has never believed in "True Trans")
1:02:02 KJK "The AGPs around kids in schools, now that you're learning about AGP, would that be something that Genspect would take a position on?"
1:02:55 SO'M "I think people with fetishes should not be around children . . . They shouldn't be around children and there needs to be a public awareness campaign about this particular fetish that has been successfully . . . hidden."
1:06:55 KJK "If you go to a conference -- what would I expect people to wear, really? I'd probably expect them to wear business attire . . . Maybe as Genspect grows and becomes a global advocacy group for . . . a grownup conversation about gender and gender identity -- and I hate both of those terms because I don't believe in the word 'gender' -- but as we sort of move forward, I would hope that maybe it wasn't such a place for . . . service-users (if you like) to attend, but actually it would be more about the people that are going to solve this shit."
1:10:01 SO'M "Our focus in Genspect is we are providing a nonmedicalized approach to gender distress . . . We want to highlight the issues around gender ideology, we want to hold WPATH to account, we want to close WPATH because we think it's a very harmful organization . . . and [our focus includes] a very definitive clear way to show how we can protect single-sex spaces, sports, prisons . . . That's where our focus is.
58:15 SO'M (Says she has never believed in "True Trans")
I've listened to The Wider Lens podcasts for over a year now, and I call BS on this. IIRC, she DOES think people can be transgender.
That's important to know. In the early days she did seem to maintain a TruTrans credulity around Hayton. Here, she seemed hesitant in conceding to KJK's point that AGP is a paraphilia, and adults with paraphilias shouldn't be working with children.
This has really annoyed me. I am way closer to KJK on this than SO'M however, I really dislike the way many people have treated SO'M. While most of it has died down, there are still a handful of women relentlessly going after S'OM. I just don't understand, do they want her to go away or something? While I ultimately disagree with her position on this, I appreciate her contributions and I will be rooting for her success.
I'm not sure what their goal is. It may have something to do with the high block rate for dissent (even bland informed dissent) on Genspect platforms, though those platforms surely have multiple moderators. Or the history of empathy for AGP at the expense of family survivors and swipes at radical feminists in larger GC circles interacting with Genspect. Some core of it is probably personality-driven. Those are my guesses.
To be clear, I completely agree with the fact that it was inappropriate to platform an AGP. However, I think that the way many women treated Stella was also pretty shameful. Unfortunately, that behavior really discourages other women from sticking their necks out.
Yeah, I don't get the hardcore committed hatred. I've seen other women latched onto like that, and it's disturbing.
This isn't directed at you OP, just in general. Who gives a shite if Felipe shows up in Felicia's dress? The response is still Bye Felipe!
I'm with you. The energy put into defending paraphilic behavior, and tearing down women who are rightly critical of paraphilic behavior . . . what's the point? There's a long list of stuff I'd rather be talking about, but here we are. Again. (I've been personally navigating this madness for over two decades now. AGP-except-really-bipolar-recruited-by-AGPs in the fam.)
I'm sorry you have to deal with this in your family. That particular combo of disordered behavior must be exhausting. Mental illness skinwalking as a 'normal' man in turn skinwalking as a woman... I'm really memeing it up here, but ain't nobody got time for that! If these organizations are truly what they say they are, AGP participation has no place in them. It is not valuable discourse.
Thanks . . . it is exhausting. But as I learned (firsthand) how much personality disorders and bipolar overlap with gender bullshit, it saved me a lot of grief for being able to see clearly what was really running "trans activism" (beyond rich donors and immoral doctors/therapists). So there's that.
I’m a Stella O’Malley fan. She peaked my whole family. I don’t believe in true trans, does she? I’m curious about hearing more of your thoughts on her.
I'm not really sure where she stands on "true trans" at the moment, maybe someone who knows can chime in.
My impression is she first jumped into this issue with both feet and a clinical license but very little knowledge of the terrain, and appeared either callous or ignorant about trans widows and other family survivors and their experiences. (SO'M at that time: "We must understand AGP!" Us: "At what cost? It's a paraphilia -- how about asking family survivors about it?")
This appears to be changing, and she's leveled up her knowledge base since (as with Genspect's "Gender: A Wider Lens" podcast/YT interviews, especially the Pioneers series which allows the primary sexologists to speak for themselves and put forth all the good, the bad, and the ugly in their own ideas and practices).
I'm rooting for Genspect to unseat WPATH (or whatever they're calling themselves these days) and bring some ethics and sanity to the situation. And I understand about rocky starts. That's why I say my own issue is impatience -- some of us have been dealing with this for decades already, and we need professionals to wise up and provide clarity and transparency about this mess fast. They started out "both sides-ing" the issue and frankly we don't have time for that.
Also, radfems are a resource, not the enemy, ffs. (Clarity edit -- radfems have been the active early warning system on how fetishism has been disguising and legitimizing itself by hiding behind LGB etc. for ages. Genspect et. al. would do well to listen to their critiques and their input -- they actually have an accelerated knowledge base on all this with copious receipts.)
(SO'M at that time: "We must understand AGP!" Us: "At what cost? It's a paraphilia -- how about asking family survivors about it?")
Exactly. I do think we need to understand AGP. I don't think we need to invite AGPS to turn up in fetish gear at GC events to do that. Blue dress guy was there first and foremost to get attention and validation (it's extra special if comes from nominal GCs).
Yes. I put that in the same category as James Cantor's wanting to destigmatize
One of my biggest problems with wokism, for lack of a better term, is that it puts pressure on women to misdirect their natural sense of compassion towards people who will abuse it. We don't need more tolerance for paraphilias. We need less. "Being kind" is what got us into this mess in the first place.
Yes! At some point this just becomes a repetition of Bluebeard ("Well, his beard isn't really that blue. And all he wants is for me not to open that one door.")
Fuck's sake! His beard is blue. There's a stack of female corpses behind that one door. Believe what you see, trust your instincts, and save yourself.
Thank you for your speedy reply! This is all very clarifying for me. The Wider Lens podcast I think will be a great resource in the long run. And I have high hopes for Genspect replacing WPATH. And you're right that we Radfems are a resource. I wish more people knew this, especially those who have a voice (I'm looking at Meghan Daum and Sarah Haider here as well). It's up to reporters to do their jobs and medical professionals to blow the whistle.
Absolutely. I hold out hope. After a rough start on A Wider Lens (YT) they've interviewed Stephen Levine and Zhenya Abbruzzese and featured an expert takedown of the Dutch Protocol, so they're currently talking with the right experts from a clinical pov. It's sound info and it's good peaking material.
I thought Stella came across horribly in that conversation. All she did was try to paint herself as some kind of victim. She did not acknowledge or apologize for how she mocked and misrepresented those of us who had concerns.
I was involved in the X conversation about this and am now blocked by Stella O'Malley, Sarah Phillimore, James Lindsay and Aaron Terrell for politely disagreeing and voicing concerns. Who does that? I was also appalled by the reactions of Nina Paley and Corinna Cohn. Nina made a post of herself in a blue velvet dress mocking those of us with concerns.
The way Stella chose to handle this issue is telling and I lost all respect for her and her organization.
I would also like to know why Benjamin Boyce and James Lindsay were speakers/moderators at the conference. What do two MRA dude bros, have to do with this issue? The have no personal stake except for promoting their podcasts. They are not therapists or mental health professionals. They do not work with children, do not care about women's rights or safeguarding children.
Why were they there? What purpose did they serve? Both of them have a large following of MRA/Incel types who have nothing good to say about feminism.
Considering these organizations are dependent on the support of donors why in the world would they behave like this towards their supporters.
I've seen some here say they still like and respect Stella and Sasha. I do not. They've shown us who they are. For those familiar with narcissistic abuse tactics they've checked just about every box.
What really irked me about BB and JL's defense of blue dress guy was that these men love lecturing women for supposedly being dumb, catty, and slutty. Along comes an actual male fetishist in clothing that he admits is arousing to him, and they jump to his defense. The fatal flaw of nearly every man who has waded into this debate is his reflexive impulse to defend male sexuality against valid criticisms by women.
I've come to expect dudebro reactions to be true to type. What really irks me are the women (Paley, SO'M) snarking or lashing out at other women over AGP "inclusion" . . . isn't that just TruTrans 2.0?
It boggled my mind that Helen Joyce and Kathleen Stock came out more or less on blue dress guy's side.
Hasn't Stock always been about truetrans and respecting vanity pronouns? I admire her bravery certainly, but always reached a part of her argument I could not follow.
Good point -- I admit I can't rememember.
Seriously disappointing. Doesn't the fact of AGP mean anything in the argument?
I believe their take was fairly nuanced, but it boiled down to "it's just a dress"/"he has some good insights."
They did? Joyce and Stock? 😳
Yes
This is purely speculation, I have no proof that this is true or not. But I suspect that “gender critical” organizations see the more generalized anti-woke (which will include anti feminist/MRA/evo psych/incel followers) as a more lucrative audience than those who object to genderism out of women’s rights concerns. Put simply, they don’t want our money, perhaps because there isn’t enough of it, or for personality reasons. Feminism isn’t fun, it’s a lot of saying NO to men who seem fun and cool and daring. The incident at Genspect is just one more in a series of incidents where “gender critical” figures decisively side against radical feminists and other women in defense of autogynephiles.
Nailed it, I believe. Sadly. But, you know, we've seen this movie before.
I'm afraid you're correct. This seems like the answer.
I hear you, and I share your concerns. The Blocked By club has some cachet, I know a few members. I think I haven't been (yet) because I've never been on Twitter/X or subscribed to their site. When they put up their first "Pioneers" videos on YT I went in swinging with a "what are you doing?" and an annotated reading list so casual viewers would know what these sexologists advocate, their clinical legacies, etc. I got a lukewarm "watch our critique at the end" reply and that was that.
SO'M does have a history of lashing out dramatically at critics and it doesn't serve. I'm saying that as someone who's had long interactions with non-affirmation practicing therapists. I am rooting for Genspect's efforts, but that's not the same as having high confidence in the entity. Time will tell.
The dudebros' involvement -- I balked at that too. What's in it for them? Publicity? Cred? Why are they involved? There seems to be some kind of GC Glitterati social game going on. Total waste of time imo.
Well put