Honestly, I think this is not your or GENSPECT's problem, but Peter's. Don't make this bigger than it is. Peter is smart-ish, but not in all walks of life and all strands of intellectual endavour. He just doesn't get it, it seems. A lot of men don't really get what feminism is about, least of all the distinctilns between different strands wiithin the feminist movement. My guess is they shy away from the close look because Feminism makes them feel guilty or awkward. So they just don't dive in. As a consequence, they think if a woman speaks up, appears to be a strong personality and can string more than 10 elaborate sentences together, (and Julie Bindel is in the same room) she must be one of these, errrr, whatyoucallthem *feminists*. I see that A LOT in men, and it is very surprising when it's the likeable and knowledgeable ones but well. One of those things, heh?
Initially and foremost those few short years ago we were *mothers* who reached to you for help Stella, from all political standpoints, who were horrified by our children running towards denigrating their health and fertility in the belief that their anxieties would be relieved through misuse of drugs and cosmetic surgeries.
All the other serious parallel issues with truth, safety and democracy have led from the lie that anyone can change their sex.
Any person’s growing understanding of the trans phenomenon’s many subtleties will lead them to realise there is a serious *human* concern rather than a feminist one.
Maybe more highlighting of the links between young people running to drugs and surgeries for all the other reasons other than sex change would our help our issue be seen as part of a western mental health and medical response crisis.
My theatrical husband does this bit when trying to explain this madness...He says to someone who just can't understand how gender medicine is a problem, "Hey, I have to tell you, my child has been injecting heroin and cutting herself. I'm devastated." Then he leaves the room and returns and says, "Hey, I have to tell you, my child has been injecting testosterone and has cut off her breasts. I'm celebrating."
Not enough hearts in the world to express my agreement with this post. What a great Venn diagram. I will be sharing all of this. But I am sorry you have to expend any energy and time defending/explaining yourself, Stella, as opposed to writing thank you notes for only profound appreciation for everything you have done to support us parents and beyond.
Hi first I want to say thank you. I will never be able to say thank you enough for your intelligence, courage, incisiveness. I add my thanks to thoughtful thanks so far. I however agree with your concern.
I think you are at a stage where branding is now critical. I am completely dismayed that someone can have referred to your conference as a feminist conference and I do think it is a problem and that you defining what this is very important. It is not a question of you embracing or not embracing feminism, but that is not what genspect is about. As was said above this is a Human problem because it touches on so many aspects. I very much like what was said about the « science of gender » I have a friend does branding for a living. I will consult with her and get back to you.
"The Science of Gender" - keep focus there. Genspect promotes awareness of "The Science of Gender." The issue is complex but branding needs to be simple
I've said this before but as a teacher, the reading wars were settled in the US when phonics rebranded as "The Science of Reading." This diffuses the emotion and puts the emphasis on what everyone can agree on. You need to provide cover for scientists, researchers, doctors who supported gender-affirming care and instead of admitting they were wrong, allow them to pivot to what we can all agree on.
Thank you for everything you do. You're amazing. I've been thinking more about "The Science of Gender" - What if you promote awareness, political action, and "evidence-based" psychological support - under this banner. Make the tent as big as possible.
Stella, I’m a psychotherapist in the U.S. in a large, progressive metropolitan area. In my world, the complaints and “warnings” about Genspect (and Therapy First) are that it is a politically right-wing, conservative religious organization – which is also not accurate but has been useful in keeping our voices out of many important spaces. That said, however, I recently went to a Genspect USA event and, frankly, the conservative-religious vibe felt dominant and I would have preferred to hear ANY gender-critical feminist voices. So, I understand your concern that Genspect be perceived as a “Big Tent” where many perspectives are welcomed and all focused on “providing a healthy approach to sex and gender… and to stand as an evidence-based resource for individuals, families, and professionals who are deeply concerned about the medicalisation of gender-related distress.”
I REALLY REALLY like the Venn diagram in the middle of your piece (looks like others do, too!)—perhaps this image is a place to work from in any re-brand?
Finally, though this does not directly address the Genspect branding perception problem, your perspective on the ubiquitous rise of the gender ideology is really interesting and helpful:
“[T]hat a deep sense of loneliness, disconnection, floating anxiety, frustration, and rage are the primary drivers behind this trend, and I am primarily focused on these issues to better understand why so many people are drawn to the idea of becoming a different person with a new identity.”
Thanks for asking--hope that’s useful—and thank you for your work.
Hi thank you for this. We will do something more with the Venn diagram. Yes it is all too easy to be pushed into the right wing. This is the very first article written for Genspect which explains our approach to politics: https://genspect.org/the-politics-of-genspect/
I love you Stella and the idea of this article but I think you have this wrong. Neither Peter nor Phil ever mention Genspect in this street epistemology episode.
Peter is actually quite trained in what he does. He makes it look "thrown at the wall" but I would put money on him knowing exactly what he is saying and doing. This kind of conversation is a highly skilled endeavor. I learned it in high pressure sales but also its hostage negotiator tactics. Its very calculated.
You can ask Peter. Maybe i'm wrong here but my read was, when he said "feminist conference" he meant "feminist conference". Had nothing to do with the actual Genspect conference because that would have been a) too personal and b) too broad.
You have to remember the point of standpoint epistemology is to explore and potentially change a persons beliefs. Peter may have sensed that Phil is a bit of a nervous person so he opened the dress topic rather broadly, purposely putting Phil in a position to strawman the argument against men wearing dresses and letting him adjust to that first. This is a tactic used to get a person thinking about different perspectives while also keeping tension. Its called a "funnel". The answer to a broad question allows the questioner to choose the path to the next question based on what he observes from the subjects response. Then the following question drills down even further as you steer the subject where you want him to go.
When Phil initially answered the question with a response about children, that was a fine answer but not what Peter was looking for because it wasnt personal enough of an experience for Phil to really place himself there. To really change ones belief the question needs to get personal. So Peter put Phil in an imaginary situation of the kind he knew Phil had been in previously ("of the kind" but not exactly. Thats important). I suspect if Phil were an athlete, Peter would have placed him in a locker room or stadium or something.
So now, Phil is arguing the side of a man wearing a dress at THE conference where that behavior is least likely to be accepted. The Genspect conference would not have worked in this line of questioning because there was an added variable of trans. It is precicely the fact that it WASN'T a feminist conference that Peter didnt use Genspect.
As they go on in that particular exchange you see Phil actually start to argue somewhat vehemently for his strawman argument, curiously asking Peter why he thinks men should be able to wear dresses at feminist conferences and THEN pushing further with "well what if he were wearing this?..." That's the point where we start seeing Phil subconsciously testing his own belief by getting curious and creative about scenarios where it may be uncouth for a man to wear a dress to a feminist conference, to a place where a group of people have very good reasons to be ununaccepting of the behavior. It is this subconscious questioning that is the entire point of the exercise. The questioning had nothing to do with Genspect IMO except that Peter knew that the scenario would be salient to Phil having been in a similar controversy at a conference.
I think Peter is very smart, but more importantly he is very trained! Or skilled at what he does. Very skilled. And very calculating, unassumingly so... that's part of the ruse. I thought this was a brilliant episode when I first saw it a while back. Particularly because I knew the back story.
Side note: I spent a while selling timeshare. Sales is all about changing beliefs, and is analogous to exploring the psychology of standpoint epistemology. I say this ALL THE TIME... trans ideology is using these tactics to incredible effect. Its bone chilling! And I don't think it's by accident. Only nerds who know how to deploy these tactics actually see them. That's why I adore James Lindsey because he absolutely gets it. The tactics used to get trans ideology into a our schools and our policies are EXACTLY the ones used by Keith Reneire in the NXVIUM cult. Truly! And it's terrifying that 99% of people can't see it because they are not trained to.
Stella, I wouldn't read more into it than what I mentioned above. But also I would send a quick email to Peter to ask him because you may be surprised at his answer. Feel free to cut and paste... if he responds with an appology because im wrong def lmk 😂😬🤪
PS... your branding is PERFECT. Leave it alone. It needs to be ambiguous because the science and evidence to promote "healthy" may change over time. You need to leave the door open.
"Genspect is an international, non-partisan, interdisciplinary organization committed to promoting a healthy, evidence-based approach to sex and gender."
Lol... after writing all that I realize I could have just explained how planting presuppositions work. If you're interested google that. Its fascinating! If anyone is in Scotland, Kain Ramsey is a nice example of using these tactics for personal good. But often they are used by cults and skilled salesmen. Peter uses them for philosophical exploration 😆... Im kind of smitten with that
In word lists and language data, female tends to appear more frequently in association with gender than male. This is largely because discussions around gender often focus on issues historically affecting women, such as gender equality, gender roles, and gender discrimination, which have been topics of societal debate for a long time. Terms like gender pay gap, gender equality, and gender bias often connect more strongly with female than male in texts, even though they apply to all genders. It’s a statistical bias problem and recall.
Had you chosen a different word, the “brand” might not have automatically inherited association with the word woman or female, female empowerment and feminism. While there’s nothing wrong with those ideas, those connotations limit the instant impression of the organization.
A similar problem used to surrounded the word “black”.
The “Black is Beautiful” movement of the 1960s aimed to counter negative associations with the word Black in society. Common uses of black often carried unfavorable meanings, such as blacklist (to exclude or ban someone), blackball (to reject or vote against someone), black sheep (someone considered a disgrace in the family), black mark (a sign of discredit or shame), and blackout (a loss of power or consciousness).
When “genspect” was announced I was skeptical because use of the term gender, applied to people, also propagates the pseudo-science of human gender - gender is not a term which has a basis in empirical medical science.
Had it been a different artificial word like “variescient” “Variescience” or even “varispect” and avoid the term gender, it would connote variation, diversity, or the quality of being varied or divergent. It could work well for an organization focused on biological diversity, individual differences, or scientific exploration of variation.
The second problem is the fragment “gen” which has ineluctably bound yourself to the word “transgender” which has problematic connotations. “Genspect” sounds like “respect for transgender” or “transgender perspectives”.
Shedding the word gender would dramatically sharpen the intent on first encounter substantially.
This is so interesting because when I first heard "genspect" I thought of spectacles, and then "suspect" as in the slang "suss" which is popular in the US tween scene. But the connotation to me was about critically evaluating the subject.
In a couple episodes of "Julie in Genderland" (5 stars! by the way) they talk about whether gender clinics are necessary at all after Cass. On the one hand, no. Because we now know that trans is a symptom of the underlying conditions which we have established treatment for. But on the other hand, if we are dealing with cult mentality, then it may not be prudent to rip the rug out from under the expectations of the adherents. Especially when the need for mental health treatment of any kind far exceeds the supply of complex treatment and interventions. At the very least, I think it makes sense to have a place where the facade of gender is tracked and addressed and peeled back to reveal the true nature of the problem that a person is navigating. I also a potential purpose in grouping this cohort together to make those seeking help feel more comfortable at first, save face, feel like they are in the "right place", to build rapport.
Likewise, with the term gender, it has been co-opted to mean something other than sex. But now it's out there in the wild, and we can't simply force the genie back in the bottle overnight. We can't deprogram people on a mass scale because deprogramming takes time and personal attention. A better strategy might be to use the same slight of hand tactics against the cult, to lure in the fringe who are on the fence, because you won't change any beliefs with Genspect alone. And I think the cause will be better off dispensing with that illusion altogether. But we CAN build rapport with people who have some kind of curiosity about the subject and build a coalition of reality based non-believers across many different fields.
The goal, in my opinion, is to get a majority of the world's population inoculated against indoctrination into this belief system. At that point, we can shore up our institutions to sideline the religion (gender ideology). The thing is, we can't force this on people. They have to come to these conclusions on their own. Which is why evidence based medicine and a commitment to enlightenment values is so important here. The separation of church and state is what will win out IF we can hold the line. We musn't change our language because they steel meaning from our shared understanding. We must reestablish our shared secular meaning.
So, I guess I fear taking the word gender out of it, because that's the "hook" so to speak. The hook We can use to build rapport and then reprogram as many as we can
Thought more about what you wrote, quite intriguing.
Not something I recall reading: what is inoculation in this context? I’m gong to blather for a few moments…
I’m inoculated to a variety of modern thought junk - social media, TV, online porn, gaming, texting, AI, critical theory, “gender”, trans… because I played with the ideas decades ago, a reason why I’m a huge free speech absolutist.
Trans people used to keep very secretive, but I’ve watched activity over the last 20 years which changed. I had a “trans activist”, and noted computer scientist Lynn Conway speak at an event in 2001, and I realized that now only was he bonkers, but that when he spoke glowingly about puberty suppressors (2001 mind you) he didn’t understand human biology. That was when, for me, trans was absolutely clearly both a mental illness and dangerous. Free speech was great - you could see they were bonkers.
Puberty is the key to trans recent exposure. All children have anxiety at the onset of puberty. It has had many names, “being confused” or “exploring”, but if your body changed seemingly overnight your mind will react badly. There are many biological reasons why puberty is the time when psychosis, anxiety, depression and schizophrenia emerge.
What would inoculate would seem to be exposure to trans (like exposure to teenage pregnancy on reality tv), combined with the harsh reality (Jazz today), but you still need something to offset puberty anxiety which cannot be resolved by blocking it. I think Parents have to also be part of the reality (the nightmare they enter), since only they can approve radical damage.
I think physicians and psychologists are the ultimate target since they keep promoting bad ideas.
Indoctrinate is probably a better word there. I don't mean teach people a little about trans ideology In order to build their immunity. I mean teach children and parents, explicitly, that there are only two sexes, puberty can be tough but isnt always (wasnt at all for me), there is no right way to be a girl or boy, and you might be attracted to the same sex.
I think we took for granted that message. We thought "well of course everyone in the west thinks this way now" ...and we did. But the disease mutated. Homophobia and misoginy mutated into trans. Just like racism in america mutated to "anti-racism". Antisemitism in the west mutated to "anti-zionism" or "pro-palestinian" ...its all the same thing. And I think we have all but lost a generation of kids. So what we need to do now is teach them liberal values and...free speech! Free thought. Re-indoctrinate them into a thought process that rises above the basest of reactionary ideologies.
I am one of the only people I know who explicitly over and over again have told my 9 and 11 year olds that they will encounter boys and girls who think they are the opposite sex and given them tools to manage those experiences with compassion and with boundaries. They understand that gender/trans is a fantasy, and kids are allowed to have fantasies, but it's a belief, and we dont make rules for everyone based on belief, otherwise we would all be in Burquas or in sunday school. We have many discussions about the difference between belief and objective reality. We have conversations about why these things matter in a practical sense. We have conversations about race and how these dynamics are playing out there. All of this is done in a way to give them tools to think. I don't tell them what they should know. I actually just ask them questions and they come to their own conclusions.
I've not only done this with my own kids but I do it with playdates as well because I have a yard full of DI-AG signs so the kids ask... what's it all about? 😆 The number one question that gets them thinking is "can you tell me...what do you think is the right way to be a girl?" Hearing them say back, "that's silly! Of course, there's no right way to be a girl" gives me hope because they are saying it themselves. They are actively thinking! That's inocculation... they are thinking about the subject in a critical way... unknowingly. Lol... sneaky.
Little kids can absolutely understand what's going on here, us parents just have to get to them first because society is not doing that job. Perhaps that's how it always should have been, and we parents just loosened the reins and are paying the consequences. The most terrifying thing to me is that my 9 & 11 yo girls are the only kids and their friend groups who aren't in therapy at this time. Think about that... why are all the children in therapy at age 10? Parents have simply stopped parenting I think. They don't know what to say.They don't know how to take a stand. Everyone is too busy being politically correct and "kind". But love and compassion and truth are not always kind.
So I guess a more apt term is indoctrinate. We need to indoctrinate the next generation of children and parents with a shared reality based on liberal values.
So, I saw Bogho's Spectrum Street Epistemology with Illy when it was first posted, but I'm not on Twitter, so I just now had to read through Illy's essay, 'I blew up the internet by wearing a dress to a gender conference' to find the Genspect connection.
Or what I thought was the Genspect connection. In the essay, Illy goes on to make a careful distinction between Genspect and the Twitterati involved in the online fuss. He further narrows that frame to the ‘many of the illiberal camp’ (within gender-critical feminism) who were complaining on Twitter about an autogynephilic man wearing a frock at a conference.
Went back and watched that bit again. Bogho (being the avid Twitter enjoyer he is) looks to be reframing that situation with regard to the feminists who made the fuss on Twitter. The Genspect conference itself is irrelevant to the thought experiment, and I genuinely don’t think it’s being specifically referenced here. Using an alternative, hypothetical and generalised ‘feminist conference’ as the scenario is deliberately posed to create that degree of detachment, and because the complaints were mostly (according to Illy) from online feminists, the arguments largely irrelevant to the conference per se, and also heedless of its spirit.
Genspect remains my primary source for comprehensive, rational, evidence-based information on gender non-conformity. One of the main reasons for that is because it's carefully kept free of unhelpful polemic.
In this regard, rest assured; Genspect and Stella O’Malley remain on brand.
Stella you’re a guiding light don’t worry about labels (aren’t they a big part of the problem?) Peter is entitled to make a comment like that but he’s also in need of being corrected if he’s wrong. It’s understandable to be disappointed when it’s someone you admire too. Onward!
This may be a redundant comment now that Peter put out a public apology to you on X
But I thought it was good that it bothered you…Branding is going to be inevitable as Genspect grows. It’s great that you want to be clear about its mission & how it is perceived moving forward. I really hope it doesn’t lead to a softening though, if that makes sense, in order to appease all groups.Its been interesting to me, how religion for instance, has resurfaced as somewhat of a life saver for many parents. Not for everyone of course, but I don’t want any element of shame or playing down of supposed right wing leanings. As your podcast is aptly named ‘a wider lens’ your work encompasses so many aspects. As long as it is always truthful…perhaps just have to be resilient to how it may get ‘branded’
How on earth a non medicalized approach can be seen as anything other than the best way forward is beyond me
Like some others have mentioned, I, too, think the Venn diagram is great. I wonder if it would be worth it to add a section representing the hard sciences. This would represent evolutionary biologists (like Colin Wright), sexologists (like Debra Soh), and medical doctors who object based on their hippocratic oath. Thank you so much for all you've done. I'm a big fan of your substack and GWL.
I know I've perhaps over-extended my big mouth here on this thread 🤪, but I just want to add a shout out to Stella and to ALL the commenter's here who humble me every day with the bravery to flesh this stuff out in real time!
Half of the reason I subscribe to all these substacks is to remind myself I'm not crazy. But its not in the agreeing that makes me feel sane. I find sanity in the voices who don't necessarily agree and show up anyway. I guess in this case I'm one who disagrees but often I'm not, and I appreciate each and every person who throws down ideas no matter what.
Its so important that we hatch out ideas, now more than ever! So, just thanks everyone! And as always, Stella you're a hero.
I was glad to see you write this in your first paragraph..."However, the tendency to label every woman who criticises trans ideology as a ‘gender-critical feminist’ continues. This is bad for everyone – for gender critical feminists and for everyone else who criticises trans ideology". Being a Gen X gal, I've never really considered myself a 'feminist'--I guess that's b/c boomers were on it OR it could be related to growing up in the Pacific Northwest. I've never considered Genspect a 'feminist' movement. Kinda weird that Peter said that--maybe he'll take it back;-) The diagram is really good and it reminds me of what is happening in my neck of the woods. Seattle, Portland and SF have taken liberal progressive to another level. Unless you live here, you just can't truly get it. Seattle in particular is mecca for all things radical and unsafe on many levels. Schools have become ground zero! See NYT & ST, What Have We Liberals Done to the West Coast by Nicholas Kristoff--another by Jon Talton Seattle and Other Liberal Western Cities Face a Reckoning. Parents need to be super proactive and we could use a Genspect chapter dedicated to this region alone. https://nwtsj.org/.../uploads/2024/09/NWTSJ-Flyer-2024.pdf
Honestly, I think this is not your or GENSPECT's problem, but Peter's. Don't make this bigger than it is. Peter is smart-ish, but not in all walks of life and all strands of intellectual endavour. He just doesn't get it, it seems. A lot of men don't really get what feminism is about, least of all the distinctilns between different strands wiithin the feminist movement. My guess is they shy away from the close look because Feminism makes them feel guilty or awkward. So they just don't dive in. As a consequence, they think if a woman speaks up, appears to be a strong personality and can string more than 10 elaborate sentences together, (and Julie Bindel is in the same room) she must be one of these, errrr, whatyoucallthem *feminists*. I see that A LOT in men, and it is very surprising when it's the likeable and knowledgeable ones but well. One of those things, heh?
😂😂
This is a helpful summary of your role and the distinctions among various overlapping perspectives. I love the Venn diagram. Thank you!
Thank you!
Initially and foremost those few short years ago we were *mothers* who reached to you for help Stella, from all political standpoints, who were horrified by our children running towards denigrating their health and fertility in the belief that their anxieties would be relieved through misuse of drugs and cosmetic surgeries.
All the other serious parallel issues with truth, safety and democracy have led from the lie that anyone can change their sex.
Any person’s growing understanding of the trans phenomenon’s many subtleties will lead them to realise there is a serious *human* concern rather than a feminist one.
Maybe more highlighting of the links between young people running to drugs and surgeries for all the other reasons other than sex change would our help our issue be seen as part of a western mental health and medical response crisis.
My theatrical husband does this bit when trying to explain this madness...He says to someone who just can't understand how gender medicine is a problem, "Hey, I have to tell you, my child has been injecting heroin and cutting herself. I'm devastated." Then he leaves the room and returns and says, "Hey, I have to tell you, my child has been injecting testosterone and has cut off her breasts. I'm celebrating."
Woah, that's very powerful. xxxx
Not enough hearts in the world to express my agreement with this post. What a great Venn diagram. I will be sharing all of this. But I am sorry you have to expend any energy and time defending/explaining yourself, Stella, as opposed to writing thank you notes for only profound appreciation for everything you have done to support us parents and beyond.
That's very lovely of you, thanks xxx
Hear, hear! One more mom saying thank-you, Stella!
Hi first I want to say thank you. I will never be able to say thank you enough for your intelligence, courage, incisiveness. I add my thanks to thoughtful thanks so far. I however agree with your concern.
I think you are at a stage where branding is now critical. I am completely dismayed that someone can have referred to your conference as a feminist conference and I do think it is a problem and that you defining what this is very important. It is not a question of you embracing or not embracing feminism, but that is not what genspect is about. As was said above this is a Human problem because it touches on so many aspects. I very much like what was said about the « science of gender » I have a friend does branding for a living. I will consult with her and get back to you.
Thank you
Thank you very much, that's very helpful of you. xxx
"The Science of Gender" - keep focus there. Genspect promotes awareness of "The Science of Gender." The issue is complex but branding needs to be simple
I've said this before but as a teacher, the reading wars were settled in the US when phonics rebranded as "The Science of Reading." This diffuses the emotion and puts the emphasis on what everyone can agree on. You need to provide cover for scientists, researchers, doctors who supported gender-affirming care and instead of admitting they were wrong, allow them to pivot to what we can all agree on.
Good point, thank you
Thank you for everything you do. You're amazing. I've been thinking more about "The Science of Gender" - What if you promote awareness, political action, and "evidence-based" psychological support - under this banner. Make the tent as big as possible.
That’s really good, we may take you up on this!
Stella, I’m a psychotherapist in the U.S. in a large, progressive metropolitan area. In my world, the complaints and “warnings” about Genspect (and Therapy First) are that it is a politically right-wing, conservative religious organization – which is also not accurate but has been useful in keeping our voices out of many important spaces. That said, however, I recently went to a Genspect USA event and, frankly, the conservative-religious vibe felt dominant and I would have preferred to hear ANY gender-critical feminist voices. So, I understand your concern that Genspect be perceived as a “Big Tent” where many perspectives are welcomed and all focused on “providing a healthy approach to sex and gender… and to stand as an evidence-based resource for individuals, families, and professionals who are deeply concerned about the medicalisation of gender-related distress.”
I REALLY REALLY like the Venn diagram in the middle of your piece (looks like others do, too!)—perhaps this image is a place to work from in any re-brand?
Finally, though this does not directly address the Genspect branding perception problem, your perspective on the ubiquitous rise of the gender ideology is really interesting and helpful:
“[T]hat a deep sense of loneliness, disconnection, floating anxiety, frustration, and rage are the primary drivers behind this trend, and I am primarily focused on these issues to better understand why so many people are drawn to the idea of becoming a different person with a new identity.”
Thanks for asking--hope that’s useful—and thank you for your work.
Hi thank you for this. We will do something more with the Venn diagram. Yes it is all too easy to be pushed into the right wing. This is the very first article written for Genspect which explains our approach to politics: https://genspect.org/the-politics-of-genspect/
Thanks -- also helpful!
I love you Stella and the idea of this article but I think you have this wrong. Neither Peter nor Phil ever mention Genspect in this street epistemology episode.
Peter is actually quite trained in what he does. He makes it look "thrown at the wall" but I would put money on him knowing exactly what he is saying and doing. This kind of conversation is a highly skilled endeavor. I learned it in high pressure sales but also its hostage negotiator tactics. Its very calculated.
You can ask Peter. Maybe i'm wrong here but my read was, when he said "feminist conference" he meant "feminist conference". Had nothing to do with the actual Genspect conference because that would have been a) too personal and b) too broad.
You have to remember the point of standpoint epistemology is to explore and potentially change a persons beliefs. Peter may have sensed that Phil is a bit of a nervous person so he opened the dress topic rather broadly, purposely putting Phil in a position to strawman the argument against men wearing dresses and letting him adjust to that first. This is a tactic used to get a person thinking about different perspectives while also keeping tension. Its called a "funnel". The answer to a broad question allows the questioner to choose the path to the next question based on what he observes from the subjects response. Then the following question drills down even further as you steer the subject where you want him to go.
When Phil initially answered the question with a response about children, that was a fine answer but not what Peter was looking for because it wasnt personal enough of an experience for Phil to really place himself there. To really change ones belief the question needs to get personal. So Peter put Phil in an imaginary situation of the kind he knew Phil had been in previously ("of the kind" but not exactly. Thats important). I suspect if Phil were an athlete, Peter would have placed him in a locker room or stadium or something.
So now, Phil is arguing the side of a man wearing a dress at THE conference where that behavior is least likely to be accepted. The Genspect conference would not have worked in this line of questioning because there was an added variable of trans. It is precicely the fact that it WASN'T a feminist conference that Peter didnt use Genspect.
As they go on in that particular exchange you see Phil actually start to argue somewhat vehemently for his strawman argument, curiously asking Peter why he thinks men should be able to wear dresses at feminist conferences and THEN pushing further with "well what if he were wearing this?..." That's the point where we start seeing Phil subconsciously testing his own belief by getting curious and creative about scenarios where it may be uncouth for a man to wear a dress to a feminist conference, to a place where a group of people have very good reasons to be ununaccepting of the behavior. It is this subconscious questioning that is the entire point of the exercise. The questioning had nothing to do with Genspect IMO except that Peter knew that the scenario would be salient to Phil having been in a similar controversy at a conference.
I think Peter is very smart, but more importantly he is very trained! Or skilled at what he does. Very skilled. And very calculating, unassumingly so... that's part of the ruse. I thought this was a brilliant episode when I first saw it a while back. Particularly because I knew the back story.
Side note: I spent a while selling timeshare. Sales is all about changing beliefs, and is analogous to exploring the psychology of standpoint epistemology. I say this ALL THE TIME... trans ideology is using these tactics to incredible effect. Its bone chilling! And I don't think it's by accident. Only nerds who know how to deploy these tactics actually see them. That's why I adore James Lindsey because he absolutely gets it. The tactics used to get trans ideology into a our schools and our policies are EXACTLY the ones used by Keith Reneire in the NXVIUM cult. Truly! And it's terrifying that 99% of people can't see it because they are not trained to.
Stella, I wouldn't read more into it than what I mentioned above. But also I would send a quick email to Peter to ask him because you may be surprised at his answer. Feel free to cut and paste... if he responds with an appology because im wrong def lmk 😂😬🤪
PS... your branding is PERFECT. Leave it alone. It needs to be ambiguous because the science and evidence to promote "healthy" may change over time. You need to leave the door open.
"Genspect is an international, non-partisan, interdisciplinary organization committed to promoting a healthy, evidence-based approach to sex and gender."
This is very interesting, Nyla. Thanks!
Lol... after writing all that I realize I could have just explained how planting presuppositions work. If you're interested google that. Its fascinating! If anyone is in Scotland, Kain Ramsey is a nice example of using these tactics for personal good. But often they are used by cults and skilled salesmen. Peter uses them for philosophical exploration 😆... Im kind of smitten with that
I wonder if that’s the key to getting our kids out of this cult?
I’ll try to be diplomatic but honest.
In word lists and language data, female tends to appear more frequently in association with gender than male. This is largely because discussions around gender often focus on issues historically affecting women, such as gender equality, gender roles, and gender discrimination, which have been topics of societal debate for a long time. Terms like gender pay gap, gender equality, and gender bias often connect more strongly with female than male in texts, even though they apply to all genders. It’s a statistical bias problem and recall.
Had you chosen a different word, the “brand” might not have automatically inherited association with the word woman or female, female empowerment and feminism. While there’s nothing wrong with those ideas, those connotations limit the instant impression of the organization.
A similar problem used to surrounded the word “black”.
The “Black is Beautiful” movement of the 1960s aimed to counter negative associations with the word Black in society. Common uses of black often carried unfavorable meanings, such as blacklist (to exclude or ban someone), blackball (to reject or vote against someone), black sheep (someone considered a disgrace in the family), black mark (a sign of discredit or shame), and blackout (a loss of power or consciousness).
When “genspect” was announced I was skeptical because use of the term gender, applied to people, also propagates the pseudo-science of human gender - gender is not a term which has a basis in empirical medical science.
Had it been a different artificial word like “variescient” “Variescience” or even “varispect” and avoid the term gender, it would connote variation, diversity, or the quality of being varied or divergent. It could work well for an organization focused on biological diversity, individual differences, or scientific exploration of variation.
The second problem is the fragment “gen” which has ineluctably bound yourself to the word “transgender” which has problematic connotations. “Genspect” sounds like “respect for transgender” or “transgender perspectives”.
Shedding the word gender would dramatically sharpen the intent on first encounter substantially.
This is so interesting because when I first heard "genspect" I thought of spectacles, and then "suspect" as in the slang "suss" which is popular in the US tween scene. But the connotation to me was about critically evaluating the subject.
In a couple episodes of "Julie in Genderland" (5 stars! by the way) they talk about whether gender clinics are necessary at all after Cass. On the one hand, no. Because we now know that trans is a symptom of the underlying conditions which we have established treatment for. But on the other hand, if we are dealing with cult mentality, then it may not be prudent to rip the rug out from under the expectations of the adherents. Especially when the need for mental health treatment of any kind far exceeds the supply of complex treatment and interventions. At the very least, I think it makes sense to have a place where the facade of gender is tracked and addressed and peeled back to reveal the true nature of the problem that a person is navigating. I also a potential purpose in grouping this cohort together to make those seeking help feel more comfortable at first, save face, feel like they are in the "right place", to build rapport.
Likewise, with the term gender, it has been co-opted to mean something other than sex. But now it's out there in the wild, and we can't simply force the genie back in the bottle overnight. We can't deprogram people on a mass scale because deprogramming takes time and personal attention. A better strategy might be to use the same slight of hand tactics against the cult, to lure in the fringe who are on the fence, because you won't change any beliefs with Genspect alone. And I think the cause will be better off dispensing with that illusion altogether. But we CAN build rapport with people who have some kind of curiosity about the subject and build a coalition of reality based non-believers across many different fields.
The goal, in my opinion, is to get a majority of the world's population inoculated against indoctrination into this belief system. At that point, we can shore up our institutions to sideline the religion (gender ideology). The thing is, we can't force this on people. They have to come to these conclusions on their own. Which is why evidence based medicine and a commitment to enlightenment values is so important here. The separation of church and state is what will win out IF we can hold the line. We musn't change our language because they steel meaning from our shared understanding. We must reestablish our shared secular meaning.
So, I guess I fear taking the word gender out of it, because that's the "hook" so to speak. The hook We can use to build rapport and then reprogram as many as we can
Thought more about what you wrote, quite intriguing.
Not something I recall reading: what is inoculation in this context? I’m gong to blather for a few moments…
I’m inoculated to a variety of modern thought junk - social media, TV, online porn, gaming, texting, AI, critical theory, “gender”, trans… because I played with the ideas decades ago, a reason why I’m a huge free speech absolutist.
Trans people used to keep very secretive, but I’ve watched activity over the last 20 years which changed. I had a “trans activist”, and noted computer scientist Lynn Conway speak at an event in 2001, and I realized that now only was he bonkers, but that when he spoke glowingly about puberty suppressors (2001 mind you) he didn’t understand human biology. That was when, for me, trans was absolutely clearly both a mental illness and dangerous. Free speech was great - you could see they were bonkers.
Puberty is the key to trans recent exposure. All children have anxiety at the onset of puberty. It has had many names, “being confused” or “exploring”, but if your body changed seemingly overnight your mind will react badly. There are many biological reasons why puberty is the time when psychosis, anxiety, depression and schizophrenia emerge.
What would inoculate would seem to be exposure to trans (like exposure to teenage pregnancy on reality tv), combined with the harsh reality (Jazz today), but you still need something to offset puberty anxiety which cannot be resolved by blocking it. I think Parents have to also be part of the reality (the nightmare they enter), since only they can approve radical damage.
I think physicians and psychologists are the ultimate target since they keep promoting bad ideas.
It’s swirling around in my head. Thanks.
Indoctrinate is probably a better word there. I don't mean teach people a little about trans ideology In order to build their immunity. I mean teach children and parents, explicitly, that there are only two sexes, puberty can be tough but isnt always (wasnt at all for me), there is no right way to be a girl or boy, and you might be attracted to the same sex.
I think we took for granted that message. We thought "well of course everyone in the west thinks this way now" ...and we did. But the disease mutated. Homophobia and misoginy mutated into trans. Just like racism in america mutated to "anti-racism". Antisemitism in the west mutated to "anti-zionism" or "pro-palestinian" ...its all the same thing. And I think we have all but lost a generation of kids. So what we need to do now is teach them liberal values and...free speech! Free thought. Re-indoctrinate them into a thought process that rises above the basest of reactionary ideologies.
I am one of the only people I know who explicitly over and over again have told my 9 and 11 year olds that they will encounter boys and girls who think they are the opposite sex and given them tools to manage those experiences with compassion and with boundaries. They understand that gender/trans is a fantasy, and kids are allowed to have fantasies, but it's a belief, and we dont make rules for everyone based on belief, otherwise we would all be in Burquas or in sunday school. We have many discussions about the difference between belief and objective reality. We have conversations about why these things matter in a practical sense. We have conversations about race and how these dynamics are playing out there. All of this is done in a way to give them tools to think. I don't tell them what they should know. I actually just ask them questions and they come to their own conclusions.
I've not only done this with my own kids but I do it with playdates as well because I have a yard full of DI-AG signs so the kids ask... what's it all about? 😆 The number one question that gets them thinking is "can you tell me...what do you think is the right way to be a girl?" Hearing them say back, "that's silly! Of course, there's no right way to be a girl" gives me hope because they are saying it themselves. They are actively thinking! That's inocculation... they are thinking about the subject in a critical way... unknowingly. Lol... sneaky.
Little kids can absolutely understand what's going on here, us parents just have to get to them first because society is not doing that job. Perhaps that's how it always should have been, and we parents just loosened the reins and are paying the consequences. The most terrifying thing to me is that my 9 & 11 yo girls are the only kids and their friend groups who aren't in therapy at this time. Think about that... why are all the children in therapy at age 10? Parents have simply stopped parenting I think. They don't know what to say.They don't know how to take a stand. Everyone is too busy being politically correct and "kind". But love and compassion and truth are not always kind.
So I guess a more apt term is indoctrinate. We need to indoctrinate the next generation of children and parents with a shared reality based on liberal values.
Great mom!
That’s beautifully written, rational reply, thanks.
I don’t foresee “putting the gen back in the bottle” with genspect but the feminism attribution I hope makes sense.
I do agree that honeypots are good attractants and may help in that senses, perhaps that’s a good outcome here.
So, I saw Bogho's Spectrum Street Epistemology with Illy when it was first posted, but I'm not on Twitter, so I just now had to read through Illy's essay, 'I blew up the internet by wearing a dress to a gender conference' to find the Genspect connection.
Or what I thought was the Genspect connection. In the essay, Illy goes on to make a careful distinction between Genspect and the Twitterati involved in the online fuss. He further narrows that frame to the ‘many of the illiberal camp’ (within gender-critical feminism) who were complaining on Twitter about an autogynephilic man wearing a frock at a conference.
Went back and watched that bit again. Bogho (being the avid Twitter enjoyer he is) looks to be reframing that situation with regard to the feminists who made the fuss on Twitter. The Genspect conference itself is irrelevant to the thought experiment, and I genuinely don’t think it’s being specifically referenced here. Using an alternative, hypothetical and generalised ‘feminist conference’ as the scenario is deliberately posed to create that degree of detachment, and because the complaints were mostly (according to Illy) from online feminists, the arguments largely irrelevant to the conference per se, and also heedless of its spirit.
Genspect remains my primary source for comprehensive, rational, evidence-based information on gender non-conformity. One of the main reasons for that is because it's carefully kept free of unhelpful polemic.
In this regard, rest assured; Genspect and Stella O’Malley remain on brand.
Stella you’re a guiding light don’t worry about labels (aren’t they a big part of the problem?) Peter is entitled to make a comment like that but he’s also in need of being corrected if he’s wrong. It’s understandable to be disappointed when it’s someone you admire too. Onward!
Don't we like telling those who go into meltdowns when they are 'misgendered" or don't pass that you can't control how others perceive you?
I don't think that it's a branding issue, but a perception issue.
Once someone has a certain perception of you, it's hard to have them change their mind.
This may be a redundant comment now that Peter put out a public apology to you on X
But I thought it was good that it bothered you…Branding is going to be inevitable as Genspect grows. It’s great that you want to be clear about its mission & how it is perceived moving forward. I really hope it doesn’t lead to a softening though, if that makes sense, in order to appease all groups.Its been interesting to me, how religion for instance, has resurfaced as somewhat of a life saver for many parents. Not for everyone of course, but I don’t want any element of shame or playing down of supposed right wing leanings. As your podcast is aptly named ‘a wider lens’ your work encompasses so many aspects. As long as it is always truthful…perhaps just have to be resilient to how it may get ‘branded’
How on earth a non medicalized approach can be seen as anything other than the best way forward is beyond me
Thank you and I agree!
Like some others have mentioned, I, too, think the Venn diagram is great. I wonder if it would be worth it to add a section representing the hard sciences. This would represent evolutionary biologists (like Colin Wright), sexologists (like Debra Soh), and medical doctors who object based on their hippocratic oath. Thank you so much for all you've done. I'm a big fan of your substack and GWL.
That’sa great idea! I’ll try
I know I've perhaps over-extended my big mouth here on this thread 🤪, but I just want to add a shout out to Stella and to ALL the commenter's here who humble me every day with the bravery to flesh this stuff out in real time!
Half of the reason I subscribe to all these substacks is to remind myself I'm not crazy. But its not in the agreeing that makes me feel sane. I find sanity in the voices who don't necessarily agree and show up anyway. I guess in this case I'm one who disagrees but often I'm not, and I appreciate each and every person who throws down ideas no matter what.
Its so important that we hatch out ideas, now more than ever! So, just thanks everyone! And as always, Stella you're a hero.
I was glad to see you write this in your first paragraph..."However, the tendency to label every woman who criticises trans ideology as a ‘gender-critical feminist’ continues. This is bad for everyone – for gender critical feminists and for everyone else who criticises trans ideology". Being a Gen X gal, I've never really considered myself a 'feminist'--I guess that's b/c boomers were on it OR it could be related to growing up in the Pacific Northwest. I've never considered Genspect a 'feminist' movement. Kinda weird that Peter said that--maybe he'll take it back;-) The diagram is really good and it reminds me of what is happening in my neck of the woods. Seattle, Portland and SF have taken liberal progressive to another level. Unless you live here, you just can't truly get it. Seattle in particular is mecca for all things radical and unsafe on many levels. Schools have become ground zero! See NYT & ST, What Have We Liberals Done to the West Coast by Nicholas Kristoff--another by Jon Talton Seattle and Other Liberal Western Cities Face a Reckoning. Parents need to be super proactive and we could use a Genspect chapter dedicated to this region alone. https://nwtsj.org/.../uploads/2024/09/NWTSJ-Flyer-2024.pdf
Yes he was very gracious https://x.com/peterboghossian/status/1850666273413419472?s=46
Turns out he's not as skilled as I thought and it was just a mistake. Looks like its me who is reading too much into it. 😂