Thank you for writing this. It's one of the most thoughtful responses to this controversy that I've seen. Everyone seems so certain in their opinion on this. I feel like I'm in a minority of people who have a lot of thoughts that don't fit into either side of this argument.
For example:
Phil had every right to be there and dress as he chooses and saying he shouldn't have been is a kind of controlling behavior I don't like. But I also have to admit it makes me somewhat uncomfortable to see him wearing a dress when, for someone with AGP, clothes are so directly associated with sexual arousal. For what it's worth, I would feel the same way if a straight woman who openly, repeatedly, and publicly talks about her BDSM interests came to work wearing bondage gear as part of her outfit. I wouldn't make a scene or call her a terrible person, but I'm also not a bad person for having my feelings of "yeah, I'd prefer you keep that at home."
There have been some radfem & GC people making some AWFUL comments about Phil that fall well outside of basic decency. I have no patience for listening to arguments that rely on cruelty and personal attacks. But I am also disappointed in the online behavior of some people defending Phil who claim they have a compassionate approach and want nuanced conversations engaging in the kind of insults, name-calling, and social media toxic behavior of the people attacking Phil. We're not helping anyone this way.
Finally, I think what Phil was wearing or his identity as an AGP (or AHS) is the LEAST important thing to be discussed and critiqued. I would rather talk about critiques of his theories, their strengths and their weaknesses, and questions about him redefining certain terms to better fit his theories (as Lisa Selin Davis did in her interview with him). I'd rather push back on things he's said about adolescent girls and ROGD that I think show a serious gap in his knowledge. I'd want to have conversations about whether Phil has a blurred line between objectivity and personal bias/lived experience or if others give too much weight to the status of "self-aware AGP" when engaging with what he says.
I don't know the answers, but I appreciate this piece for being willing to engage more thoughtfully on this controversy.
it can be as simple as: he has a right to wear a dress, and I have a right to find it odd/creepy/whatever. in the past, that meant you could stare, maybe even elbow the person next to you and say: Get a load of that. Now there are people who rush up to a man in a dress and gush about brave and beautiful he is.
I'd like to go back to the social contract circa 1990: everyone can be odd, but it will be noticed & noted
Thanks for your thoughts. It's not that he doesn't have the right, it's that his presence was in really, really, really poor taste. Profoundly insensitive to and re-stimulating of the fresh trauma of the victims of the gender cult.
Nov 10, 2023·edited Nov 10, 2023Liked by Shannon Thrace
I'm so glad you responded to this moment. For some, the photo of Illy at the event was a turning point of sorts. For me, the online *reaction* to his presence, and the fact that anyone would *perceive* his presence at Genspect as a turning point...was itself a turning point! Especially when I learned he hadn't been a speaker, that this dust-up was an internet-driven festival of mouth frothing.
If you search "Genspect" on Twitter/X, this conversation (or should I say CONVERSATION) momentarily overshadowed the conference--but from the reactions I keep seeing to the conference itself, the event was a success, and a lot of people made good connections there, and left renewed. I also feel certain that for every person going online to tell everybody how Genspect was a big ol' griftfest, there are ten more of us watching from the sidelines, quietly thinking that the conference seemed...I dunno, like it went pretty well? (Also, the cost of the tickets seemed in line with other conferences and trade shows I've attended, but maybe I'm wrong about that? That was another online controversy that I have since seen making the rounds.)
I think over time that the information Genspect puts out after the conference will outweigh the flare-up of rage and infighting that followed. And frankly, there were some really important conversations started (NOT in allcaps) as a result of the mouth frothing one.
In the meantime, it’s clear Genspect made a real impact on the people who were actually *at the conference*, like you, and that impact can’t help but carry.
I have been trying all day to write something along the same lines from a parents pov. I wasn't at the event , I viewed online, and am so dismayed that this has taken centre stage over the truly important talks that were given over the weekend. What you have written is much clearer and less emotional than my attempt, thank you.
They made it worse by getting defensive. They didn't do a good read of the room, rather let their egos overrule their common sense. It happens. Not the end of the world.
Wonderful article, Shannon. I have long thought (even before this issue became personal for my family) that rigid gender roles were a contributing factor to why someone might feel himself to be the opposite sex. Over the past 70 years or so society has come a long way in lifting restrictions on female dress and behaviors. We wear pants, play sports, have careers - all things our great-grandmothers wouldn’t have imagined - and are now celebrated and encouraged by society to do these things. But there hasn’t really been a corresponding broadening of acceptable behaviors for men. Wearing dresses or makeup, freely expressing emotions, doing traditionally female activities like dance, or being a stay at home parent or a traditionally female job like a nurse are still more or less not accepted for men by mainstream society. At the very least they’ll be the butt of jokes or suggestions that they are lacking in manhood (whatever that means). I have to imagine that when little boys are told “boys don’t cry” “boys are tough” “boys don’t like pink” “boys don’t play with dolls”, a boy might conclude that he doesn’t meet those criteria and therefore isn’t really a boy.
I think a big part of the answer is that we have to recognize that while there are some inherent psychological differences between the sexes, there are also lots of completely arbitrary social conventions. People who can’t or won’t conform to arbitrary social conventions haven’t changed anything about the nature of themselves. They are still male or female, whichever they happen to be, and liking pink sparkly clothes should be a non-issue (and in fact might be totally socially acceptable for males in a different time or place).
While the broadening of gender expectations for males might not help the AGPs, I think it would go a long way toward helping those who believe themselves to be trans for other reasons and also just for clarifying the issue overall.
To me, it seems impossible to oppose trans ideology without also recognizing that clothing and hairstyles mean nothing. Allowing people to follow their own preferences and nature without saying that it somehow redefines what they are is exactly the solution to the problem.
Trying to enforce rigid conformity does nothing but limit and pressure most people, while completely alienating those who fall furthest from the norm in their personality characteristics. There will always be people who can’t or won’t conform, and many others who do but pay the price of never being fully themselves. The trick is to let people be who they are, while also acknowledging that it doesn’t change anything about WHAT they are. Don’t confuse stereotypes about a group of people with the definition of that group of people.
The gender essentialism of trans activism has bothered me for a long time. And it’s really no different from the essentialism of conservatives. There’s a bucket of “girl things” and a bucket of “boy things.” The main difference is that conservatives think your sex determines which bucket you’re allowed to pick things from and trans activists think which bucket you pick things from determines your gender.
But they’re all just “things” and we should be able to pick whichever ones we find interesting without it impacting our understanding of what sex is, biologically.
I agree with you about the purist approach representing ego and individualism. This incident has really highlighted the differences in how people approach this and why they’re in the conversation!
During my time on feminist blogs and tumblr in the late aughts and early ‘10s, I came to see certain strains of trans rights activism as being deeply hostile to freedom of thought, freedom of speech, and freedom of association, particularly for women, but really for everyone. Originally that was my main concern. It was much less about “gender” for me, really, except to say that sex still exists and matters (how much and in which circumstances is a matter of debate for those smarter than I am).
I dunno. I like Phil Illy and I’m grateful for the work he’s doing.
Phils aim as a Queer Theorist is to dismantle heteronormative. Deconstructivism sounds kind of cool and edgy. The political agenda of Phil Illy is not pro women. He is for advancing "male sexual rights". He promotes another iteration of the oppressed/ oppressor narrative and if adopted the only outcome can be chaos and disorder, particularly impacting the vulnerable.
I've read bits of it. Saw no mention of queer theory, deconstructionism, oppression, or dismantling the heteronormative. Mostly a bunch of rambling about a bunch of sexual orientations he imagines men and women have.
Its not my intention to tell you I think you’re wrong or that I’m right. I have strong opinions that get fused with beliefs, world views, values/ethics, life experience, knowledge, etc…When observing AGPGate I came to a different view from what you have about Phil, Genspect and the Genspect interaction with critics. I welcome discourse because it is through communications we hope to find the best outcomes and the middle way.
I found that Phil had another interview with BB 4 months ago and are listening to that at the moment. I still do not feel cool about allowing him perform his paraphilia in a place where they discuss child safeguarding and there are many trans widows and detransitioners present. It was disturbing to see some of your commenters dissing those people as playing the “victim card”, so hardhearted! But hey, it’s a valid view. I would sooner support women and their vulnerable feelings than put Phils need first.
I met a woman during the conference whose son believes his trans. She described his interest in My Little Ponies, anime, etc.--and then said "I don't think it's autogynephilia," when we know there's a pretty strong link between these sexual cartoon subcultures and autogynephilia. My theory is (similar to yours) that she just cannot bring herself to see her son as sexual, and/or as a pervert, which at that age really only means that his sexuality is developing along abnormal lines (imagine that, in this day and age) which we might be able to analyze and diagnose and even fix if we were brave enough to consider that.
"...the presumption that autogynephilia meant an excess of sexuality, or sexual maturity, when the phenomenon is likely to result in the opposite: as autogynephilia is directed inwards (analloerotic), it can nullify outwards (alloerotic) gynephilic (attraction towards women) interest, or mean that such interest is delayed."
This is a great point, and if talked about, might help parents come to terms with the possibility that autogynephilia describes their son's problem.
"To those members of the anti-'gender identity' movement who funnel vitriol indiscriminately towards autogynephilia, it will be an unpleasant fact that this vitriol will inevitably spill over onto boys who are struggling with their identity..."
This is me we’re talking about and I really value your insights. I do think my son has now waded into ATP.
At one point, he said “mom, I was into some pretty sick porn”.
I’m not naive at ALL! He was groomed!!
But this was NOT my kid growing up.
We parents for the most part, know our kids.
I cannot tell you how maddening, infuriating it is to have casual friends and strangers TELL US that they know our children better than we do. I swear, I could STAB them (metaphorically).
Shannon: " 'To those members of the anti-'gender identity' movement who funnel vitriol indiscriminately towards autogynephilia ...'
Yes. Those boys can see us."
Indeed -- too many in the "anti-gender-identity" are rather unhinged and are arguably more a part of the problem than of the solution.
But "gender" itself isn't the problem -- as both you and Stella O'Malley emphasize by acknowledging "gender nonconforming" and as Genspect's recent magnum opus does:
The problem there is the rather dogmatic insistence of too many that sex and gender are synonymous.
Nor is "gender identity" itself the problem. What is the problem is a similar insistence that, for example, a "female gender identity" -- presumably exhibited by some transwomen -- is the same as a female sex.
As I put it in my post "Is Nothing Sacred?" and paraphrasing an article in the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy [SEP] on "Personal Identity":
"we might argue that 'gender identity': … refers to feminine and masculine personality traits to which we feel a special sense of attachment or ownership. My gender identity in this sense consists of those feminine and masculine properties I take to 'define me as a person' or ‘make me the person I am’."
The problem is scientific and philosophical illiterates -- on all sides -- who refuse to define their terms with any degree of coherence and intellectual honesty:
I would disagree that they all suffer from a skewing of reality, though I do see that more in younger men. Older men (60-90) seem to be mixed. Many are very aware of themselves and know they are not and never will be women. Some view “dressing” as a therapeutic activity for private spaces only. Many of the men I knew were intelligent and fully aware. Not that I agree with them, but they weren’t delusional to the point that many of this generation of agp men seem to be
Yeah, you really don't know what you're talking about. If you want to learn, read accounts written by trans widows or other victims of narcissistic abuse. You don't even know enough to know how embarrassed and ashamed you should be for trivializing the mental illness of AGPs in any way.
They may not be delusional but the fact they have a clear self-interest in pushing policy/agendas their way makes their involvement highly questionable. Are they involved in the argument in good faith or there to derail/coopt the GC movement to enable them to keep practicing their fetish?
It is well established that AGP is progressive, that paraphilias cluster and are comorbid with other conditions like NPD. These are known facts so to naively welcome such men is I believe very short-sighted.
Perfectly said! I can now ignore all Twitter comments on the subject.
I would add that it’s instructive to follow your gut reaction (mine was shock) and check in with yourself to see why “being kind” (my instinct) kicks in. I feel like to do need to evaluate the “be kind and accepting” instinct after having relied on it to think TIM in women’s sports was ok.
I was at the conference. As a woman, I was not at all threatened by Phil. I want our society to be enlightened enough for people to wear whatever they want. It didn’t feel like he was wearing his fetish garb in front of us, and I really do believe him when he says that, even though dressing like a woman is part of his sexual orientation, he is not constantly aroused when he does. He did not force himself into women’s spaces. He does not claim to be a woman. However, as an ROGD parent, I did find part of his appearance there upsetting. My child is female to male, so I can only imagine that the parents of male to female children who have medically transitioned and who are estranged would have been even more upset by his presence and presentation. Here’s the thing, though. If he were saying that the condition of AGP should never lead to medicalization, then I think he would be a huge advocate and actually be reassuring for parents. But he says that if he could pass as female, he would medically transition, thus indirectly, or even directly, advocating for childhood medical transition and treatment with puberty blockers. He does acknowledge that it might be difficult to discern what child is AGP and what child is gay at a young age, but he does seem to suggest that there is a possibility of this distinction, and therefore a valid greenlight to childhood medicalization. That is the main issue for me. Just like I wouldn’t have an issue and didn’t have an issue with female to male transitioners there who are saying that medicalization probably isn’t right for the vast majority of, if any, childhood or ROGD onset of gender dysphoria, I would find it hopeful to have self proclaimed AGP individuals as part of the dialogue and mission to stop harmful medicalization of anybody’s inner sense of themselves. It should be society that changes in terms of regressive stereotypes, misogyny and misandry, harmful porn, impossible standards of beauty, etc. etc. etc. rather than people needing to dangerously change their bodies in response to society
"It is easy to fool someone, but almost impossible to convince them that they have been fooled." --don't remember who
No one ever claimed you would feel threatened by Phil at first meeting. That's not how AGPs work. They are highly skilled manipulators and bullshitters. They have a lifetime of experience at it. You will have little chance of avoiding falling under their spell if they have enough time to work on you.
The people who have experience with the kind of manipulation that AGPs do, warn you about this. It's up to you what you want to do about it. But don't say we didn't warn you!
In political science, the word "fissiparous" (from the same root as "fissile") refers to the nature of radical elements to break apart, producing great energy in the form of heat, blast, and sometimes a bit of enlightenment
still talking riddles. I'm not a radical (any longer)
The radicals are the ones asserting humans can change sex and that some children should be facilitated to live lives as sex mimics. Just the fact that gender loons are drawn to Genspect like certain insects to certain substances indicates they must be getting some sort of validation for their delusions, including probably paid work.
Anyway, having followed some of your commentary on X it seems you're very pissed with the women still holding the line for biological realism and refusing the true trans myth. I still like you regardless! I hope you get back to plain speaking soon instead of these cryptic pronunciations.
Matt tends to be rather narrow-minded and dogmatic. He quite reasonably champions much of Genspect, but then refuses to consider that they endorse the concept of gender which he insists on anathematizing. And gets quite "peeved" when people point out the discrepancy, the fly in the ointment he's peddling:
You both may wish to consider a recent post by Stella O'Malley where she offers a reasonable defense of the "Phil Illy Incident" that more or less reflects much of Shannon's argument:
But of particular note are these passages, of more than a few:
SM: "At Genspect we grapple with questions such as how we should handle feminine boys and masculine girls. .... I knew many feminine boys when I was coming of age in the 1980s. These teenagers were products of their generation and wore black eyeliner and billowing satin shirts. They looked fabulous. I’ve no idea if any of them became autogynephilic in their later years. Sadly, there is no room for gender-nonconforming boys in society at the moment."
Though Stella's own anathematizing of "gender ideology" seems not to "square" very well with her clear endorsement of the underlying concept -- as does their "Gender Framework" (section 1.1.3 titled 'Gender is a spectrum') -- at least unless she's alluding to the more toxic manifestations.
Entirely echoing the late great US Justice Anton Scalia:
Scalia: “The word 'gender' has acquired the new and useful connotation of cultural or attitudinal characteristics (as opposed to physical characteristics) distinctive to the sexes. That is to say, gender is to sex as feminine is to female and masculine is to male.”
If y'all want to spike those more toxic manifestations, then I think a good start would be to start singing from the same page in the hymn book, would be to endorse that dichotomy between sex and gender, the rather profound difference between male/female and masculine/feminine, between reproductive biology and the psychological traits that typically, though not necessarily follow in their wake.
Tsk, tsk. Such language; why I never ... What ever happened to civil debate? You part of the #NoDebate crowd?
You might actually try reading Stella's Split, at least this bit:
SM: "Anyone who knows their history will know that this inevitable split, unfortunately, might become very bitter. We hope it doesn’t."
You might try thinking that there are any number of fault lines in the crowd under Stella's "umbrella", the widening and deepening of which may yet swallow your whole movement. And which you're contributing to with your narrow-minded and dogmatic ignorance.
Apropos of which, you might actually try asking yourself exactly what does it take to qualify as a member of a category, "male" in particular. As a "guide for the perplexed", see Wikipedia's article on definitions, even these few sentences which even you should be able to manage:
Wikipedia: "An intensional definition gives meaning to a term by specifying necessary and sufficient conditions for when the term should be used. In the case of nouns, this is equivalent to specifying the properties that an object needs to have in order to be counted as a referent of the term."
So, which "properties" must an adult human have to qualify as a male?
You either have to specify that "necessary and sufficient condition" or you have to accept that "male" is no more than an "immutable 🙄" identity to you. The latter of which puts you in the same boat as the transloonie nutcases.
And if you DO specify that property then you either go with the standard biological definitions -- i.e., functional testicles -- or you run up your flag as a peddler of folk-biology and as a science denier.
Of particular note there is a recent post by Stella O'Malley which speaks to your "fissiparous". As well as to your apparent inability to see any merit in the concept of gender.
Thank you for writing this. It's one of the most thoughtful responses to this controversy that I've seen. Everyone seems so certain in their opinion on this. I feel like I'm in a minority of people who have a lot of thoughts that don't fit into either side of this argument.
For example:
Phil had every right to be there and dress as he chooses and saying he shouldn't have been is a kind of controlling behavior I don't like. But I also have to admit it makes me somewhat uncomfortable to see him wearing a dress when, for someone with AGP, clothes are so directly associated with sexual arousal. For what it's worth, I would feel the same way if a straight woman who openly, repeatedly, and publicly talks about her BDSM interests came to work wearing bondage gear as part of her outfit. I wouldn't make a scene or call her a terrible person, but I'm also not a bad person for having my feelings of "yeah, I'd prefer you keep that at home."
There have been some radfem & GC people making some AWFUL comments about Phil that fall well outside of basic decency. I have no patience for listening to arguments that rely on cruelty and personal attacks. But I am also disappointed in the online behavior of some people defending Phil who claim they have a compassionate approach and want nuanced conversations engaging in the kind of insults, name-calling, and social media toxic behavior of the people attacking Phil. We're not helping anyone this way.
Finally, I think what Phil was wearing or his identity as an AGP (or AHS) is the LEAST important thing to be discussed and critiqued. I would rather talk about critiques of his theories, their strengths and their weaknesses, and questions about him redefining certain terms to better fit his theories (as Lisa Selin Davis did in her interview with him). I'd rather push back on things he's said about adolescent girls and ROGD that I think show a serious gap in his knowledge. I'd want to have conversations about whether Phil has a blurred line between objectivity and personal bias/lived experience or if others give too much weight to the status of "self-aware AGP" when engaging with what he says.
I don't know the answers, but I appreciate this piece for being willing to engage more thoughtfully on this controversy.
it can be as simple as: he has a right to wear a dress, and I have a right to find it odd/creepy/whatever. in the past, that meant you could stare, maybe even elbow the person next to you and say: Get a load of that. Now there are people who rush up to a man in a dress and gush about brave and beautiful he is.
I'd like to go back to the social contract circa 1990: everyone can be odd, but it will be noticed & noted
Thanks for your thoughts. It's not that he doesn't have the right, it's that his presence was in really, really, really poor taste. Profoundly insensitive to and re-stimulating of the fresh trauma of the victims of the gender cult.
A reminder.
https://shannonthrace.substack.com/p/ranting-is-not-activism
First time for everything ... 😉🙂
I'm so glad you responded to this moment. For some, the photo of Illy at the event was a turning point of sorts. For me, the online *reaction* to his presence, and the fact that anyone would *perceive* his presence at Genspect as a turning point...was itself a turning point! Especially when I learned he hadn't been a speaker, that this dust-up was an internet-driven festival of mouth frothing.
If you search "Genspect" on Twitter/X, this conversation (or should I say CONVERSATION) momentarily overshadowed the conference--but from the reactions I keep seeing to the conference itself, the event was a success, and a lot of people made good connections there, and left renewed. I also feel certain that for every person going online to tell everybody how Genspect was a big ol' griftfest, there are ten more of us watching from the sidelines, quietly thinking that the conference seemed...I dunno, like it went pretty well? (Also, the cost of the tickets seemed in line with other conferences and trade shows I've attended, but maybe I'm wrong about that? That was another online controversy that I have since seen making the rounds.)
I think over time that the information Genspect puts out after the conference will outweigh the flare-up of rage and infighting that followed. And frankly, there were some really important conversations started (NOT in allcaps) as a result of the mouth frothing one.
In the meantime, it’s clear Genspect made a real impact on the people who were actually *at the conference*, like you, and that impact can’t help but carry.
I have been trying all day to write something along the same lines from a parents pov. I wasn't at the event , I viewed online, and am so dismayed that this has taken centre stage over the truly important talks that were given over the weekend. What you have written is much clearer and less emotional than my attempt, thank you.
They made it worse by getting defensive. They didn't do a good read of the room, rather let their egos overrule their common sense. It happens. Not the end of the world.
Wonderful article, Shannon. I have long thought (even before this issue became personal for my family) that rigid gender roles were a contributing factor to why someone might feel himself to be the opposite sex. Over the past 70 years or so society has come a long way in lifting restrictions on female dress and behaviors. We wear pants, play sports, have careers - all things our great-grandmothers wouldn’t have imagined - and are now celebrated and encouraged by society to do these things. But there hasn’t really been a corresponding broadening of acceptable behaviors for men. Wearing dresses or makeup, freely expressing emotions, doing traditionally female activities like dance, or being a stay at home parent or a traditionally female job like a nurse are still more or less not accepted for men by mainstream society. At the very least they’ll be the butt of jokes or suggestions that they are lacking in manhood (whatever that means). I have to imagine that when little boys are told “boys don’t cry” “boys are tough” “boys don’t like pink” “boys don’t play with dolls”, a boy might conclude that he doesn’t meet those criteria and therefore isn’t really a boy.
I think a big part of the answer is that we have to recognize that while there are some inherent psychological differences between the sexes, there are also lots of completely arbitrary social conventions. People who can’t or won’t conform to arbitrary social conventions haven’t changed anything about the nature of themselves. They are still male or female, whichever they happen to be, and liking pink sparkly clothes should be a non-issue (and in fact might be totally socially acceptable for males in a different time or place).
While the broadening of gender expectations for males might not help the AGPs, I think it would go a long way toward helping those who believe themselves to be trans for other reasons and also just for clarifying the issue overall.
To me, it seems impossible to oppose trans ideology without also recognizing that clothing and hairstyles mean nothing. Allowing people to follow their own preferences and nature without saying that it somehow redefines what they are is exactly the solution to the problem.
Trying to enforce rigid conformity does nothing but limit and pressure most people, while completely alienating those who fall furthest from the norm in their personality characteristics. There will always be people who can’t or won’t conform, and many others who do but pay the price of never being fully themselves. The trick is to let people be who they are, while also acknowledging that it doesn’t change anything about WHAT they are. Don’t confuse stereotypes about a group of people with the definition of that group of people.
The gender essentialism of trans activism has bothered me for a long time. And it’s really no different from the essentialism of conservatives. There’s a bucket of “girl things” and a bucket of “boy things.” The main difference is that conservatives think your sex determines which bucket you’re allowed to pick things from and trans activists think which bucket you pick things from determines your gender.
But they’re all just “things” and we should be able to pick whichever ones we find interesting without it impacting our understanding of what sex is, biologically.
So well put. Reading this was like taking a much needed breath of sanity. And a few lol’s along the way. Thanks for this, Shannon!
This is, quite simply, masterful. I'm glad I came across your work.
I agree with you about the purist approach representing ego and individualism. This incident has really highlighted the differences in how people approach this and why they’re in the conversation!
During my time on feminist blogs and tumblr in the late aughts and early ‘10s, I came to see certain strains of trans rights activism as being deeply hostile to freedom of thought, freedom of speech, and freedom of association, particularly for women, but really for everyone. Originally that was my main concern. It was much less about “gender” for me, really, except to say that sex still exists and matters (how much and in which circumstances is a matter of debate for those smarter than I am).
I dunno. I like Phil Illy and I’m grateful for the work he’s doing.
Phils aim as a Queer Theorist is to dismantle heteronormative. Deconstructivism sounds kind of cool and edgy. The political agenda of Phil Illy is not pro women. He is for advancing "male sexual rights". He promotes another iteration of the oppressed/ oppressor narrative and if adopted the only outcome can be chaos and disorder, particularly impacting the vulnerable.
Can you provide links of him saying any of that?
He wrote a book, have you read it?
Also check out an excellent interview with Benjamin Boyce, maybe 9-10 months ago.
I've read bits of it. Saw no mention of queer theory, deconstructionism, oppression, or dismantling the heteronormative. Mostly a bunch of rambling about a bunch of sexual orientations he imagines men and women have.
Its not my intention to tell you I think you’re wrong or that I’m right. I have strong opinions that get fused with beliefs, world views, values/ethics, life experience, knowledge, etc…When observing AGPGate I came to a different view from what you have about Phil, Genspect and the Genspect interaction with critics. I welcome discourse because it is through communications we hope to find the best outcomes and the middle way.
I found that Phil had another interview with BB 4 months ago and are listening to that at the moment. I still do not feel cool about allowing him perform his paraphilia in a place where they discuss child safeguarding and there are many trans widows and detransitioners present. It was disturbing to see some of your commenters dissing those people as playing the “victim card”, so hardhearted! But hey, it’s a valid view. I would sooner support women and their vulnerable feelings than put Phils need first.
Well said. And not just offensive to women, but to anyone with common sense and an understanding of appropriate boundaries.
Thank You!
It was appropriate for Phil to attend a conference on the subject of cross-sex identification, as he can explain what is going on with "ROGD" boys. The research on autogynephilia has been obscured by politics: https://since2010.substack.com/p/part-7-rogd-rapid-onset-gender-dysphoria
I met a woman during the conference whose son believes his trans. She described his interest in My Little Ponies, anime, etc.--and then said "I don't think it's autogynephilia," when we know there's a pretty strong link between these sexual cartoon subcultures and autogynephilia. My theory is (similar to yours) that she just cannot bring herself to see her son as sexual, and/or as a pervert, which at that age really only means that his sexuality is developing along abnormal lines (imagine that, in this day and age) which we might be able to analyze and diagnose and even fix if we were brave enough to consider that.
"...the presumption that autogynephilia meant an excess of sexuality, or sexual maturity, when the phenomenon is likely to result in the opposite: as autogynephilia is directed inwards (analloerotic), it can nullify outwards (alloerotic) gynephilic (attraction towards women) interest, or mean that such interest is delayed."
This is a great point, and if talked about, might help parents come to terms with the possibility that autogynephilia describes their son's problem.
"To those members of the anti-'gender identity' movement who funnel vitriol indiscriminately towards autogynephilia, it will be an unpleasant fact that this vitriol will inevitably spill over onto boys who are struggling with their identity..."
Yes. Those boys can see us.
Hi Shae,
This is me we’re talking about and I really value your insights. I do think my son has now waded into ATP.
At one point, he said “mom, I was into some pretty sick porn”.
I’m not naive at ALL! He was groomed!!
But this was NOT my kid growing up.
We parents for the most part, know our kids.
I cannot tell you how maddening, infuriating it is to have casual friends and strangers TELL US that they know our children better than we do. I swear, I could STAB them (metaphorically).
"Don't call them perverts, it might make them feel bad."
Talk about a complete insensitivity to the trauma suffered by the victims of AGPs. You of all people have absolutely no excuse for that.
Shannon: " 'To those members of the anti-'gender identity' movement who funnel vitriol indiscriminately towards autogynephilia ...'
Yes. Those boys can see us."
Indeed -- too many in the "anti-gender-identity" are rather unhinged and are arguably more a part of the problem than of the solution.
But "gender" itself isn't the problem -- as both you and Stella O'Malley emphasize by acknowledging "gender nonconforming" and as Genspect's recent magnum opus does:
https://shannonthrace.substack.com/p/genspect-and-agpgate/comment/43506600
The problem there is the rather dogmatic insistence of too many that sex and gender are synonymous.
Nor is "gender identity" itself the problem. What is the problem is a similar insistence that, for example, a "female gender identity" -- presumably exhibited by some transwomen -- is the same as a female sex.
As I put it in my post "Is Nothing Sacred?" and paraphrasing an article in the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy [SEP] on "Personal Identity":
"we might argue that 'gender identity': … refers to feminine and masculine personality traits to which we feel a special sense of attachment or ownership. My gender identity in this sense consists of those feminine and masculine properties I take to 'define me as a person' or ‘make me the person I am’."
https://humanuseofhumanbeings.substack.com/p/is-nothing-sacred-looking-into-the
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/identity-personal/#ProbPersIden
The problem is scientific and philosophical illiterates -- on all sides -- who refuse to define their terms with any degree of coherence and intellectual honesty:
https://quotefancy.com/quote/3001527/Will-Durant-If-you-wish-to-converse-with-me-said-Voltaire-define-your-terms-How-many-a
No. AGPs have profoundly skewed perceptions due to their mental illness, they are not reliable reporters of anything.
Hazel, I do think some do, but there are levels of involvement and levels of mental illness.
True. Some AGPs are merely envious and resentful of women. Others have a murderous rage toward them.
But they all suffer a fundamental skewing in their perception of reality.
I would disagree that they all suffer from a skewing of reality, though I do see that more in younger men. Older men (60-90) seem to be mixed. Many are very aware of themselves and know they are not and never will be women. Some view “dressing” as a therapeutic activity for private spaces only. Many of the men I knew were intelligent and fully aware. Not that I agree with them, but they weren’t delusional to the point that many of this generation of agp men seem to be
Yeah, you really don't know what you're talking about. If you want to learn, read accounts written by trans widows or other victims of narcissistic abuse. You don't even know enough to know how embarrassed and ashamed you should be for trivializing the mental illness of AGPs in any way.
They may not be delusional but the fact they have a clear self-interest in pushing policy/agendas their way makes their involvement highly questionable. Are they involved in the argument in good faith or there to derail/coopt the GC movement to enable them to keep practicing their fetish?
It is well established that AGP is progressive, that paraphilias cluster and are comorbid with other conditions like NPD. These are known facts so to naively welcome such men is I believe very short-sighted.
Orlando, were you formally known as "Tiresias" on twitter?
Thank you for covering this angle, Shannon.
ICYMI, you too might want to take a gander a Stella's latest on the "Phil Illy Incident", on "The Split":
https://genspect.org/the-split/
Likewise my latest thereon here:
https://shannonthrace.substack.com/p/genspect-and-agpgate/comment/43506600
Perfectly said! I can now ignore all Twitter comments on the subject.
I would add that it’s instructive to follow your gut reaction (mine was shock) and check in with yourself to see why “being kind” (my instinct) kicks in. I feel like to do need to evaluate the “be kind and accepting” instinct after having relied on it to think TIM in women’s sports was ok.
That said, loved your assessment.
I was at the conference. As a woman, I was not at all threatened by Phil. I want our society to be enlightened enough for people to wear whatever they want. It didn’t feel like he was wearing his fetish garb in front of us, and I really do believe him when he says that, even though dressing like a woman is part of his sexual orientation, he is not constantly aroused when he does. He did not force himself into women’s spaces. He does not claim to be a woman. However, as an ROGD parent, I did find part of his appearance there upsetting. My child is female to male, so I can only imagine that the parents of male to female children who have medically transitioned and who are estranged would have been even more upset by his presence and presentation. Here’s the thing, though. If he were saying that the condition of AGP should never lead to medicalization, then I think he would be a huge advocate and actually be reassuring for parents. But he says that if he could pass as female, he would medically transition, thus indirectly, or even directly, advocating for childhood medical transition and treatment with puberty blockers. He does acknowledge that it might be difficult to discern what child is AGP and what child is gay at a young age, but he does seem to suggest that there is a possibility of this distinction, and therefore a valid greenlight to childhood medicalization. That is the main issue for me. Just like I wouldn’t have an issue and didn’t have an issue with female to male transitioners there who are saying that medicalization probably isn’t right for the vast majority of, if any, childhood or ROGD onset of gender dysphoria, I would find it hopeful to have self proclaimed AGP individuals as part of the dialogue and mission to stop harmful medicalization of anybody’s inner sense of themselves. It should be society that changes in terms of regressive stereotypes, misogyny and misandry, harmful porn, impossible standards of beauty, etc. etc. etc. rather than people needing to dangerously change their bodies in response to society
"It is easy to fool someone, but almost impossible to convince them that they have been fooled." --don't remember who
No one ever claimed you would feel threatened by Phil at first meeting. That's not how AGPs work. They are highly skilled manipulators and bullshitters. They have a lifetime of experience at it. You will have little chance of avoiding falling under their spell if they have enough time to work on you.
The people who have experience with the kind of manipulation that AGPs do, warn you about this. It's up to you what you want to do about it. But don't say we didn't warn you!
You wouldn't necessarily know when he is aroused.
"falling under their spell"
You certainly seem bedazzled by them.
"I'm like, a whole other human being with the right to her opinion." Love this so much.
In political science, the word "fissiparous" (from the same root as "fissile") refers to the nature of radical elements to break apart, producing great energy in the form of heat, blast, and sometimes a bit of enlightenment
you've become quite obscure lately. Care to elaborate?
Radical politics gonna radical
still talking riddles. I'm not a radical (any longer)
The radicals are the ones asserting humans can change sex and that some children should be facilitated to live lives as sex mimics. Just the fact that gender loons are drawn to Genspect like certain insects to certain substances indicates they must be getting some sort of validation for their delusions, including probably paid work.
Anyway, having followed some of your commentary on X it seems you're very pissed with the women still holding the line for biological realism and refusing the true trans myth. I still like you regardless! I hope you get back to plain speaking soon instead of these cryptic pronunciations.
Matt tends to be rather narrow-minded and dogmatic. He quite reasonably champions much of Genspect, but then refuses to consider that they endorse the concept of gender which he insists on anathematizing. And gets quite "peeved" when people point out the discrepancy, the fly in the ointment he's peddling:
https://jennypoyerackerman.substack.com/p/critical-mass/comment/43459256
You both may wish to consider a recent post by Stella O'Malley where she offers a reasonable defense of the "Phil Illy Incident" that more or less reflects much of Shannon's argument:
https://genspect.org/the-split/
But of particular note are these passages, of more than a few:
SM: "At Genspect we grapple with questions such as how we should handle feminine boys and masculine girls. .... I knew many feminine boys when I was coming of age in the 1980s. These teenagers were products of their generation and wore black eyeliner and billowing satin shirts. They looked fabulous. I’ve no idea if any of them became autogynephilic in their later years. Sadly, there is no room for gender-nonconforming boys in society at the moment."
Though Stella's own anathematizing of "gender ideology" seems not to "square" very well with her clear endorsement of the underlying concept -- as does their "Gender Framework" (section 1.1.3 titled 'Gender is a spectrum') -- at least unless she's alluding to the more toxic manifestations.
https://genspect.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/11/The-Gender-Framework-Draft-One.pdf
Entirely echoing the late great US Justice Anton Scalia:
Scalia: “The word 'gender' has acquired the new and useful connotation of cultural or attitudinal characteristics (as opposed to physical characteristics) distinctive to the sexes. That is to say, gender is to sex as feminine is to female and masculine is to male.”
https://tile.loc.gov/storage-services/service/ll/usrep/usrep511/usrep511127/usrep511127.pdf
If y'all want to spike those more toxic manifestations, then I think a good start would be to start singing from the same page in the hymn book, would be to endorse that dichotomy between sex and gender, the rather profound difference between male/female and masculine/feminine, between reproductive biology and the psychological traits that typically, though not necessarily follow in their wake.
Literally not the one arguing that men who lose their testicles are less male.
Fuck off Steers.
Tsk, tsk. Such language; why I never ... What ever happened to civil debate? You part of the #NoDebate crowd?
You might actually try reading Stella's Split, at least this bit:
SM: "Anyone who knows their history will know that this inevitable split, unfortunately, might become very bitter. We hope it doesn’t."
You might try thinking that there are any number of fault lines in the crowd under Stella's "umbrella", the widening and deepening of which may yet swallow your whole movement. And which you're contributing to with your narrow-minded and dogmatic ignorance.
Apropos of which, you might actually try asking yourself exactly what does it take to qualify as a member of a category, "male" in particular. As a "guide for the perplexed", see Wikipedia's article on definitions, even these few sentences which even you should be able to manage:
Wikipedia: "An intensional definition gives meaning to a term by specifying necessary and sufficient conditions for when the term should be used. In the case of nouns, this is equivalent to specifying the properties that an object needs to have in order to be counted as a referent of the term."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extensional_and_intensional_definitions
So, which "properties" must an adult human have to qualify as a male?
You either have to specify that "necessary and sufficient condition" or you have to accept that "male" is no more than an "immutable 🙄" identity to you. The latter of which puts you in the same boat as the transloonie nutcases.
And if you DO specify that property then you either go with the standard biological definitions -- i.e., functional testicles -- or you run up your flag as a peddler of folk-biology and as a science denier.
Your call ...
ICYMI:
https://shannonthrace.substack.com/p/genspect-and-agpgate/comment/43506600
Of particular note there is a recent post by Stella O'Malley which speaks to your "fissiparous". As well as to your apparent inability to see any merit in the concept of gender.
Bravo. Thank you