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.
"A suggestion for women: victimhood is not only a bad look, but it's bad for your personal development, your self care and your healing. Fragility is also the primary weapon of the identitarians and standpoint theorists whom you oppose."
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.
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.
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.
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
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
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.
"A suggestion for women: victimhood is not only a bad look, but it's bad for your personal development, your self care and your healing. Fragility is also the primary weapon of the identitarians and standpoint theorists whom you oppose."
Preach. Thanks for writing this.
A reminder.
https://shannonthrace.substack.com/p/ranting-is-not-activism
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
Thank you for covering this angle, Shannon.
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
"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