Listen now | Kit Kowalski and Edie Wyatt talk about the world of sex and gender from a gender-critical perspective, not just the culture war, but law, policy, activism, feminism and all the nonsense.
Nice to finally see KK. I was a little surprised by what you had to say about Genspect. While they've hosted some woolly speakers like James Lindsay and various psychologists and psychiatrists, I have listened to several talks and can't recall any of them departing from the sex realist perspective or suggesting that any form of 'gender affirming care' works.
Listening to the speakers at their Denver conference, I found there was a wide range of accepted views, particularly from the therapists. There was no broad statement about accepting certain types of therapy, but it was clear from listening to the therapists that there wasn't going to be a move away from gender therapy. My main criticism of Genspect is that it seems too accepting, and not judgemental enough to be decisively activist.
We won't all have to be activists, but in a movement where many expect hard lines and strongly held boundaries, an organisation like Genspect will find it hard to gain the supporters it needs to keep going.
Fair enough. I haven't listened to the talks from the Denver conference yet, apart from Colin Wright's. It seems perplexing that people like him, Leor Sapir, Heather Heyrig, who have given excellent talks debunking gender ideology, could be accommodated with advocates of gender therapy. I will make an effort to look into it, though, I accept your overall claim that Genspect is very accepting. I expect (or hope) that they've made a calculation that they can get more done in the legislature by appearing as moderates than as hardliners: 'See, we're not anti-trans. We had so-so over to give a talk at our big conference last week.'
That seems like the intention - to position themselves as reasonable, and WPATH as extremists. When they do that, they are allowing that there is such a thing as gender identity incongruence and it follows that there should be a treatment for it.
Nice to finally see KK. I was a little surprised by what you had to say about Genspect. While they've hosted some woolly speakers like James Lindsay and various psychologists and psychiatrists, I have listened to several talks and can't recall any of them departing from the sex realist perspective or suggesting that any form of 'gender affirming care' works.
Listening to the speakers at their Denver conference, I found there was a wide range of accepted views, particularly from the therapists. There was no broad statement about accepting certain types of therapy, but it was clear from listening to the therapists that there wasn't going to be a move away from gender therapy. My main criticism of Genspect is that it seems too accepting, and not judgemental enough to be decisively activist.
We won't all have to be activists, but in a movement where many expect hard lines and strongly held boundaries, an organisation like Genspect will find it hard to gain the supporters it needs to keep going.
Fair enough. I haven't listened to the talks from the Denver conference yet, apart from Colin Wright's. It seems perplexing that people like him, Leor Sapir, Heather Heyrig, who have given excellent talks debunking gender ideology, could be accommodated with advocates of gender therapy. I will make an effort to look into it, though, I accept your overall claim that Genspect is very accepting. I expect (or hope) that they've made a calculation that they can get more done in the legislature by appearing as moderates than as hardliners: 'See, we're not anti-trans. We had so-so over to give a talk at our big conference last week.'
That seems like the intention - to position themselves as reasonable, and WPATH as extremists. When they do that, they are allowing that there is such a thing as gender identity incongruence and it follows that there should be a treatment for it.
It will be interesting to see what shakes out.