34:06 "If trans women are literally women, not just legally, but in every possible context, and even more so if self-identifying trans women are literally women in every possible context, then that does nothing less than force society into a complete re-understanding of what it is to be a woman, and obviously that has an impact on the biological females who are already occupying that category, so it's perfectly okay for us to talk about that because it has an impact on our lives." -KATHLEEN STOCK
Excellent episode, as usual. Your discussion about the "blue dress incident" got me thinking about the situations and circumstances where we do have expectations about how someone dresses. It isn't always a matter of leaving it up to the individual to decide and for the rest of us to accept their choice of attire. For example, schools...schools have "dress codes". Police, UPS drivers, car mechanics, surgeons, and many other occupations have uniforms. I have spent many years working with the courts and having to give testimony. If I showed up wearing, whatever I wanted to wear, the judge would kick me out of the courtroom. Doesn't this same set of expectations play out in professional conferences and other pubic gatherings. Is it ok for a woman to show up at a conference wearing only a string bikini? Can a male elementary school teacher wear a Speedo bathing suit to teach for the day? I am just wondering how we reconcile the idea that "people should be able to wear whatever they like" with the rules and expectations that exist already. A man wearing a ball gown and full length silk gloves to a conference is intentional about the impact he hopes to have on others. Isn't he dressing that way precisely to be a spectacle and cause a ruckus by breaking the expectations about how a male should dress in a professional session?
It seems to be quite usual for trans identified men, or transvestites or whatever to get away with wearing women's clothes that no woman would get away with in the same venue. I have no idea what the blue dress in this story looks like, but I guess if it was a style that would have been acceptable for a woman to wear to the conference then it was ok for a cross dressing man to wear it.
It wasn’t a ball gown, it was sort of a cheaply made polyester/velvet sleeveless dress one might wear to costume party if you’re dressing like an “80s person.” I honestly think the people that got themselves worked up about it were offended more by his bad taste than anything else. I read all kinds of comments about how ugly and tacky the dress was. The whole discussion was ridiculous. Would I ever be caught dead in that ugly polyester velvet electric blue dress with those compression socks and gloves? No. But am I outraged and disgusted that a man wore it? No. Was it appropriate for this conference? I don’t know. I went to an extremely liberal university and people wore all kinds of things. I think the faux outrage that gathered momentum on Twitter was all people egging eachother on.
I dressed that way because it's a typical winter outfit of mine. It's really that simple. I didn't give thought to whether it fit in with fashion norms, that's not a concern of mine.
@@phililly I support your right to wear whatever you want as long as you’re covering your naughty bits. You’re not forcing me or anyone else to wear it, and nobody in the actual conference cared. It was only the people who were looking for someone or something to be outraged by that pretended to be offended. You’ve been very honest and forthcoming and you responded to this whole ridiculous fake outrage with dignity. I think Kelly J and her crowd of loyal sycophants on Twitter lost a lot of credibility with this whole situation.
Regarding the blue dress situation, I thought then and still do, that he should not have worn that to the event, especially considering he was public about his self proclaimed AGP. I believe in this situation, he is, or could easily appear to be, engaging with others in his fetish without their consent. That makes me feel gross and makes him look slimy in my eyes. I have been hurt in the past and have some experience with feeling violated, and this situation would make me feel violated. I don't believe it that Genspect should police it, I think he should be mature enough to police himself or someone should pull him aside and talk to him about it.
I appreciate all of you and how you are helping children and everyone else navigate this exceptionally difficult phenomenon. I very much like Kelly J also but her attack on Stella was disappointing. I have my own boundaries with trans and it's fairly hard-line but I think anyone who is working to put a stop to this dangerous ideological movement should be welcome.
That incident made me more cautious about KJK. I’m all for gender non-conformity. I don’t want to be part of a movement that polices what people wear. My biggest gripe with TRAs is their dishonesty. Phil was honest. I’m not a fan of folk flaunting a paraphilia, but he didn’t come in with pornographic prosthetics and he added to the conversation.
I heard him on a podcast casually claim he never had a chance of passing because he "had the body of a Greek god." The man is a standard narcissistic AGP. He was absolutely doing this to "get away with" something in front of strangers.
I agree. A rather tall AGP man attending a conference in a very noticeable, colourful dress plus gloves, is attention -seeking. And he gets his AGP jollies from that attention. He IS using the other attendees for that purpose. Re. "doing no harm"....... in that context there would have been many people already harmed by the whole trans wagon, so while Illy's action wasn't extremely harmful, it was self-gratifying narcissism with no regard for the many vulnerable people at that venue.
To those who haven't yet read "Cynical Theories", I strongly recommend it. Yascha Mounk's "The Identity Trap" is worth checking out as well. While these books are not specifically about the Gender Wars, it is trivially easy to apply their criticisms of "the thing" in general (whether you prefer to call it "Critical Social Justice" ideology, "wokeism", "identity politics", "applied postmodernism", "the identity synthesis", or something else entirely) to gender ideology in particular. I don't think you can truly appreciate how we ended up in our current predicament without at least some understanding of the theoretical and ideological currents from which gender ideology arose: If you take as your premise that there is no objective truth anyway (or, if there is, that we have no way of getting closer to it, not even in the approximate, tentative way of science), WHY NOT just make shit up? If any appeal to "evidence" and "arguments" is just a naked exercise of power to force the oppressed into accepting the self-serving narratives of their oppressors as "objective truth" and hence unquestionable, WHY EVEN BOTHER with arguments? If persuading or silencing your opponents are just different means to the same end in a zero-sum struggle for power, WHY NOT just destroy anyone who engages in Wrongthink? And yes, the answer to left-wing illiberalism, identitarianism, and post-truth politics is not right-wing illiberalism, identitarianism, and post-truth politics. The opposite of an evil is not the opposite evil, and being an enemy of my enemy does not make you my friend.
I now think the idea of identitarianism (Critical Social Justice theory) as left wing, or right wing, is incorrect. I have been listening to the TIK History You Tube channel. This has been engaging with political philosophies of the 20th century. No authoritarian political philosophy can be said to be Classically Liberal. The use of left and right to describe anti liberal ideologies is a misnomer. All authoritarianisms are of the "statist" model, in other words forms of Young Hegellianism, forms of socialism - at odds with and against the family as the building block of society. I have been listening to contemporary Fascists espousing their beliefs on TIK History. They are proud to proclaim their socialist credentials. Who was more authoritarian, more totalitarian, Hitler, Mussolini, Stalin or Mao? I have come to understand it is corporatist state control vs private business/private society that is the true spectrum of contested ideas in the Classical Liberal debate. Critical Social Justice is NOT left wing, it is socialist. Pluckrose and Lindsay see it as Marxian in nature, but having read up on National Socialism and Fascism I understand Wokeism as Minority Socialism. The Marxists championed the majority against a minority. CSJ proposes the minorities overthrow the majority. "Centering the margins" as Kimberly Crenshaw described it. This Utopia is said to be achievable where the state owns the people, not the people owning the state. And it is Classical Liberalism that has enabled this weird subversion of democracy to occur. I think the idea that sexuality is a political movement is where Statism has subverted the private realm. "The personal is political" is the mantra of Critical Social Justice theory. This is NOT so. The family is the core of society, the family business is the generator of all wealth. Private society needs a governing framework to flourish. But the corporation, the government, will take more and more resources and profit because it is hell bent on ever increasing "Management" of the people (totalitarianism). Management through dissolution of familial bonds and obligations - Queering - is a means by which the state can take full control and do its job "properly" as the managerialists see it. So we have the Californian CPS separating parents from their children in the name of Trans which is merely a cover for Queering.
@@AndyJarman I'm increasingly inclined to think that the main battle of our time is not between "the Left" and "the Right", but between those on both sides who still respect facts and logic and care about classical liberal values (individual liberty, free expression, basic democratic rules of the game etc.) and those who don't. We keep talking about the political "Left" vs. the political "Right" as if it were obvious what we were talking about, when, in fact, these are umbrella terms, each covering a vast range of very different, and even mutually hostile, ideologies, movements, political systems etc. To me the defining feature of "leftism" is that "leftists" tend to "side with the underdog" AS THEY SEE IT (in practice, of course, seeing it that way in the first place may require acceptance of some very dubious truth claims, academic theories, ideological doctrines etc., but still...). They tend to see the world as inherently unjust and unfair, i.e. as a place where certain groups, simply by accident of birth, start out at a major disadvantage, whereas others get an almost insurmountable head start. Furthermore, this inherent injustice perpetuates itself from one generation to the next, leaving the disadvantaged groups perpetually last in line. Breaking out of this vicious cycle is going to require active political interventions, from gradual reform to armed revolution. For most of my life, "leftists" tended to be the ones who were trying to get AWAY from boxes and labels and different standards of treatment for different groups of people (judging people by the "content of their character" rather then the color of their skin etc.). As (iirc) Nick Cohen once pointed out, women, ethnic minorities, homosexuals etc. were not asking for special treatment: What they were objecting to was precisely the fact that they were given special treatment. That's what "discrimination" means! The people on the Right, on the other hand, see themselves as siding with "the deserving". Fiscal conservatives and libertarians tend to understand "the deserving" in meritocratic terms (the competent, the accomplished, the achievers etc.), whereas cultural conservatives, religious fundamentalists, fascist etc. see their own group as more deserving than all others by virtue of their superior ancestry, ethnicity, culture, religion etc. They tend to see the world as inherently just and fair. Or, if there is anything unfair about it, it's mainly unfair to the deserving who keep getting held back by burdensome taxes and regulations while having the fruit of their accomplishments confiscated and redistributed to the undeserving (the incompetent, the losers, the bums). There is a tendency among leftists to portray, say, Trumpism as the logical consequence of what "conservatives" have been up to all along, when, in fact, the abandonment of meritocracy in favor of a system that favors loyalty to the leader over accomplishment may very well be MORE offensive to the old-school conservatives than to leftists who think there is no such thing as "meritocracy" anyway: Just unearned privilege perpetuating itself from one generation to the next. James Lindsay apparently sees wokeism as "cultural Marxism", but I don't think Helen Pluckrose does, and Yascha Mounk definitely does not. Nor, for that matter, do I: Marxists believed in objective truth and claimed it for themselves. They were mainly concerned with class, the one axis of privilege and marginalization that the Woke don't care about at all. As many others have pointed out, "Marxism" without any consideration of class is rather like a doughnut after you have removed everything except the hole: Pretty much indistinguishable from nothing. Both Marxists and wokesters invoked a concept of "false consciousness", but according to Marxism the oppressed (i.e. the working class) were blind to their own oppression, and therefore needed the Communist Party to do their thinking for them. According to wokeism it's the oppressor classes themselves who are blind to their own privilege etc. etc.
Maybe, but how would it help to exclude AGPs from discussion? They aren't going to disappear if we do so. Because TRAs like to deny that AGP is a thing, IMO it is helpful for men to acknowledge that it does exist, and for them to acknowledge that they aren't in fact women and that wives and children can be damaged by the way they express this fetish.
@@ebflegg The AGP in question can be included, he doesn't have to wear a dress. And he has a moral responsibility to not do so. It's like including an alcoholic but saying nothing when he's knocking back the beers. You can't just bundle him out of the bar but if he still drinks he hasn't truly acknowledged the issue.
@@robertmarshall2502 Well, when you want to influence people, you have to get them in the door first. Alternatively, you can adopt a judgmental and pure position and remain a small, unwelcoming movement. There are some things on which there can be no compromise, but it's worth thinking about where to draw the line, especially at a conference to discuss issues: the GC side always complains (rightly) about the TRA 'no debate' position
@@ebflegg I think it depends how you see the level of acceptable behaviour. If someone is living out their paraphilia in public then any words we can exchange are secondary. That's not an AGP who is actually open to proper debate because his entire focus is on fulfilling his own desires. Feels like a nude man with a criminal record turning up to debate what should be done about the guys flashing the public.
I loved this discussion and am listening again to get the liberal values of Helen into my head. They rang so much with the way I think. Thank you all. ❤🇬🇧❌❌
There were other AGPs at the Genspect conference, but I was the only one who was "out" about it at the time (and fwiw, there were AAPs there too). It was kind of strange to be attacked for being honest about something that GCs would ostensibly want AGPs to be honest about. Overall I think the post-conference outrage on Twitter was an own-goal for the GC movement, but it also presented a good opportunity for the the illiberal GCs to purge themselves from the broader movement, so it might be for the best in the long run. Thanks for bringing on Helen Pluckrose to speak. She's a bastion of sanity in a sea of illiberalism, and she probably deserves to be knighted for her relentless defense of liberalism.
You have said you are aroused by wearing the dress out in public. Are you really truly shocked and amazed that people are revolted to be included in you fetish against their will at a conference? You seriously couldn’t just leave your fetish at home, for YOUR bedroom? You demonstrate you have lack healthy boundaries when it comes to your fetish and other people who do not consent to be involved in it.
I think you should know better than to have dressed like that. You are an adult, and you should consider the effect of your actions on others. You went there as a self proclaimed AGP, and that is understood to mean you gain sexual arousal by thinking of yourself as a woman. Whether you acknowledge it or not, your actions were likely seen and felt as a violation to others. I know I would have felt that way of I were there. I don't think it is anyone's place or responsibility to police you, I think you should take that upon yourself. I dress like a woman too, but I do so with the hopes of being seen as a woman, not as a man dressed as a woman and definitely not for sexual gratification. I believe in your right to expression but i think you could really benefit from some empathy for others.
I don't know why you want people to admire or respect you for being "out" about a paraphilia you can't keep restricted to your own bedroom. You do not have appropriate boundaries.
@@jeng3609 I'm going to continue to dress transvestically. There were other males at the conference who wore "women's" clothing and people didn't freak out about it. I recommend that people focus on something substantial and worthy of discussion rather than whether an AGP should be permitted to wear feminine-coded articles of clothing.
@phililly I have nothing else to say other than to reiterate what I've already said. I believe you should police yourself and be considerate and empathetic to others. I have seen your debates on this issue with at least one other person who expressed these ideas to you very well in the past. I think that whether you acknowledge it or not, you are giving others the sense that you are engaging in sexually arousing behavior in their presence, which is inappropriate. I have no concern at all with how someone dresses, the issue is that you publicize being AGP and the overlap between AGP and cross dressing is inherently sexual in nature. And so you set yourself up to be seen this way.
So, not all men are gentlemen. However, gentlemen consider those around them. Particularly women. I'm not convinced Phil's affliction alleviates him from behaving gentlemanly. Of course, Phil may not perceive or characterize himself as a gentlemen which is certainly his right.🐿
There’s a lot of evidence that psychiatric issues should first be addressed with nutrients vs pharmaceuticals. Dr. Abraham Hoffer in BC has written extensively about the use of vitamin b3 (niacin) for a variety of mental health conditions specifically depression and schizophrenia. Sometimes there’s a physical deficit causing these symptoms and no medication is going to resolve that deficit. The fact that so many pharmaceutical drugs have a risk of suicidal ideation is ironic at best. I truly appreciate the work that you all are doing on this situation because it is clearly targeting women and children and not many people are courageous enough to speak out with even a modicum of common sense.
It’s funny because earlier today I was listening to the radio. There was a psychologist who had just written a book about how to get off psychotropic drugs. It has to be done very, very slowly with ever smaller and smaller doses. He said that even a very small dose has a large impact on the brain so in the end you might have to chop the pill up into extremely small parts. It can take years. Unfortunately I’m Danish and the book is written in Danish. I don’t think it’s been released in English. Even so somebody must’ve written about this in English.
I don't care what a person wears. It might be weird to me, but as long as they aren't going into women's spaces. I saw the pic, and it didn't look like a ballroom dress. I was thinking it was going to be this huge, fancy dress. 😄
Wonderful discussion... not really a debate since all seem to be on the same page. IMHO the gender critical "movement" has to be wary of extremists, just as any other movement does. There are a lot of us "politically homeless" former lefties who can't abide the "woke" perspective on gender issues, but as a male ally to gender critical feminists, there's a bit of a tightrope to walk between the old-school man haters on one side and the populist/socially-conservative on the other. People like Kellie-Jay Keen and Riley Gaines both espouse a fairly conservative and anti-trans perspective that even seems like veiled anti-LGB sometimes, which only plays into those accusations coming from trans activists and their woke allies. The way that Helen Pluckrose and Carrie Clark articulated their liberal values was music to my ears and I wish that ethos could be promoted more than the conservatism of Keen & Gaines. However, we can't deny that Kellie-Jay and Riley get things done... case in point is the situation in the NCAA with female athletes now forfeiting their volleyball matches rather than play a team with a trans player.
Helen's description of her stance reminds me of the phrase "trans isnt an umbrella that everyone is under" or "trans isnt a monolith". Same goes for the gender critical! It contains all shades of the rainbow 😘
I find it disheartening Stella that in your summary of what happened you remove the fact that it wasn’t merely a tweet, you were promoting his book. “Phil Illy” is not his real name, it’s a play on “-philia”, as in paraphilia. (I have not finished listening to the episode so maybe you mention the promotion of the book later on) Characters like this showing up is definitely not easy to deal with, but it’s not difficult to see why women react badly to a guy doing this, when that guy openly says, “it arouses me to involve unwilling members of the public in my fetish rather than keep it at home for my private life” I was also really shocked to hear how you spoke to certain detrabsitioners who disagreed with the way this was handled, but here once again your summary of events leaves this stuff out and does not frame people who disagree with you as reasonable, we are all by default being unreasonable. I can see reasonable reasons for people to feel one way or the other about Phil’s presence there and the role of AGPs in GC spaces, if it’s helpful or detrimental. Given the role AGP plays in all this, I don’t find the outcry surprising or strange. People are well and truly sick of indulging these guys’ fetishes that they want to play out in public. The transgression of the boundary is the very thing that excites them. We’re supposed to just accept that and be zen about it? Yet again? Edit: I have to say, I am trying to learn more about AGP at the moment and I could be completely wrong in the stance I have taken AND in my criticisms of Stella that I’ve made, so I hold my hands up, I spoke with a lot of certainty when I shouldn’t have, and criticised before trying to learn more. So I hope Stella can forgive me for that and Phil himself if he reads this, because like I said, I should not speak with such certainty and harshness when I need to be able to update my view on something.
And to add, MANY people disagree with the project to normalise dysfunctional, dangerous paraphilia as "sexualities". A lot of LGB people do not want paraphilia normalised as sexualities. Promoting Phil's book made it seem like Genspect is supportive of that mission, and frankly from stuff you have said on the podcast it's not clear to me if you view paraphilia as a sexual orientation or not. That is why a hard line is being drawn, because the project of men like Phil is to make "AGP" a sexuality like straight, lesbian or gay. Following on directly behind that is a whole raft of more sinister "identities" (to speak euphemistically) who want to glom onto the successes of the LGB movement and legitimise themselves, normalise themselves, under that guise. (MAPs being the most clear example). Some things should not be normalised and legitimised - paraphilias that involve roping in non-consenting members of the public is one of them. Legitimising this stuff and playing it off as "Well anyone can be thinking anything when they dress any way they like" is to be very blind to the dysfunctional boundaries around sex (ie.. getting off on violating others) that are the trademark of these paraphilia.
Exactly that… it’s a possible slippery slope to the next „ah who cares, it’s a Little concession and a matter of politeness“, Just Like with the pronouns. People should do their sexual stuff at Home. When it’s something that ordinary as clothes, that doesn’t mean that this is an automatic exemption. Of course it’s harder to Spot and you shouldn‘t Police it either as Long as it is Not CLEARLY fetish gear. I think the public has the right of not knowing what other people‘s fetishes are. The foot fetish comparison is Not a good one because you wouldn’t be told that that Person has a foot fetish.
@@PattisKarriereKarten The other thing about a man with a foot fetish is, laws are not being changed as a result of it, and women's rights aren't being taken away because of foot fetish. Whereas AGP is at the heart of what is happening to women's rights in law, and violations against women and kids happening all over the place. And in case my other comment was auto-deleted by YT: many people disagree with the project to normalise dysfunctional, dangerous paraphilia by pretending they are just other types of "sexualities". A lot of LGB people do not want paraphilia normalised as sexualities. Promoting Phil's book made it seem like Genspect is supportive of that mission, and frankly from stuff Stella has said, it's not clear to me if she/Genspect view paraphilia as a sexual orientation or not. If that's her & Genspect's stance, I'd like to know.
I was in Gender and Phil wasn't creepy at all. If he was insisting that he was perceived and treated as a woman, then he would've been including others in his fetish. He doesn't expect that of anyone. Another thought that I have: if AGP's are attracted to themselves, how are they including anyone in their fetish, really? Are they not focused on themselves and alone in their fetish? On the identity topic: Autism advocacy circles were the beta tests for taking on a condition as an identity. It paved the way for these same young people to interpret their gender non-comformity (inherent to having autism) as also having a trans identity.
It's not just that people feel like they're being drawn into someone's sex life without consent, it's that they're being made aware of it as it's happening. That clearly really bothers some people. It seems like it's felt to be deeply disrespectful and transgressive in a personal way. think it's an emottional thing. I don't really feel any conscious emotions when I see transvestites. I tend to find it somewhat entertaining, in the sense that it's unusual and can unexpectedly spice up mundane situations. The only time I remember feeling a sense of unease or aversion was the couple of times I saw this middle aged guy dressed as a girl scout. I noticed that bothering me. It felt a bit like "whatever that is, probably keep it to yourself because of the associations" sort of thing.
I think he should be free to wear the dress, and others should be free to decide to have nothing to do with him because of it. The dress was an attention-seeking choice for a conference, regardless of the sex of the person who chose it. It's an even more attention-seeking choice for a man. For this reason, I think the best approach is to ignore him.
Wasnt the disrespect and the mockery in wearing a weird, inappropriate, gowny dress at a professional conference though? Which, to my mind, makes it like an attack and mockery of the movement itself, basically, and is therefore unacceptable. By not even mentioning this keyest of aspects, and just heartily banging on about some strawmen, I dont think Helen comes across as very sincere here, sorry to say, even though usually she does.
This was great. And I’ve been wondering how antidepressants and wrong sex hormones affect each other… And as for #DressGate 😂😂😂😂😂 As for the difficulties of withdrawing from psych drugs, Mad in America is an excellent resource, as is Adele Framer’s drug withdrawal support network, Surviving Antidepressants. Psychiatrist Mark Horowitz is now speaking out about the myriad of problems with psych drugs after having problems withdrawing from antidepressants himself. He says he has no idea they are so problematic. Which makes me question what psychiatrists are doing handing them out like Candy…
Thank you for explaining the dress incident. It's exactly what I thought it was initially, although that seemed very odd considering that most of your guests would encourage people to explore their gender in all kinds of ways. Who says that men can't wear dresses? Aren't kilts skirts? Don't most monks in Asia wear dresses? Aren't priests' cassocks dresses? There's nothing uniquely female about dresses, just as there's nothing uniquely female about long hair. Just because the current society has very strict ways of separating male and female appearance doesn't mean that has anything to do with reality.
@@John-tr5hn the dresses that Phil Illy tends to wear are very body hugging, very 80s cheap material. There’s something very Barbie fashion doll about them. And always in this electric blue color. They’re kind of an affront to good taste. Not at all like Scottish highland kilts or monk robes or priests cassocks or whatever. These dresses do scream for negative attention. But again people should be allowed to wear whatever they want. I can see why people pointed out the overtly cheapness of his attire, in more ways than one. But I also think a lot of the outrage was manufactured. And that many of the people pretending to be so offended and outraged then attacked anyone who didn’t feel the same. They’re behaving like the TRAs that they hate in enforcing a gender binary, and by pretending to be more offended than they were.
@@goodgrief888 There is a fundamental difference between dresses and kaftans and kilts. The former fit women's bodies. The latter fit men's bodies. Phil could have chosen the latter. He didn't. And no one made him justify why. His reasons are because he gets off to it but he won't fully admit to it. He doesn't get off to what he sees as men's clothing. So the distinction is important for him. We can't police other people but ppl have a personal responsibility. If I had a fetish about knee-high boots I wouldn't wear them in public. If you know this and see me wearing them then you are well within your rights to challenge my choice to wear something that gets me off in public. No one ever takes Phil to task for this. It's like ppl defending an alcoholic in the pub and saying he's admitted he's an alcolohic as he slings back shots. I don't get the enabling.
@@robertmarshall2502 Sorry, I refuse to care what other people's fetishes are. If I have a chipmunk fetish and wear T-shirt with a chipmunk on it, how do you even know about my fetish to criticize me? That's ridiculous, magical thinking, just like saying that a man is a woman when that person believes he's a woman. There's reality, there's perception, and they're often misaligned. But we live in a free society, so as long as the knee-high socks or dress wouldn't be offensive is someone else wore them, then I'm never going to shame someone else for wearing them just because I don't believe they *should* wear them.
I don't know anyone who has seriously told someone who can't even bring themselves to take a shower or engage in other forms of essential self care to go to the gym to fix their mood. Odd claim.
It's a shame that once again the blue dress incident is brought up with zero reference to HIS PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY. Can't you just once bring up that he has a personal responsibility to not live out his fetish in public? You're entirely focused on what you as women should do in response to and subjected to a man but not once talking about the man taking some personal responsibility. An alcoholic shouldn't drink alcohol. An AGP shouldn't indulge in his fetish in public. At least make a reference to the fact Phil Illy never once speaks about how it might affect others or shows even an ounce of empathy. He's a narcissistic creep. Stop defending and enabling the indefensible. Sure Genspect couldn't do anything but he could. And he should be challenged on his actions and make to take responsibility.
A therapist telling a patient who had had a negative experience involving either cross dressing men or AGPs, that they must ‘manage their emotions’ (or as some would have it ‘reframe their trauma’) and that they should avoid places where they might come across such men seems to lead to one logical conclusion. That is: if women don’t like cross dressing men or AGPs in their toilets, changing rooms or sports, they must avoid going to public places where such men might have decided they have a right to be? If I have this wrong, please explain my logical fallacy, because it just sounds to me as if Helen Pluckrose thinks it’s women who must make all the accommodations when it comes to men who think nothing of bullying & intimidating us.
Helen is talking about typical public spaces like the conference rooms at a convention; she’s not referring to public toilets and changing rooms, which deserve a much higher degree of privacy by their nature. Your point doesn’t really make sense, unless you’re drawing an equivalence between the lobby of a Hyatt and the ladies’ restroom at the Hyatt, or the Women’s dress department at Macy’s vs the store’s changing rooms.
I disagree with Pluckrose. Radicals shouldn't be equated with authoritarianism. I lean more to radical feminism than the wishy-washy liberal feminism but, at the same time, defended his right to the blue dress.
I was really torn on that one. On the one hand yes, we all do have a responsibility for our own responses and if people aren’t harming anyone we should be able to tolerate an AGP. On the other hand you’ve really got to wonder what his goal was going to a gender critical conference in a dress. I can’t help thinking all he wanted was to flaunt that male entitlement we’re all so intensely sick and tired of for no other reason than to upset and provoke people - which he did. Since Stella is Irish the incident reminds me of the orange order parades held in Northern Ireland on the 12th of July. Years ago tensions between Catholics and Protestants were very high and the order, which is Protestant, just HAD to march through a Catholic neighbourhood causing a lot of unrest and commotion. To me there’s a difference between provoking people for a particular reason and giving others the middle finger just because you only care about yourself.
@@azilgaardI think he went because he is interested in different points of view on the trans phenomenon and AGP and probably thought he had something to add to the conversation as someone with the obsession. He likes wearing dresses and the dress, although unique, wasn't overly suggestive/sexual. Other trans identifying people also attended in their favored presentation too. I don't think the analogy to the Orange parades works. He wasn't protesting the event and trying to provoke other attendees. He probably felt he was part of the intellectual community around this topic.
@@azilgaardwhat is all this “male entitlement” bullshit? 🙄 Maybe that person is an asshole, and “male” is incidental. Maybe your post is just “female bitchiness?” How do you like that?
@@daughter_of_earthyou don't think he enjoys wearing overtly female attire because it's transgressive? Women themselves chose to wear men's attire (jeans and loose shirts/sweat shirts) because female attire strongly signals their sexuality and can interfere with their ability to engage in physical activities or social interactions. Surely Phil "enjoys" wearing women's clothes because he enjoys the attention? Surely he is transgressing the otherwise exclusive female domain by doing this? Transgressing fundamental personal domains is psychopath's way of retrieving a sense of intimacy. Excessive use of pornography will inure men to the sexual stimulation the female form originally gave them. Erectile dysfunction in teenage boys is rife because of this. "Porn addled" men seek to transgress women's particular domains in an attempt to retrieve the synthetic sense of intimacy that voyerism once gave them. Pornography is abhorrent to many women because of it's transgressive nature. It objectified women, abstracting them from their personal agency. I believe the Trans deception is a psychopathic device, a means for mean to self stimulate. As such it is behaviour not held in check by societal norms. Queering is an explicit attempt to dismantle societal norms - claiming these "norms" are oppressive. Well, any healthy social interaction requires the suppression of base urges and the accommodation of the needs of others, common courtesy. I have read Helen's books, and am an avid listener to James Lindsay, and yet I can't help feeling Helen is being duped.
We seem insatiable, in our obsession with tiny upsets. Social media elevates perceived harms, perfect for the victim-minded. It gives them a language for expressing their dissatisfaction. Maybe we humans need to toughen up. Stoicism can be helpful.
![[#2024MAMA] BIGBANG (빅뱅) - 뱅뱅뱅 (BANG BANG BANG) + FANTASTIC BABY | Mnet 241123 방송](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/EQsYfiPR9uM/mqdefault.jpg)
34:06 "If trans women are literally women, not just legally, but in every possible context, and even more so if self-identifying trans women are literally women in every possible context, then that does nothing less than force society into a complete re-understanding of what it is to be a woman, and obviously that has an impact on the biological females who are already occupying that category, so it's perfectly okay for us to talk about that because it has an impact on our lives."
-KATHLEEN STOCK
Excellent episode, as usual. Your discussion about the "blue dress incident" got me thinking about the situations and circumstances where we do have expectations about how someone dresses. It isn't always a matter of leaving it up to the individual to decide and for the rest of us to accept their choice of attire. For example, schools...schools have "dress codes". Police, UPS drivers, car mechanics, surgeons, and many other occupations have uniforms. I have spent many years working with the courts and having to give testimony. If I showed up wearing, whatever I wanted to wear, the judge would kick me out of the courtroom. Doesn't this same set of expectations play out in professional conferences and other pubic gatherings. Is it ok for a woman to show up at a conference wearing only a string bikini? Can a male elementary school teacher wear a Speedo bathing suit to teach for the day? I am just wondering how we reconcile the idea that "people should be able to wear whatever they like" with the rules and expectations that exist already. A man wearing a ball gown and full length silk gloves to a conference is intentional about the impact he hopes to have on others. Isn't he dressing that way precisely to be a spectacle and cause a ruckus by breaking the expectations about how a male should dress in a professional session?
It seems to be quite usual for trans identified men, or transvestites or whatever to get away with wearing women's clothes that no woman would get away with in the same venue. I have no idea what the blue dress in this story looks like, but I guess if it was a style that would have been acceptable for a woman to wear to the conference then it was ok for a cross dressing man to wear it.
It wasn’t a ball gown, it was sort of a cheaply made polyester/velvet sleeveless dress one might wear to costume party if you’re dressing like an “80s person.” I honestly think the people that got themselves worked up about it were offended more by his bad taste than anything else. I read all kinds of comments about how ugly and tacky the dress was. The whole discussion was ridiculous. Would I ever be caught dead in that ugly polyester velvet electric blue dress with those compression socks and gloves? No. But am I outraged and disgusted that a man wore it? No. Was it appropriate for this conference? I don’t know. I went to an extremely liberal university and people wore all kinds of things. I think the faux outrage that gathered momentum on Twitter was all people egging eachother on.
Great. So who gets to decide what clothes are appropriate?
I dressed that way because it's a typical winter outfit of mine. It's really that simple. I didn't give thought to whether it fit in with fashion norms, that's not a concern of mine.
@@phililly I support your right to wear whatever you want as long as you’re covering your naughty bits. You’re not forcing me or anyone else to wear it, and nobody in the actual conference cared. It was only the people who were looking for someone or something to be outraged by that pretended to be offended. You’ve been very honest and forthcoming and you responded to this whole ridiculous fake outrage with dignity. I think Kelly J and her crowd of loyal sycophants on Twitter lost a lot of credibility with this whole situation.
I absolutely idolize Helen. She is my favourite kind of intellectual troublemaker. Carrie's point about the shoe fetish is absolutely brilliant!
She is one of the greatest minds of our time.
Helen rules. She's a valiant defender of liberalism
@@phililly I'm a James Lindsay, Helen Pluckrose, and Peter Boghossian groupie.
Helen Pluckrose and Helen Stock for are always the most articulate and well reasoned panelists.
Regarding the blue dress situation, I thought then and still do, that he should not have worn that to the event, especially considering he was public about his self proclaimed AGP. I believe in this situation, he is, or could easily appear to be, engaging with others in his fetish without their consent. That makes me feel gross and makes him look slimy in my eyes. I have been hurt in the past and have some experience with feeling violated, and this situation would make me feel violated. I don't believe it that Genspect should police it, I think he should be mature enough to police himself or someone should pull him aside and talk to him about it.
I appreciate all of you and how you are helping children and everyone else navigate this exceptionally difficult phenomenon. I very much like Kelly J also but her attack on Stella was disappointing. I have my own boundaries with trans and it's fairly hard-line but I think anyone who is working to put a stop to this dangerous ideological movement should be welcome.
That incident made me more cautious about KJK. I’m all for gender non-conformity. I don’t want to be part of a movement that polices what people wear. My biggest gripe with TRAs is their dishonesty. Phil was honest. I’m not a fan of folk flaunting a paraphilia, but he didn’t come in with pornographic prosthetics and he added to the conversation.
Can't help thinking he was rubbing people's nose in it and was there to promote his book...great way to do that
I heard him on a podcast casually claim he never had a chance of passing because he "had the body of a Greek god." The man is a standard narcissistic AGP. He was absolutely doing this to "get away with" something in front of strangers.
@ yeah...the virtuous AGP....listen to Ray Alex Williams talk to Bailey about that
@@Louis-wp3fq Yep. That is part of what makes it arousing to him, that it is a transgression.
I agree. A rather tall AGP man attending a conference in a very noticeable, colourful dress plus gloves, is attention -seeking. And he gets his AGP jollies from that attention. He IS using the other attendees for that purpose. Re. "doing no harm"....... in that context there would have been many people already harmed by the whole trans wagon, so while Illy's action wasn't extremely harmful, it was self-gratifying narcissism with no regard for the many vulnerable people at that venue.
To those who haven't yet read "Cynical Theories", I strongly recommend it. Yascha Mounk's "The Identity Trap" is worth checking out as well. While these books are not specifically about the Gender Wars, it is trivially easy to apply their criticisms of "the thing" in general (whether you prefer to call it "Critical Social Justice" ideology, "wokeism", "identity politics", "applied postmodernism", "the identity synthesis", or something else entirely) to gender ideology in particular.
I don't think you can truly appreciate how we ended up in our current predicament without at least some understanding of the theoretical and ideological currents from which gender ideology arose:
If you take as your premise that there is no objective truth anyway (or, if there is, that we have no way of getting closer to it, not even in the approximate, tentative way of science), WHY NOT just make shit up?
If any appeal to "evidence" and "arguments" is just a naked exercise of power to force the oppressed into accepting the self-serving narratives of their oppressors as "objective truth" and hence unquestionable, WHY EVEN BOTHER with arguments?
If persuading or silencing your opponents are just different means to the same end in a zero-sum struggle for power, WHY NOT just destroy anyone who engages in Wrongthink?
And yes, the answer to left-wing illiberalism, identitarianism, and post-truth politics is not right-wing illiberalism, identitarianism, and post-truth politics. The opposite of an evil is not the opposite evil, and being an enemy of my enemy does not make you my friend.
I now think the idea of identitarianism (Critical Social Justice theory) as left wing, or right wing, is incorrect.
I have been listening to the TIK History You Tube channel.
This has been engaging with political philosophies of the 20th century.
No authoritarian political philosophy can be said to be Classically Liberal.
The use of left and right to describe anti liberal ideologies is a misnomer. All authoritarianisms are of the "statist" model, in other words forms of Young Hegellianism, forms of socialism - at odds with and against the family as the building block of society.
I have been listening to contemporary Fascists espousing their beliefs on TIK History. They are proud to proclaim their socialist credentials.
Who was more authoritarian, more totalitarian, Hitler, Mussolini, Stalin or Mao?
I have come to understand it is corporatist state control vs private business/private society that is the true spectrum of contested ideas in the Classical Liberal debate.
Critical Social Justice is NOT left wing, it is socialist. Pluckrose and Lindsay see it as Marxian in nature, but having read up on National Socialism and Fascism I understand Wokeism as Minority Socialism.
The Marxists championed the majority against a minority.
CSJ proposes the minorities overthrow the majority. "Centering the margins" as Kimberly Crenshaw described it.
This Utopia is said to be achievable where the state owns the people, not the people owning the state.
And it is Classical Liberalism that has enabled this weird subversion of democracy to occur.
I think the idea that sexuality is a political movement is where Statism has subverted the private realm.
"The personal is political" is the mantra of Critical Social Justice theory.
This is NOT so. The family is the core of society, the family business is the generator of all wealth.
Private society needs a governing framework to flourish. But the corporation, the government, will take more and more resources and profit because it is hell bent on ever increasing "Management" of the people (totalitarianism).
Management through dissolution of familial bonds and obligations - Queering - is a means by which the state can take full control and do its job "properly" as the managerialists see it.
So we have the Californian CPS separating parents from their children in the name of Trans which is merely a cover for Queering.
@@AndyJarman I'm increasingly inclined to think that the main battle of our time is not between "the Left" and "the Right", but between those on both sides who still respect facts and logic and care about classical liberal values (individual liberty, free expression, basic democratic rules of the game etc.) and those who don't.
We keep talking about the political "Left" vs. the political "Right" as if it were obvious what we were talking about, when, in fact, these are umbrella terms, each covering a vast range of very different, and even mutually hostile, ideologies, movements, political systems etc. To me the defining feature of "leftism" is that "leftists" tend to "side with the underdog" AS THEY SEE IT (in practice, of course, seeing it that way in the first place may require acceptance of some very dubious truth claims, academic theories, ideological doctrines etc., but still...). They tend to see the world as inherently unjust and unfair, i.e. as a place where certain groups, simply by accident of birth, start out at a major disadvantage, whereas others get an almost insurmountable head start. Furthermore, this inherent injustice perpetuates itself from one generation to the next, leaving the disadvantaged groups perpetually last in line. Breaking out of this vicious cycle is going to require active political interventions, from gradual reform to armed revolution. For most of my life, "leftists" tended to be the ones who were trying to get AWAY from boxes and labels and different standards of treatment for different groups of people (judging people by the "content of their character" rather then the color of their skin etc.). As (iirc) Nick Cohen once pointed out, women, ethnic minorities, homosexuals etc. were not asking for special treatment: What they were objecting to was precisely the fact that they were given special treatment. That's what "discrimination" means!
The people on the Right, on the other hand, see themselves as siding with "the deserving". Fiscal conservatives and libertarians tend to understand "the deserving" in meritocratic terms (the competent, the accomplished, the achievers etc.), whereas cultural conservatives, religious fundamentalists, fascist etc. see their own group as more deserving than all others by virtue of their superior ancestry, ethnicity, culture, religion etc. They tend to see the world as inherently just and fair. Or, if there is anything unfair about it, it's mainly unfair to the deserving who keep getting held back by burdensome taxes and regulations while having the fruit of their accomplishments confiscated and redistributed to the undeserving (the incompetent, the losers, the bums). There is a tendency among leftists to portray, say, Trumpism as the logical consequence of what "conservatives" have been up to all along, when, in fact, the abandonment of meritocracy in favor of a system that favors loyalty to the leader over accomplishment may very well be MORE offensive to the old-school conservatives than to leftists who think there is no such thing as "meritocracy" anyway: Just unearned privilege perpetuating itself from one generation to the next.
James Lindsay apparently sees wokeism as "cultural Marxism", but I don't think Helen Pluckrose does, and Yascha Mounk definitely does not. Nor, for that matter, do I: Marxists believed in objective truth and claimed it for themselves. They were mainly concerned with class, the one axis of privilege and marginalization that the Woke don't care about at all. As many others have pointed out, "Marxism" without any consideration of class is rather like a doughnut after you have removed everything except the hole: Pretty much indistinguishable from nothing. Both Marxists and wokesters invoked a concept of "false consciousness", but according to Marxism the oppressed (i.e. the working class) were blind to their own oppression, and therefore needed the Communist Party to do their thinking for them. According to wokeism it's the oppressor classes themselves who are blind to their own privilege etc. etc.
@@bjartefoshaug7486 Interesting distinction between marxism and wokism. Got something new to reflect on. Thank you.
Thanks ! so delighted to see Helen her wisdom and guidance as me helped me so much in shaping my thinking around these issues .
Whooo Hooo - Helen Pluckrose!! Can't miss this!
What a wonderful conversation
For me, presentation of the self is not separate from how the person may behave.
Maybe, but how would it help to exclude AGPs from discussion? They aren't going to disappear if we do so. Because TRAs like to deny that AGP is a thing, IMO it is helpful for men to acknowledge that it does exist, and for them to acknowledge that they aren't in fact women and that wives and children can be damaged by the way they express this fetish.
@ebflegg Agree
@@ebflegg The AGP in question can be included, he doesn't have to wear a dress. And he has a moral responsibility to not do so. It's like including an alcoholic but saying nothing when he's knocking back the beers. You can't just bundle him out of the bar but if he still drinks he hasn't truly acknowledged the issue.
@@robertmarshall2502 Well, when you want to influence people, you have to get them in the door first. Alternatively, you can adopt a judgmental and pure position and remain a small, unwelcoming movement. There are some things on which there can be no compromise, but it's worth thinking about where to draw the line, especially at a conference to discuss issues: the GC side always complains (rightly) about the TRA 'no debate' position
@@ebflegg I think it depends how you see the level of acceptable behaviour. If someone is living out their paraphilia in public then any words we can exchange are secondary. That's not an AGP who is actually open to proper debate because his entire focus is on fulfilling his own desires. Feels like a nude man with a criminal record turning up to debate what should be done about the guys flashing the public.
I loved this discussion and am listening again to get the liberal values of Helen into my head. They rang so much with the way I think. Thank you all. ❤🇬🇧❌❌
There were other AGPs at the Genspect conference, but I was the only one who was "out" about it at the time (and fwiw, there were AAPs there too). It was kind of strange to be attacked for being honest about something that GCs would ostensibly want AGPs to be honest about. Overall I think the post-conference outrage on Twitter was an own-goal for the GC movement, but it also presented a good opportunity for the the illiberal GCs to purge themselves from the broader movement, so it might be for the best in the long run.
Thanks for bringing on Helen Pluckrose to speak. She's a bastion of sanity in a sea of illiberalism, and she probably deserves to be knighted for her relentless defense of liberalism.
You have said you are aroused by wearing the dress out in public. Are you really truly shocked and amazed that people are revolted to be included in you fetish against their will at a conference? You seriously couldn’t just leave your fetish at home, for YOUR bedroom?
You demonstrate you have lack healthy boundaries when it comes to your fetish and other people who do not consent to be involved in it.
I think you should know better than to have dressed like that. You are an adult, and you should consider the effect of your actions on others. You went there as a self proclaimed AGP, and that is understood to mean you gain sexual arousal by thinking of yourself as a woman. Whether you acknowledge it or not, your actions were likely seen and felt as a violation to others. I know I would have felt that way of I were there. I don't think it is anyone's place or responsibility to police you, I think you should take that upon yourself. I dress like a woman too, but I do so with the hopes of being seen as a woman, not as a man dressed as a woman and definitely not for sexual gratification. I believe in your right to expression but i think you could really benefit from some empathy for others.
I don't know why you want people to admire or respect you for being "out" about a paraphilia you can't keep restricted to your own bedroom. You do not have appropriate boundaries.
@@jeng3609 I'm going to continue to dress transvestically. There were other males at the conference who wore "women's" clothing and people didn't freak out about it. I recommend that people focus on something substantial and worthy of discussion rather than whether an AGP should be permitted to wear feminine-coded articles of clothing.
@phililly I have nothing else to say other than to reiterate what I've already said. I believe you should police yourself and be considerate and empathetic to others. I have seen your debates on this issue with at least one other person who expressed these ideas to you very well in the past. I think that whether you acknowledge it or not, you are giving others the sense that you are engaging in sexually arousing behavior in their presence, which is inappropriate. I have no concern at all with how someone dresses, the issue is that you publicize being AGP and the overlap between AGP and cross dressing is inherently sexual in nature. And so you set yourself up to be seen this way.
So, not all men are gentlemen. However, gentlemen consider those around them. Particularly women. I'm not convinced Phil's affliction alleviates him from behaving gentlemanly. Of course, Phil may not perceive or characterize himself as a gentlemen which is certainly his right.🐿
There’s a lot of evidence that psychiatric issues should first be addressed with nutrients vs pharmaceuticals. Dr. Abraham Hoffer in BC has written extensively about the use of vitamin b3 (niacin) for a variety of mental health conditions specifically depression and schizophrenia. Sometimes there’s a physical deficit causing these symptoms and no medication is going to resolve that deficit. The fact that so many pharmaceutical drugs have a risk of suicidal ideation is ironic at best. I truly appreciate the work that you all are doing on this situation because it is clearly targeting women and children and not many people are courageous enough to speak out with even a modicum of common sense.
It’s funny because earlier today I was listening to the radio. There was a psychologist who had just written a book about how to get off psychotropic drugs. It has to be done very, very slowly with ever smaller and smaller doses. He said that even a very small dose has a large impact on the brain so in the end you might have to chop the pill up into extremely small parts. It can take years. Unfortunately I’m Danish and the book is written in Danish. I don’t think it’s been released in English. Even so somebody must’ve written about this in English.
There are many books in English, Rest assured
I don't care what a person wears. It might be weird to me, but as long as they aren't going into women's spaces.
I saw the pic, and it didn't look like a ballroom dress. I was thinking it was going to be this huge, fancy dress. 😄
Wonderful discussion... not really a debate since all seem to be on the same page.
IMHO the gender critical "movement" has to be wary of extremists, just as any other movement does. There are a lot of us "politically homeless" former lefties who can't abide the "woke" perspective on gender issues, but as a male ally to gender critical feminists, there's a bit of a tightrope to walk between the old-school man haters on one side and the populist/socially-conservative on the other. People like Kellie-Jay Keen and Riley Gaines both espouse a fairly conservative and anti-trans perspective that even seems like veiled anti-LGB sometimes, which only plays into those accusations coming from trans activists and their woke allies.
The way that Helen Pluckrose and Carrie Clark articulated their liberal values was music to my ears and I wish that ethos could be promoted more than the conservatism of Keen & Gaines. However, we can't deny that Kellie-Jay and Riley get things done... case in point is the situation in the NCAA with female athletes now forfeiting their volleyball matches rather than play a team with a trans player.
Helen's description of her stance reminds me of the phrase "trans isnt an umbrella that everyone is under" or "trans isnt a monolith". Same goes for the gender critical! It contains all shades of the rainbow 😘
I find it disheartening Stella that in your summary of what happened you remove the fact that it wasn’t merely a tweet, you were promoting his book. “Phil Illy” is not his real name, it’s a play on “-philia”, as in paraphilia.
(I have not finished listening to the episode so maybe you mention the promotion of the book later on)
Characters like this showing up is definitely not easy to deal with, but it’s not difficult to see why women react badly to a guy doing this, when that guy openly says, “it arouses me to involve unwilling members of the public in my fetish rather than keep it at home for my private life”
I was also really shocked to hear how you spoke to certain detrabsitioners who disagreed with the way this was handled, but here once again your summary of events leaves this stuff out and does not frame people who disagree with you as reasonable, we are all by default being unreasonable.
I can see reasonable reasons for people to feel one way or the other about Phil’s presence there and the role of AGPs in GC spaces, if it’s helpful or detrimental.
Given the role AGP plays in all this, I don’t find the outcry surprising or strange. People are well and truly sick of indulging these guys’ fetishes that they want to play out in public. The transgression of the boundary is the very thing that excites them. We’re supposed to just accept that and be zen about it? Yet again?
Edit: I have to say, I am trying to learn more about AGP at the moment and I could be completely wrong in the stance I have taken AND in my criticisms of Stella that I’ve made, so I hold my hands up, I spoke with a lot of certainty when I shouldn’t have, and criticised before trying to learn more. So I hope Stella can forgive me for that and Phil himself if he reads this, because like I said, I should not speak with such certainty and harshness when I need to be able to update my view on something.
And to add, MANY people disagree with the project to normalise dysfunctional, dangerous paraphilia as "sexualities".
A lot of LGB people do not want paraphilia normalised as sexualities. Promoting Phil's book made it seem like Genspect is supportive of that mission, and frankly from stuff you have said on the podcast it's not clear to me if you view paraphilia as a sexual orientation or not.
That is why a hard line is being drawn, because the project of men like Phil is to make "AGP" a sexuality like straight, lesbian or gay. Following on directly behind that is a whole raft of more sinister "identities" (to speak euphemistically) who want to glom onto the successes of the LGB movement and legitimise themselves, normalise themselves, under that guise. (MAPs being the most clear example).
Some things should not be normalised and legitimised - paraphilias that involve roping in non-consenting members of the public is one of them. Legitimising this stuff and playing it off as "Well anyone can be thinking anything when they dress any way they like" is to be very blind to the dysfunctional boundaries around sex (ie.. getting off on violating others) that are the trademark of these paraphilia.
Exactly that… it’s a possible slippery slope to the next „ah who cares, it’s a Little concession and a matter of politeness“, Just Like with the pronouns. People should do their sexual stuff at Home. When it’s something that ordinary as clothes, that doesn’t mean that this is an automatic exemption. Of course it’s harder to Spot and you shouldn‘t Police it either as Long as it is Not CLEARLY fetish gear. I think the public has the right of not knowing what other people‘s fetishes are. The foot fetish comparison is Not a good one because you wouldn’t be told that that Person has a foot fetish.
@@PattisKarriereKarten The other thing about a man with a foot fetish is, laws are not being changed as a result of it, and women's rights aren't being taken away because of foot fetish. Whereas AGP is at the heart of what is happening to women's rights in law, and violations against women and kids happening all over the place.
And in case my other comment was auto-deleted by YT: many people disagree with the project to normalise dysfunctional, dangerous paraphilia by pretending they are just other types of "sexualities".
A lot of LGB people do not want paraphilia normalised as sexualities. Promoting Phil's book made it seem like Genspect is supportive of that mission, and frankly from stuff Stella has said, it's not clear to me if she/Genspect view paraphilia as a sexual orientation or not. If that's her & Genspect's stance, I'd like to know.
@@L_Martin It never even clicked that he is literally identifying as his paraphilia. Great point, spot on again.
@@L_Martinwell said
I was in Gender and Phil wasn't creepy at all. If he was insisting that he was perceived and treated as a woman, then he would've been including others in his fetish. He doesn't expect that of anyone. Another thought that I have: if AGP's are attracted to themselves, how are they including anyone in their fetish, really? Are they not focused on themselves and alone in their fetish?
On the identity topic: Autism advocacy circles were the beta tests for taking on a condition as an identity. It paved the way for these same young people to interpret their gender non-comformity (inherent to having autism) as also having a trans identity.
So women can wear trousers, which is a typical male garment, and god forbid some male criticise it, but men can not wear dresses? Double standard.
It's not just that people feel like they're being drawn into someone's sex life without consent, it's that they're being made aware of it as it's happening. That clearly really bothers some people. It seems like it's felt to be deeply disrespectful and transgressive in a personal way. think it's an emottional thing.
I don't really feel any conscious emotions when I see transvestites. I tend to find it somewhat entertaining, in the sense that it's unusual and can unexpectedly spice up mundane situations. The only time I remember feeling a sense of unease or aversion was the couple of times I saw this middle aged guy dressed as a girl scout. I noticed that bothering me. It felt a bit like "whatever that is, probably keep it to yourself because of the associations" sort of thing.
Agp and transvestites differ.
I think he should be free to wear the dress, and others should be free to decide to have nothing to do with him because of it.
The dress was an attention-seeking choice for a conference, regardless of the sex of the person who chose it. It's an even more attention-seeking choice for a man. For this reason, I think the best approach is to ignore him.
Wasnt the disrespect and the mockery in wearing a weird, inappropriate, gowny dress at a professional conference though? Which, to my mind, makes it like an attack and mockery of the movement itself, basically, and is therefore unacceptable. By not even mentioning this keyest of aspects, and just heartily banging on about some strawmen, I dont think Helen comes across as very sincere here, sorry to say, even though usually she does.
This was great. And I’ve been wondering how antidepressants and wrong sex hormones affect each other…
And as for #DressGate 😂😂😂😂😂
As for the difficulties of withdrawing from psych drugs, Mad in America is an excellent resource, as is Adele Framer’s drug withdrawal support network, Surviving Antidepressants.
Psychiatrist Mark Horowitz is now speaking out about the myriad of problems with psych drugs after having problems withdrawing from antidepressants himself.
He says he has no idea they are so problematic. Which makes me question what psychiatrists are doing handing them out like Candy…
Thank you for explaining the dress incident. It's exactly what I thought it was initially, although that seemed very odd considering that most of your guests would encourage people to explore their gender in all kinds of ways. Who says that men can't wear dresses? Aren't kilts skirts? Don't most monks in Asia wear dresses? Aren't priests' cassocks dresses? There's nothing uniquely female about dresses, just as there's nothing uniquely female about long hair. Just because the current society has very strict ways of separating male and female appearance doesn't mean that has anything to do with reality.
@@John-tr5hn the dresses that Phil Illy tends to wear are very body hugging, very 80s cheap material. There’s something very Barbie fashion doll about them. And always in this electric blue color. They’re kind of an affront to good taste. Not at all like Scottish highland kilts or monk robes or priests cassocks or whatever. These dresses do scream for negative attention. But again people should be allowed to wear whatever they want. I can see why people pointed out the overtly cheapness of his attire, in more ways than one. But I also think a lot of the outrage was manufactured. And that many of the people pretending to be so offended and outraged then attacked anyone who didn’t feel the same. They’re behaving like the TRAs that they hate in enforcing a gender binary, and by pretending to be more offended than they were.
@@goodgrief888 There is a fundamental difference between dresses and kaftans and kilts. The former fit women's bodies. The latter fit men's bodies.
Phil could have chosen the latter. He didn't. And no one made him justify why. His reasons are because he gets off to it but he won't fully admit to it. He doesn't get off to what he sees as men's clothing. So the distinction is important for him.
We can't police other people but ppl have a personal responsibility. If I had a fetish about knee-high boots I wouldn't wear them in public. If you know this and see me wearing them then you are well within your rights to challenge my choice to wear something that gets me off in public.
No one ever takes Phil to task for this. It's like ppl defending an alcoholic in the pub and saying he's admitted he's an alcolohic as he slings back shots. I don't get the enabling.
@@robertmarshall2502 Sorry, I refuse to care what other people's fetishes are. If I have a chipmunk fetish and wear T-shirt with a chipmunk on it, how do you even know about my fetish to criticize me? That's ridiculous, magical thinking, just like saying that a man is a woman when that person believes he's a woman. There's reality, there's perception, and they're often misaligned. But we live in a free society, so as long as the knee-high socks or dress wouldn't be offensive is someone else wore them, then I'm never going to shame someone else for wearing them just because I don't believe they *should* wear them.
I don't know anyone who has seriously told someone who can't even bring themselves to take a shower or engage in other forms of essential self care to go to the gym to fix their mood. Odd claim.
It's a shame that once again the blue dress incident is brought up with zero reference to HIS PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY.
Can't you just once bring up that he has a personal responsibility to not live out his fetish in public?
You're entirely focused on what you as women should do in response to and subjected to a man but not once talking about the man taking some personal responsibility.
An alcoholic shouldn't drink alcohol. An AGP shouldn't indulge in his fetish in public.
At least make a reference to the fact Phil Illy never once speaks about how it might affect others or shows even an ounce of empathy.
He's a narcissistic creep. Stop defending and enabling the indefensible. Sure Genspect couldn't do anything but he could. And he should be challenged on his actions and make to take responsibility.
A therapist telling a patient who had had a negative experience involving either cross dressing men or AGPs, that they must ‘manage their emotions’ (or as some would have it ‘reframe their trauma’) and that they should avoid places where they might come across such men seems to lead to one logical conclusion. That is: if women don’t like cross dressing men or AGPs in their toilets, changing rooms or sports, they must avoid going to public places where such men might have decided they have a right to be? If I have this wrong, please explain my logical fallacy, because it just sounds to me as if Helen Pluckrose thinks it’s women who must make all the accommodations when it comes to men who think nothing of bullying & intimidating us.
Helen is talking about typical public spaces like the conference rooms at a convention; she’s not referring to public toilets and changing rooms, which deserve a much higher degree of privacy by their nature. Your point doesn’t really make sense, unless you’re drawing an equivalence between the lobby of a Hyatt and the ladies’ restroom at the Hyatt, or the Women’s dress department at Macy’s vs the store’s changing rooms.
Empathy with dreadful experience of mh services. 😢
I disagree with Pluckrose. Radicals shouldn't be equated with authoritarianism. I lean more to radical feminism than the wishy-washy liberal feminism but, at the same time, defended his right to the blue dress.
I was really torn on that one. On the one hand yes, we all do have a responsibility for our own responses and if people aren’t harming anyone we should be able to tolerate an AGP. On the other hand you’ve really got to wonder what his goal was going to a gender critical conference in a dress. I can’t help thinking all he wanted was to flaunt that male entitlement we’re all so intensely sick and tired of for no other reason than to upset and provoke people - which he did. Since Stella is Irish the incident reminds me of the orange order parades held in Northern Ireland on the 12th of July. Years ago tensions between Catholics and Protestants were very high and the order, which is Protestant, just HAD to march through a Catholic neighbourhood causing a lot of unrest and commotion. To me there’s a difference between provoking people for a particular reason and giving others the middle finger just because you only care about yourself.
@@azilgaardI think he went because he is interested in different points of view on the trans phenomenon and AGP and probably thought he had something to add to the conversation as someone with the obsession. He likes wearing dresses and the dress, although unique, wasn't overly suggestive/sexual. Other trans identifying people also attended in their favored presentation too. I don't think the analogy to the Orange parades works. He wasn't protesting the event and trying to provoke other attendees. He probably felt he was part of the intellectual community around this topic.
@@daughter_of_earth You could be right of course. I hope so!
@@azilgaardwhat is all this “male entitlement” bullshit? 🙄 Maybe that person is an asshole, and “male” is incidental. Maybe your post is just “female bitchiness?” How do you like that?
@@daughter_of_earthyou don't think he enjoys wearing overtly female attire because it's transgressive?
Women themselves chose to wear men's attire (jeans and loose shirts/sweat shirts) because female attire strongly signals their sexuality and can interfere with their ability to engage in physical activities or social interactions.
Surely Phil "enjoys" wearing women's clothes because he enjoys the attention? Surely he is transgressing the otherwise exclusive female domain by doing this?
Transgressing fundamental personal domains is psychopath's way of retrieving a sense of intimacy.
Excessive use of pornography will inure men to the sexual stimulation the female form originally gave them. Erectile dysfunction in teenage boys is rife because of this.
"Porn addled" men seek to transgress women's particular domains in an attempt to retrieve the synthetic sense of intimacy that voyerism once gave them.
Pornography is abhorrent to many women because of it's transgressive nature. It objectified women, abstracting them from their personal agency.
I believe the Trans deception is a psychopathic device, a means for mean to self stimulate. As such it is behaviour not held in check by societal norms.
Queering is an explicit attempt to dismantle societal norms - claiming these "norms" are oppressive.
Well, any healthy social interaction requires the suppression of base urges and the accommodation of the needs of others, common courtesy.
I have read Helen's books, and am an avid listener to James Lindsay, and yet I can't help feeling Helen is being duped.
👁️👁️
We seem insatiable, in our obsession with tiny upsets. Social media elevates perceived harms, perfect for the victim-minded. It gives them a language for expressing their dissatisfaction.
Maybe we humans need to toughen up. Stoicism can be helpful.
This. 🙏💐
This. 🙏💐
@@PonyboyGarfunkel tell that to all the women and girls losing their rights