The O'Malley Standard

A few sentences that include "women's sexuality is very different to men's. We don't seem to have or suffer from paraphilias ... and we certainly don't seem to impose them on society" has become the evidence to accuse a woman of lesbophobia. Of 'comparing lesbians to autogynephiles' 'attacking butch lesbians' 'accusing lesbians of being sexual predators' and lord knows what else. And I don't think it's fair. 

Years ago, I spent way too much time in a gay-friendly bar, in a town and a time without many gay-friendly bars. I knew everyone there, including a butch lesbian. She called herself something typically blokey  - let's say Dave. 

Dave was in no denial about being a woman, but she definitely put effort and pride into a style that made her mistakeable for a man - tailored suits, cufflinks and cologne with slicked back hair. She was not so pristine in the daytime, but always on a night out; stylish, expensive clothes, looking like a '60s gangster. She would wink, whistle and held doors open. She was in her element playing the archetypal old school gent, being flirty, chivalrous and dominating. 

 

Once Dave told an extremely drunk man to leave the bar as he was causing upset by sleazing over women. The man started shouting and swearing. So far, so depressingly familiar, but what sticks out in my memory is Dave warning him 'not in front of the ladies, mate. Not in front of the ladies'. 

It seemed poignant, and she said it several times. The man refused to move, made an obscene gesture, and she smacked him, hard, knocking him over. I was conflicted - it annoyed me because I dislike machismo and being patronised as a delicate lady. But it worked, it was well deserved and funny.

Dave underplayed the event in a way that somehow meant it was frequently referenced, and straightening her jacket sleeves afterwards there was a bit of a pout. It wasn't of the cringeworthy Amanda Jette 'Rowan' Knox type, it wasn't contrived. She was proud and, I think feeling pretty hot in her classical rendition of the White Knight.

I feel pretty confident Dave would agree that her get up was 'sexually charged'. I've worn clothes that are key to my sexual identity and expression, and I've definitely heard other women say the same.

We are sexual beings, and presentation / clothing / display is part of it. I expect all sexual behaviour appears more pronounced and prevalent in men, who are apparently more visual than women, but to suggest that we are devoid of this seems a little extreme.

'What - who says we are devoid of it?' you may ask, but you probably know what this is about.

There have been endless controversies surrounding Stella O'Malley, the Irish therapist and founder of GenSpect, set up to pool resources for the families of children who identify as trans, offering a supportive space and alternative to the affirmative model, which has a vice-like grip in the United States. 

I don't keep up with it all, but from what I have seen it's long crossed the line into bullying, and O'Malley is now in the position she can do no right. 

After consistent murmuring of disapproval that's eclipsed important work, and the odd tsunami of intense criticism, she is now condemned for blocking people. I find it surprising it's taken so long in many cases, and the claims it was a red flag to block fellow professionals presupposes there was a safeguarding issue before them, not just an exhaustive, five year series of controversies O'Malley had finally shut down. At least on X / Twitter. And no one holds serious discussion there.

There was a TV show years ago where Dawn Porter (now O'Porter) hanged out with a little crew of drag kings, trying to find her own inner monarch. The other kings recommended shoving a lemon into her trousers for a bulge, and she remarked on how it made her want to hump everything, to which the others gave varying degrees of knowing smirk. It's a thing.

You don't need to look far into the online forums dedicated to lesbian chat (those not infiltrated by men, which is tricky) to find women talking about their predilection for the smell of aftershave on themselves or a lover, or how hot they feel in workwear like steel toe-caps, DeWalt trousers and toolbelt. But it's not fair to focus on lesbian women - it's anywhere women discuss sex and relationships. 

As for the gender disruption, there's a subreddit full of women who wear strap-ons who appear to hail from all demographics, but to generalise, the clothes or accessories generally considered male are more apparent among gay women.

There are women who pack because it turns them on, and those who love leather gear and bondage trousers. Maybe it's all part of a sexual self-actualization, a ritual that works as a cerebral foreplay.

I suggest a critical feature of women's sexuality is we want to see our desirability reflected back at us in the object of our interest. I've thought this for a long time, because it's often struck me how grossly unimaginable it is so many men can get their their rocks off despite, or even because, the unfortunate prostituted human they exploit feels sickened, disgusted and appalled by them and what they're forced into.

I've never heard a woman say anything close to hinting at that, while lists of recent porn genres / titles I've seen are stacked with it, as if the real norm men are excited in breaking is that of consent. It's a gruesome, chilling, horrible truth.

Anyway, Dave wasn't in those casual, gender neutral items otherwise known as 'just clothes', which most of us wear every day. That's not what O'Malley was describing as sexualised, and definitely not as part of a fetish. In fact, she makes that crystal clear. 

O'Malley's whole point was it isn't fetishistic - she said it's men who have fetishes. 

I don't want to be the person hollering on social media about not being listened to, when in fact, it's just not agreed with, but if you hear her stress that women don't have these paraphilia or inflict their kinks on society, I don't know how anyone can then turn it into 'comparing lesbians to AGPs' or 'calling butches sexual predators'.

Another thing - I don't see the word 'butch', and she never said a word about flannel shirts. But it's become a mythology already, and very few people seem to be correcting that.

It was a bad faith shorthand, used to parody, and now it's to strawman, often, it seems, unwittingly. 

But why would she bring this up anyway?

I imagine many are aware of the Thanksgiving podcast O'Malley and Kelly-Jay Keen did with Benjamin Boyce, but for those who aren't, that is why this even came up. Travis Brown, the interviewer in the latest offending video, asked O'Malley about it.

O'Malley has been repeatedly criticised by Keen and this discussion was held in the wake of Genspect's tweet from their conference featuring a picture of detransitioner Laura Becker and 'Phil Illy', a self-confessed autogynephile. He was wearing a frankly despicable blue dress with leg warmers and gloves. His lank, greasy-looking hair only accentuating his male pattern baldness.

There was uproar, and Stella was feeling embattled, under consistent attack and misrepresentation.

After a long discussion I hope to cover soon, Keen says she just doesn't think men in dresses should be there, and GenSpect needs a dress code. 

O'Malley had already explained that she would be sued - in much of America, women in jail are sharing cells or dorms with violent, intact men, for fuck's sake - and so she asks Keen, what should this dress code be?

'Business attire' replies Keen, because we shouldn't aid the erosion of social norms. Keen was praised for plain talking, but on closer inspection it was pitted with cop outs, overrun with gish gallop and failure to engage properly with O'Malley's points. 

Definitely not getting a kick out of their business attire: Martine 'giant foot' Rothblatt, a random example and trans activist extraordinaire, alleged serial rapist Eli Erlick 

One of these points being, jeans and a jumper could be enacting a fetish, if it's on men. This is exactly what she was talking about.

As was pointed out by someone furious with O'Malley, a man in a dress is not necessarily any less sexualised than a man in a gimp mask. And it is the same point - clothes can be vehicles for fetish, and it's not necessarily the clothes we think of. I have no doubt that if O'Malley had said this, we'd be hearing mangled, bad faith interpretations of it to further crucify her.

O'Malley's belief appears to be, as a therapist she needs to be approachable, not censorious. She has a curiosity, a different approach to many feminists or women's rights activists, but she agrees childhood transition is wrong and abusive, and women need same sex spaces. 

They covered a lot on the Boyce chat. Keen praised O'Malley's work at GenSpect, O'Malley expressed admiration for Keen's undeniable bravery and hoped for closure, and it looked like the hatchet was buried. 

Since then, however, it's as if it never happened. Keen dug that hatchet up and started swinging again, as if it was only ever under two inches of dirt and one of her massive neon signs all along. 

Personally, I dont want to live in a society that stipulates men shouldn't wear dresses or 'women's' clothes, which is surely what Keen was suggesting, since the sexy secretary is typically in 'business attire' and a well known trope. 

I don't think it would change anything, it is bound to be used against women, and it ignores the real problems we face. I don't know how many times I've heard feminists decry the transitioning of little boys, who should have just been allowed to wear the damn dress.

It was undoubtedly careless to use lesbians in this scenario, but considering she was on the spot, thinking of a harmless comparator to dressing in a way that would fall outside of Keen's touted sexed clothing norms, it doesn't seem that surprising. 

It's a heuristic, and gay people have been very prominent in gender critical activism.

And, in the end, I just don't believe O'Malley is a homophobe or lesbophobe. 

I think she's used to open, explorative discussion, and that can be leapt upon. Due to that Debbie and Stephanie Hayton interview, which she has explained and expressed regret over, she will continue to be leapt upon because, for some reason, she can't be forgiven. That climate in and of itself can cause more foot in mouth episodes.

 

Just imagine the fall-out if we applied the O'Malley standards across the board?

One of her most rabid critics has been accused of lesbophobia multiple times in the last year alone, suggesting lesbians get 'lady boners' around topless women which therefore makes an environment unsafe for children. 

She's on several occasions called lesbian women 'heterophobes', that 'the lesbian dick panderers are the most absurd', that lesbian separatists are 'crazy broads', taunted them that they were created from 'man juice' (🤢) or accused them of jealousy. She uses sexually degrading insults liberally. But no one seems to even mention it.

Lots of those seizing upon the latest struggle session have been appalling to other people in rows, doing and saying things now considered unequivocally wrong. I don't know where you start if you apply this to every utterance from Kelly-Jay, but the one inviting men who carry weapons to play toilet attendant wasn't great.

  

I'm not invested enough in the views or crimes of everyone involved in this fight to create a league table or purity rating. I agree with terrible people on some, limited, points. It seems very odd that we're to assume some stopped clocks are never right, or we can't be seen to acknowledge that people are imperfect. 

I think the truth of the matter is we can all build beautiful ideals, replete with stunning windows that let in the light. Windows with stained glass depictions of morally important lessons, ones that gradually become conservatories we can enjoy our well deserved rest in, unaware that praxis is not as simple as saying stuff to followers, and maybe the glazing isn't actually that thick.

Another vehement and relentless detractor not so long ago became embroiled in a row with a woman who's life was destroyed by an abusive, autogynephilic husband. This quickly escalated to such towering insanity the ex-husband was traced, along with her estranged son, to be told she was insane and required mental help. 

Of all the absolute no-nos, you'd have thought reigniting the conflict between an abused woman - a trans widow, no less - and her pervy husband, to question her sanity, is about the biggest, stinkiest, most taboo 'no' you can go.

I'm sure I could have many more examples if I could be arsed much raking. I don't doubt I could be slaughtered myself.

Here, however, is the other component, which I admit I can't comment on further than acknowledging it - many lesbians are feeling very hurt. 

There has been a brewing sense of anger and betrayal I've missed. One of not being taken seriously, their hard work being exploited, snobbish attitudes from other, often straight women who are frequently less 'hardline' and more respected by the media.

I'm not elite, or from a well-respected background. It's the opposite really, as anyone who's read my more personal stuff will know. But I am straight, with some pretty middle class sensibilities, and it's entirely possible I've been blind to a lot of what has been going on in the background here.

I note that, because the rage comes from frayed nerves that seem to have been under stress for a very long time. Lesbian feminists and lesbians generally have been at the forefront of social justice (in its purest sense). 

They nursed and donated blood to their gay brothers dying from AIDs, were integral to the second wave and building of refuges for battered women. They were a notable presence in significant human rights and anti nuclear campaigns and have been ridiculed and demonised by the press and society generally.

There is zero butch visibility and certainly no role model for a young woman today, as well as lesbians being the most under assault from trans ideology, whether that's AGP transbians infiltrating dating sites and bars or young lesbian girls having mastectomies and chemically disrupted.

This is really upsetting, damaging, and needs to change.

There are numerous women involved or taking sides in this row, who I know personally, or as Facebook friends, or who I strongly admire. I'm trying to understand where they are coming from in condemning Stella so vociferously, but it still feels very unfair. We are clearly talking at cross purposes sometimes, misunderstanding each other, and as I'm one of the straight majority in society I'm happy to put my hands up and say it is me who needs to try here. So leave replies, or recommend blogs or threads, please, and I'll do my best to read and think on.

Just, please, let's also remember to be a bit more targeted with the opprobrium, and a check the hands of those lobbing shit. We are never going to get anywhere by attacking those on our side. There's no time for this.