Are young people turning gay?

I wonder if Lathyrus will apologise for being so rude. After all being considerate to other posters is always important to her.

VioletSky

Here you go, the full list in a picture in this article

www.pinknews.co.uk/2021/04/29/lgb-alliance-uk-pride-organisers-network-charity-commission-letter/

As I said

Honestly glorianny

I've never come across anything like this before, it's outside my realm of experience in 46 years

I wasn’t rude. Do you think I was trivialising a post.

Like you and violetsky did just a while ago?

Sauce for the goose eh?

VioletSky

Honestly glorianny

I've never come across anything like this before, it's outside my realm of experience in 46 years

Oh come. It’s ne of your favourite techniques.

Plenty of evidence of that.

Just another thing you’ve forgotten you posted I guess.

Ah well, off I go to have a cup of tea and phone a friend.

Have a lovely evening.

(Recognise that one too??)

I don't say anything I don't mean

I do hope you have a lovely evening

I don't generally wish ill on anyone

It's just a waste of energy

I don’t generally wish ill on anyone either, though I make an exception for anyone advocating/supporting the supply of binders to teenage girls, especially with the message that they’ll do no harm. Another exception might be anyone who says or supports the idea that children are ‘turning gay’, when you either are gay or you aren’t.

Well, obviously thinking people can turn gay isn't great and obviously isn't true

And supporting binders as doing no harm rather than sometimes being a better option than other types of harm is not great either

But wishing ill on anyone won't achieve anything

VS
And supporting binders as doing no harm rather than sometimes being a better option than other types of harm is not great either.
And yet you supported binders.
As you are fond of saying,
“Oh dear.”

VS LGBAlliance believe the science that it's impossible to change sex. Therefore they don't think a man can be a lesbian, or a woman can be a gay man. They are in no position to advocate for people that believe the opposite. Do you expect Hindus to advocate for and include Jews in their groups? If a Christian wanted to join a Muslim group and demand complete acceptance of and adherence to Christian beliefs, would you support that?

Rosie51

VS LGBAlliance believe the science that it's impossible to change sex. Therefore they don't think a man can be a lesbian, or a woman can be a gay man. They are in no position to advocate for people that believe the opposite. Do you expect Hindus to advocate for and include Jews in their groups? If a Christian wanted to join a Muslim group and demand complete acceptance of and adherence to Christian beliefs, would you support that?

Possibly not. But as has been said many times on all these threads there are trans people who would completely agree with LGB alliance and behave respectfully to everyone, so surely they should be allowed to join? Or are you saying all trans people believe they change sex? Don't some of them believe it's just gender and isn't that different? Assuming all transpeople think or behave the same and banning them completely can be nothing but prejudice.

I also know enough about religious groups to know that none of the groups you refer to, apart from very fundamentalist organisations, would ban anyone from their meetings and would, and do, greet and welcome people from other faiths who want to learn about them. Saying they don't is either ignorance or prejudice.

Mollygo Another exception might be anyone who says or supports the idea that children are ‘turning gay’, when you either are gay or you aren’t.
I did explain earlier that the OP was a bad choice of words and should have said 'Are more people gay than in the past?' or something like that, not to imply that young people are deciding to become gay.

VioletSky

I don't say anything I don't mean

I do hope you have a lovely evening

I don't generally wish ill on anyone

It's just a waste of energy

You say that as though it's not something that we could all say. I very much doubt anyone here is telling lies, wishes harm on anyone or hopes that others have a rubbish evening. At times, I think we all feel that these discussions are a waste of energy, too .

The point is that we see things differently. IMO telling a child to go behind her parents' back, give a private email to an organisation with extremely dodgy personnel on its books, and providing her with the wherewithal to bind her breasts is absolutely wishing ill on her, as is counselling unhappy children that they are 'born in the wrong body'.

I mean what I say when I say that, but of course I think that those who disagree believe their viewpoint too. Similarly, the fact that I have a different POV doesn't mean that I hope those with a different one don't have a lovely evening - why would it?

This sort of virtue-signalling is really irritating, and the assumption that there is any sort of link between having a particular opinion and being a 'kind' person is just nonsense, and posturing about being 'one of the good guys' is where the waste of energy comes in.

Well, obviously thinking people can turn gay isn't great and obviously isn't true.

Is it?

There are people who have lived happily as straight until they meet and fall for someone of the same sex. Are you saying that 'obviously' they were always gay, and didn't realise - that you know better than they do about their sexuality? Or would you say that they were lying? Or what, exactly?

I don't know why it matters, really. Sexuality can absolutely be fluid. I don't think there is any doubt about that outside of fundamentalist viewpoints. Sex, OTOH, is immutable, although so-called 'gender' is another matter. It is when people persistently conflate sex, gender and sexuality and assume that what applies in one case must also apply in another that confusion arises.

Doodledog You have just written exactly what I was thinking of writing. Are we telepathic? I was just reading about a woman whose husband announced he was gay (not bisexual) after 18 years of marriage and two grown up children. That fits your last comment.

Doodledog

*Well, obviously thinking people can turn gay isn't great and obviously isn't true.*

Is it?

There are people who have lived happily as straight until they meet and fall for someone of the same sex. Are you saying that 'obviously' they were always gay, and didn't realise - that you know better than they do about their sexuality? Or would you say that they were lying? Or what, exactly?

I don't know why it matters, really. Sexuality can absolutely be fluid. I don't think there is any doubt about that outside of fundamentalist viewpoints. Sex, OTOH, is immutable, although so-called 'gender' is another matter. It is when people persistently conflate sex, gender and sexuality and assume that what applies in one case must also apply in another that confusion arises.

Doodledog They're called "Bi" it's what the B stands for.

If sexuality can be fluid I wonder why gender can't?

Well you might call 'them' 'Bi', Glorianny. Do 'they' get a say in it?

And what would you tell 'them' that 'they' should call themselves if they never go back to being straight?

Maybe 'gender' can be fluid - I don't believe in it, so I do't have an opinion, really. For me, it is a social concept, pure and simple, and has no bearing on the reality of sex. I also see no relationship between gender and sexuality, so the fact that one can be fluid doesn't impact on the other.

They’re called Bi, that’s what the B stands for.

No I think that fitting people into the label you feel comfortable with.

Bi surely means an attraction to both sexes.

But it’s perfectly possible for someone to be heterosexual at one stage of their life and then homosexual at another, without being attracted to the other set at either of those times.

Fluid, in fact.

As my cousin said about his life. “It was always about the person, not what sex they were”.

Chestnut

Doodledog You have just written exactly what I was thinking of writing. Are we telepathic? I was just reading about a woman whose husband announced he was gay (not bisexual) after 18 years of marriage and two grown up children. That fits your last comment.

Yes, Chestnut, it definitely happens. It's not really a case of someone being attracted to both sexes, but of changing from one to the other after, in some cases, a very long time of knowing that they are straight*. If people with this experience don't identify as bisexual, why should others have the right to label them as such?

All I'm saying, really, is that I don't think that the idea that people can't 'turn gay' is 'obvious' at all. I don't know, but I think it's unlikely that people can be 'turned' gay, and certainly not in the way Section 28 claimed would happen if they were 'encouraged' by gay teachers, but I do think that people's sexuality can change over time.

*I haven't come across a case of it happening the other way round (ie from gay to straight), but there is no reason I can think of why it wouldn't.

Lathyrus

They’re called Bi, that’s what the B stands for.

No I think that fitting people into the label you feel comfortable with.

Bi surely means an attraction to both sexes.

But it’s perfectly possible for someone to be heterosexual at one stage of their life and then homosexual at another, without being attracted to the other set at either of those times.

Fluid, in fact.

As my cousin said about his life. “It was always about the person, not what sex they were”.

Exactly so, Lathyrus.

Not fitting them into anything just pointing out that there is a term for it. Some people use it some don't. Some gay people used to say that people who said they were "Bi" were just gay people who hadn't come out properly.
And if you read the questions in the survey the people who seemed to have the most problems were those who said they were "Bi". So perhaps a little more use of the term wouldn't harm. But I wouldn't impose it on anyone. It's simply a short way of saying what it takes Doodledog several paragraphs to describe. And I do like brevity.

Glorianny I also know enough about religious groups to know that none of the groups you refer to, apart from very fundamentalist organisations, would ban anyone from their meetings and would, and do, greet and welcome people from other faiths who want to learn about them. Saying they don't is either ignorance or prejudice. really? You know about all these faiths? And they advocate, and accept doctrine of each other's faiths? You think the Ts that would like to join LGBAlliance are interested in learning that LGB don't believe in gender identity? Do they not already know that?

But as has been said many times on all these threads there are trans people who would completely agree with LGB alliance and behave respectfully to everyone, so surely they should be allowed to join I don't expect to dictate to any group who should or should not be able to join. I'm not a member of that group, why should I have any input about their membership qualifications? LGBAlliance are only about sex and sexual orientation. When a previously heterosexual man decides he's really a 'woman' but still only wants women as sexual partners can you not see why LGB people would still see him as heterosexual and most definitely not a lesbian? I think it takes wilful ignorance not to understand that.
As an aside I have read that on lesbian dating sites transwomen often state they are not open to dating transwomen. Why not? Surely they can't be displaying a 'genital fetish"!

Some people believe in God, some don't. If people were being compelled to believe 'God exists, there is no higher power' I bet you'd be shouting for freedom to not believe. I along with many others totally reject gender identity. When we're told there are at least one hundred genders and more to be discovered, surely it's time to admit that it's individual personalties not some mysterious 'gender identity'. Otherwise how can anyone be changing their gender on a daily or even hourly basis, as some have claimed? Do you believe in the hundred or more genders? I hope this is a question you'll answer with a yes or no.

Incidentally do Stonewall accept exclusively heterosexual people in the 'club' to maybe proselytise on the immutability of sex and the absence of gender identity? Might think about joining if they do, as I'm assured of a warm welcome

Glorianny

Not fitting them into anything just pointing out that there is a term for it. Some people use it some don't. Some gay people used to say that people who said they were "Bi" were just gay people who hadn't come out properly.
And if you read the questions in the survey the people who seemed to have the most problems were those who said they were "Bi". So perhaps a little more use of the term wouldn't harm. But I wouldn't impose it on anyone. It's simply a short way of saying what it takes Doodledog several paragraphs to describe. And I do like brevity.

There is brevity and there is generalisation.

I didn't take 'several paragraphs' to make my point. This is what I said:
There are people who have lived happily as straight until they meet and fall for someone of the same sex.

You have commented before about not having the attention span to read long posts, but that is just a relatively short sentence. What would you have cut, given that this is not an exercise in precis?

As I see it, that sentence makes clear what I was getting at in the context of a discussion about whether people's sexuality can change. Just writing 'bi' wouldn't have done that at all. And not only that, 'bi' is not the term I wanted - I was describing something different, and not asking what 'they' should be called, or how they fit in with the ever-changing acronyms, but suggesting that it is not 'obvious' that sexuality can't change over time.

Also, when writing posts on here that I know will be scoured for a chance of a 'gotcha' I do take extra care to spell out my meaning, and if that uses more words, so be it.

G said It's simply a short way of saying what it takes Doodledog several paragraphs to describe. And I do like brevity.

She'll likely not read my reply then. Oh dear