Are young people turning gay?

doodledog it is ridiculous as it is being taken to extremes

As I said, I don't need you or anyone else to narrate my existence or set the rules for discussion

Especially when I'm actually answering and explaining something to a different poster

Without their comment mine would not have been necessary

bluejay29

I heard a scientific/climate person on tv say there's tons of chemicals in river water now, some animals who live in water near industry are changing sex or their private parts are not right. It's a theory. I did hear this many years ago too when discussing the Pill and affects on men via recycled drinking water

This post has been overlooked and is something I was thinking about. I read some time ago there is evidence that fish are changing gender, and this of course raises questions about all the female hormones in the water which may affect men. We have had the contraceptive pill since the 1960s and in recent years HRT all of which are being washed into the water system. So is it possible this could affect men?

FWIW, I read your post (it crossed with mine, which is why I didn't reference it) and think that if it is ignored it will be because you are asking difficult questions.
thanks Doodledog, I think we can safely say QED.

Mollygo

There is a lot of evidence that girls are using much more harmful things as homemade binders. Google "Girls using duct tape" there's some awful advice on line including Tik Tok videos which will be watched by very young girls.
Supplying proper advice and proper binders must be better surely?
Warning children of the damage they can cause should come top of the list instead of promoting ‘safer’ binders.
Otherwise it’s like saying Ecstasy is less dangerous than Cocaine.

Actually it isn't because neither come with advice and are both illegal. You can buy duct tape at any DIY store or supermarket.
It's more like a child hearing on line that opium can relieve a headache and being able to buy opium over the counter (like Victorian women could). Or she could go to the chemist and ask for a suitable headache remedy with some advice. Which would you rather she did?

There is a lot of evidence that girls are using much more harmful things as homemade binders. Google "Girls using duct tape" there's some awful advice on line including Tik Tok videos which will be watched by very young girls.
Supplying proper advice and proper binders must be better surely?
Warning children of the damage they can cause should come top of the list instead of promoting ‘safer’ binders.
Otherwise it’s like saying Ecstasy is less dangerous than Cocaine.

Rosie51 and Doodledog the problem is you confuse misinterpreting your posts, or interpreting them differently to the way you intended, which anyone may do, with telling people what they have said and frequently completely falsely representing their views. You won't find one post where I say. "Doodledog said" or "Rosie51 said". The number of times the words "Glorianny said" have been posted or "You said", mostly quite incorrectly, have been posted I can't count. If I do challenge a post I tend to quote the post I am challenging not make up things someone has said.

Lathyrus

Just as a point of interest, do those who advocate manufactured binders an state as a fact that they are better than homemade ones, actually know that to be true.?

Or are they just saying it because they think that something you buy must be better than something homemade.

Is there any disinterested research into that?

If not, it’s very dangerous to give that assurance to anyone, isn’t it? As well as untrue.

Why would anybody say they were better if they actually didn’t know whether they were or not.

Look forward to having a link to the research posted.

Lathyrus There is a lot of evidence that girls are using much more harmful things as homemade binders. Google "Girls using duct tape" there's some awful advice on line including Tik Tok videos which will be watched by very young girls.
Supplying proper advice and proper binders must be better surely?
I agree there is a lack of research the trouble with teenage girls is they tend not to get their advice from experts but from their peers

I don’t know Lathyrus and I’ll have to go and research VS and binders, because I don’t recollect whether she ever mentioned the word manufactured in her support of supplying binders, which have the potential to cause irreversible damage.

There is pretty much zero research on any of this, was one of the findings of the Cass review, even social affirmation no proper research on whether beneficial or harmless.

Just as a point of interest, do those who advocate manufactured binders an state as a fact that they are better than homemade ones, actually know that to be true.?

Or are they just saying it because they think that something you buy must be better than something homemade.

Is there any disinterested research into that?

If not, it’s very dangerous to give that assurance to anyone, isn’t it? As well as untrue.

Why would anybody say they were better if they actually didn’t know whether they were or not.

Look forward to having a link to the research posted.

VioletSky

Mollygo

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.”

I said that manufactored binders are a better alternative than home made binders, sever anxiety and depression self harming and suicide yes.

Let's be honest about what I said

Hmm, I’ve been thinking about this.

It’s a bit like someone being caught speeding through a village and saying “Well it’s better than not getting to the hospital on time and dying.”

So you take something that might happen in a few incidences ( the need to get to hospital) (suicide because you can’t get a binder) and you use it for justification of an action that is known to cause greater harm (speeding in built up areas)(medical consequences of binding breasts).

That’s could be an need for self justification or a distortion tactic for the purpose of winning an argument.
Or maybe just a lack rational thought.

Anyway. It’s not a valid argument. It justifies nothing.

Glorianny

*Let's be honest about what I said*
Ooh VioletSky you are asking for a lot on these threads!

Excuse me. You are the one who has redefined what I was talking about to suit your definition (to something I didn't mean), called one of my posts 'completely irrelevant' and 'based on an untenable position' without having read it, written off disagreements as a 'bitchfest', told us that our 'main complaint' was that the survey in the OP was designed by Stonewall (when no - it is that the research questions are deeply flawed) and suggested that a post of mine was 'wrong' in some way because it didn't mirror one of Rosie's.

Being honest about what people say isn't a strong point of yours, is it? ()

VioletSky

doodledog

In the same way I don't understand how anyone can see anything negative in "have a good evening"

I can't see how my reply to that has anything to do with or says anything about anyone else?

I like purple, so do lots of other people

If I say "I like purple", usually people say " I like purple too!" Not "erm, you aren't the only one who likes purple you know, are you trying to insinuate you are the only one?"

Two examples of how far people are reaching to find something negative to twist on my words

Both ridiculous

There is nothing negative in saying 'have a good evening'. Of course not. What is negative is using it to brush aside the comments of others, as is calling peoples' posts 'ridiculous', and as are the other things I mentioned, such as positioning yourself as the one who is saying what she means (do you think we don't? If not, why mention it?) and as the one who wishes nobody any harm.

It is ironic that you end a post filled with 'you' and how you don't wish anyone ill, you only say what you think, and you wish everyone a good evening by talking about a waste of energy, when reading all of that isn't adding anything at all to the discussion.

Re the binders - it may be true that manufactured ones are 'better' than home made, but the point is that it is remarkably presumptuous of an organisation to tell children that it is ok to go behind their parents' backs to get them, and extremely disconcerting to see the background and behaviour of those at the top of that organisations come to light. Whether children should be given binders at all is debatable, but it is not, IMO, for anyone other than their parents and psychologists to make that decision for them.

I heard a scientific/climate person on tv say there's tons of chemicals in river water now, some animals who live in water near industry are changing sex or their private parts are not right. It's a theory. I did hear this many years ago too when discussing the Pill and affects on men via recycled drinking water

Let's be honest about what I said
Ooh VioletSky you are asking for a lot on these threads!

Any other questions to me, agree with glorianny

Mollygo

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.”

I said that manufactored binders are a better alternative than home made binders, sever anxiety and depression self harming and suicide yes.

Let's be honest about what I said

doodledog

In the same way I don't understand how anyone can see anything negative in "have a good evening"

I can't see how my reply to that has anything to do with or says anything about anyone else?

I like purple, so do lots of other people

If I say "I like purple", usually people say " I like purple too!" Not "erm, you aren't the only one who likes purple you know, are you trying to insinuate you are the only one?"

Two examples of how far people are reaching to find something negative to twist on my words

Both ridiculous

Doodledog

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.

That was my cousin doodledog from gay to straight after his male partner died.

He fell in love with a lovely woman.

Rosie51

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

It's easy to avoid debate by saying you cba to read long posts, or that you don't respond to questions, or by just ignoring them and wishing people a good evening, but that is why these 'debates' never move on.

It looks a bit desperate when one sentence is described as 'several paragraphs' though . The whole post was only 2 short paragraphs.

FWIW, I read your post (it crossed with mine, which is why I didn't reference it) and think that if it is ignored it will be because you are asking difficult questions.

Why a group that was formed to advance the cause of lesbian, gay and bisexual people would want to include heterosexuals who have decided that they want to join because they are trans is beyond me, too. Doing that would, by definition, change the remit. I know that analogies are often problematic on here, but to me it's akin to lager drinkers wanting to join CAMRA. It doesn't mean that the members of CAMRA or LGB Alliance have anything against the people wanting to join - it's just that a mixed membership wouldn't concentrate on the reasons the group was formed in the first place.

So if the term "Bi" is a generalisation are all the words we use to describe someone's sexuality? So is saying someone is straight, gay or lesbian all generalisation? And if not why is "Bi' different?

If gender is also fluid shouldn't we then be providing for that fluidity? I know gender is a social construct I've never had problems with that. I don't have problems with transpeople I take them as they appear which is all one can do in reality.

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

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.

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

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.