Are young people turning gay?

Lathyrus you have the power!?

Lathyrus

Here’s a solution.

Transwomen allow females to have spaces where they feel safe.

Now who could argue against that?

That would work for me.

The only people who could argue would be those who insist that we all say that transwomen ARE women, so should be allowed in women's spaces, so round and round we go.

The root to it, I think (although the whole topic is complex) is that some transwomen refuse to allow anyone to disagree with the idea that they have magically changed sex, and have dug in their heels. They (and their supporters) refuse to even listen to the concerns of women who are not saying that transwomen are the enemy, but that they are men, and whilst not all men are the enemy either, letting men into women's spaces opens the door to those with nefarious intent.

That is something I would expect a ten year old to understand. It is the basis of the majority of laws across the world, which exist to protect the many from the few. I struggle to believe that Glorianny is unable to follow the logic.

Glorianny Now I'm off this thread because I've realised some people just don't want solutions. Of course people want solutions! Solutions that will improve things not make them worse. Your 'toilet solution' would have resulted in half the number of cubicles to serve the same number of people. That wasn't what you tried to present.

I note you decided not to answer twice whether men could stay overnight on the ward you were on 40 years ago. I suspect because the answer would be no. Your hospital was very unusual allowing men to stay all day, even during quiet hour, 40 years ago. Goodness when I had my babies most men could only visit in the evening as paternity leave wasn't any sort of 'right' back then.

Dead cats are a handy way to avoid answering tricky questions, aren't they?

I've asked Mr Dog, in case I misremembered, and he said that men were allowed in with greater flexibility than other visitors, who had a 2 hour window - this was to allow dads to have time alone with their new families, and to accommodate shiftwork etc, but that there was no question of overnight stays. My eldest is 30, so the odds on our maternity unit being 10 full years behind others are low, I suspect. I don't remember any friends from my generation having men staying either.

My husband was allowed unrestricted visiting throughout admission for the births of both my children (now aged 25 and 30).

I've just checked my local maternity hospital, which states "One named partner permitted throughout admission, 24/7".

My husband also stayed 24/7 with my son in hospital, when he required a two week stay at the age of about 6 months. We took turns and a camp bed was provided.

I was recently admitted to a mixed ward. Everybody in there had the same specific problem so it made sense to have us all together.

It was fine because the nursing station was in the centre f a square and we were all under observation 24/7.

But it wouldn’t be safe in those hospitals designed with four bed bays and the nursing station outside. Anything could happen and indeed we know it already has, in the case of a woman who was raped by a trans woman whilst they were on the same ward.

Safety has to come before ideology.

And again, who would argue with that?

I treat survey results from any organisation with an axe to grind with a large pinch of salt whether it's Stonewall, the National Trust, the RSPB or a political party.

It was visiting time only when I had my daughter, 40 years ago, and that suited me just fine.

I didn't feel inclined to try and squash my nipples into a "biscuit shape" (as advised by a nurse) in front of all and sundry.

40 years ago partners were allowed to be present throughout labour and delivery while the woman was on the delivery suite. Probably because nobody gives birth on a multi bedded ward, but in individual rooms. Post-partum wards usually had visiting hours, and although accommodations were made for shift workers etc overnight stays on multi bedded wards were not the normal practice. Quiet hour was sacrosanct and no visitors were allowed. The good of all the patients as a whole had to take precedence.

I think the allowing parents to stay 24/7 has been around for a very long time. My husband and I tag-teamed when one of ours was in hospital 30 odd years ago. I'd return home to breastfeed the youngest and spend time with the other children. I think that's a totally different situation to a ward of post-partum women, who will be feeling vulnerable.

Our DS had surgery when he was 4, nearly 36 years ago and I stayed with him 24/7 from him being admitted to being discharged. I agree Rosie that a parent staying with a child on a children's ward cannot be compared to the other parent staying 24/7.

40 years ago partners were allowed to be present throughout labour and delivery while the woman was on the delivery suite.
Oh yes, that was standard when mine were born, but the situation I referred to (which really was just an illustration ?) was that the mothers went with their babies to a shared ward, and fathers were allowed to sleep next to their new families. This meant that there was just a curtain between a newly-delivered woman, who may have had stitches, cesarian wounds, and be very sore and tired, and men they had never met.

We are talking about the dead cat though.

Yes, I was sore and tired with a Caesarian wound. My husband was with me the whole time - and there were other fathers just separated by a curtain.

(Not that I have any idea what that has to do with young people turning gay.)

Nothing, growstuff. Nothing. I introduced it as an aside, to show that not wanting men in spaces where women feel vulnerable is not just because of the 'transphobia' we are being accused of. It is not transwomen we don't want per se - it is men of any kind, and as transwomen are men, that includes them.

This was pounced on and twisted into me wanting all men banned from maternity wards, and has now become the 'dead cat' - the thing that everyone is talking about instead of the topic in hand.

So what's any of that got to do with young people turning gay?

What's gay young people got to do with trans women or men?

PS. When I was on a maternity ward, I couldn't have cared less whether there were men there or not.

I would have loathed it then, and I still would now.

It's the Q in the LGBTQI+ , innit?
It's all the rage nowadays to say you identify as queer or genderqueer - a term which has so many and such wide definitions as to be nearly meaningless.
I believe 'spicy straights' who call themselves queer is one such. Means whatever you want it to mean.
Saves developing an actual personality, I suppose. Just dye your hair green or blue.

Re the title: According to the OP, Stonewall did a survey. The first few posts questioned the validity of the survey, alongside questioning anything that Stonewall does really.
The question of whether more young people today feel relaxed enough to say they are gay-as in only want intimate relationships with others of the same sex is a good one. Certainly compared with earlier years, it’s much, though not entirely, safer to do so.
People, young or old who are gay have not and do not claim to have changed sex.

Discussion often moves into trans, usually TIM, who having declared themselves women, claim lesbians (or any women), are homophobic if they turn down intimate relations with them. They never seem to grasp that a TIM having sex with a female is a heterosexual act and if she is unwilling, it’s rape, not homophobia.
Similarly if a TIM wants intimate relations with another TIM, that’s a homosexual act, and if one TIM is unwilling, it’s rape not homophobia.
Nothing to do with more young people feeling safe enough to admit they’re gay. (You don’t turn gay, it’s not a metamorphosis.)

You're correct SiobhanSharpe it's the Q plus the I and + that accounts for at least some of the increase. It was a poorly constructed survey, with poorly constructed questions. I posted a screenshot, still there on the very first page of this thread, which showed under the question 'gender identity' transmen recorded 1% and transwomen recorded zero Really, none in the survey identified as a transwoman? If the numbers are so infinitesimal why on earth are adjustments affecting the many being made?
Population of the earth 8 billion, give or take
Sex distribution roughly 50%male sex, 50% female sex
Genders 8 billion, commonly called personalities

Mollygo You don’t turn gay, it’s not a metamorphosis.

This has already been discussed on this thread. People can and do turn gay. Originally I questioned whether there were actually more gay people in existence now than in the past, for whatever reason. If so then this could include people changing from straight to gay which does seem to happen (read the thread).

I did. And IMO you don’t turn gay, although this may be simply word usage.
For me, you might, like my nephew admit that you are gay, or you might, after several years of marriage, decide you are gay after all, but you don’t turn into anything else. You’re still a man-just now you only want relations with other men instead of heterosexual relations.
If you want to use ‘turn’ then it’s only an issue for me because some TIM believe they’ve ‘turned’ into women (AHF) and that’s untrue.

As I see it, people can change sexuality but not sex. Sex is immutable, but sexuality is fluid. Gender is something else altogether and is constructed and so vague that those wanting to change from one to another are unable to explain what it is.

People have always been able to express themselves as they wish. Yes, there have at times been laws against things like homosexuality, but it never stopped it happening and lesbians have never been sanctioned.

The only difference now is that you can have surgery and take pills to make you physically like the sex you wish to be.

When my sister died, the partner of her deceased ex-boss came to the funeral. A very dapper elderly gentleman, quite slight. Nobody attending the funeral, other than those who had worked with the organisation - and not even all of them, realised that 'he' was actually 'she', and those that did know, never gave the issue a thought. He/she had lived like that for decades and he was accepted for what he was. All this long before the current controversies.

But for all but a minute number of people with genetic abnormalities, every child born is male or female. If a skeleton is found, the sex can be identified. Without clothes or grave goods, or other extraneous evidence, gender or sexuality can not, even if they had gender changing surgery. Since sex can define many health outcomes . It is best that it is sex that is registered and then people can just be free to be whatever they believe/know they are.

But every gay person I know still identifies as his/her birth gender. They don't want to take pills or have surgery to be any other gender.

Being trans is something else, which is why I'm perplexed that talk of homosexuality should turn into a discussion about being trans.