Are young people turning gay?

Thank you Rosie.

My children were born around 30 years ago, and as you say, the men attended the birth but certainly didn't stay the night. I had my own room, but even so it wasn't even considered.

That's a good point about women not being considered until men started using our spaces. Anyone with sense can see that single cubicles with personal handbasins will not only take forever to become the norm, but that they will slow down the already lengthy time it takes for women to use the loo. The queues in theatre intervals are bad enough without having to wait for everyone to wash her hands and touch up lipstick before leaving the cubicle. It's not realistic, and neither would it 'make life better for us' if it did. It would become yet another inconvenience foisted on women so that a small number of men could have their demands for wish-fulfilment met at our expense.

Didn't see your post Doodledog it takes me a lot longer than 2 minutes to type!

Goodness 40 years ago I had to share a ward with other women who had their partners with them. All staying overnight? That's a totally different experience to mine with each of my four births. My husband was present at the births, but not allowed on the ward outside of visiting times.
Doodledog didn't say that males on post natal wards was the fault of transwomen, why would you attempt to imply she did? She merely pointed out that on multi bedded wards, having other women's male partners around all the time and even overnight was uncomfortable and disconcerting for her friend, and I imagine would be for many other women who find themselves in similar circumstances.

As for the safe spaces they are protected by law and as I said even toilets are improving. How much better if you have a messy period to have a toilet with a handbasin next to it, so you can clean up properly. Thank goodness then for transrights which are making things better for all of us. * my bold in the quote not G's
And yet you constantly state it's impossible to police our safe spaces without genital inspections, so why you persist in saying they are protected I do not know. In theory they are, but while there are self-identified 'transwomen' who don't respect the safeguards they will get abused. How long do you think it will take to convert every toilet installation to single rooms complete with washbasin? What happens in the meantime? Women's provision taken over by the gender neutral label, ie mixed sex. Such a shame women weren't worthy as ourselves until numbers of men started using our spaces.

Do you read people's posts?

First you 'misconstrue' my saying that legislation will not prevent people from doing anything to say the opposite, and now you are 'missing' the bit of my last post where I say that 'it is not just transpeople who are not welcome in women's spaces' and a further explanation of why that is the case in the final paragraph. You even quoted it ?.

Are you so keen to prove me wrong/make me look stupid that you can't wait long enough to find something you could properly argue against, but have to jump in with both feet to take issue with something I have not only not said, but have actually contradicted? It's tedious, and doesn't move the thread on at all.

Doodledog

If GN had a decent search facility I would happily quote you, but it doesn't so I can't. I have tried, but there are so many threads on this topic that it's like looking for a needle in a haystack. Anyone who knows my posts will, however, know that I do not gaslight, do not look for 'gotcha's, and speak my mind without resorting to lies. I have no choice but to leave this one there, but I am content for anyone reading this to make up their own minds on the balance of probabilities, and will not comment further.

As I am sick of saying, I for one do not 'fear' the trans community. On the contrary, I have a great deal of sympathy for those who have been tarred with the brush of the TRAs and extremist supporters who want everyone to comply with the demands to change the language, change sporting rules and deny women the right to privacy. Basically to erase women as a sex/group/class. These people often have fragile mental health in the first place, and the additional opprobrium heaped upon them because of the vociferous braying of the trans lobby can only make things worse.

It is not hard to see the lack of consideration for fellow transpeople (or for the transpeople non-trans 'supporters' insist on speaking for) as being similar to the lack of consideration for the women they claim to have such affinity with that they want to 'become' them. Someone 'living as' a woman would understand the concerns, even if their physical build and socialisation meant that they didn't share them. Most men of my acquaintance can understand why women don't want them around in certain circumstances.

It's not just transpeople who are not always welcome in what used to be women's spaces. A friend of mine has recently given birth, and had to share the ward with the partners of other mums who were staying overnight. My friend has other small children, so her own partner was with them, and she was on her own, tired and sore from the delivery, with just a curtain between her and three men she didn't know, and who could have been anyone. She is young, fit and confident, but felt very vulnerable. It also felt like an intrusion to have people who weren't also newly delivered mothers around when she was breastfeeding or being examined by staff.

There are times when women just don't want men around, and that is just one example. If men just have to say they are women to intrude on our spaces there is nowhere to go that they can't follow, and this is what underpins feminists' reluctance to have any truck with it. That is not to say that we are not supportive of transpeople, that we 'fear' them, or that we wish them any ill at all - it's just that we don't want men in our spaces, and we'd like to have words for ourselves and our lives that are not adapted to include men.

What is difficult to understand about that?

Goodness 40 years ago I had to share a ward with other women who had their partners with them. And mine was home minding children. It's not new and absolutely nothing to do with trans people. If it's to do with anyone it's to do with the women who think that men have to be involved in the birthing process. Are you now saying that those are the wrong sort of women as well?

Can I suggest that the reason you can't find the remarks you claim I made is nothing to do with the lack of a search facility. It's because as I keep telling you I NEVER SAID THEM!!!!
I believe that is an integral part of the gaslighting process. Refuse to admit there is any possibility that the victim might be right.

Are you using a phon/iPad or a laptop, Lathyrus?

To post a link all you need to do is find the link by going to the site in question. On an iPhone the link is at the bottom of the screen in a little rectangle, and on a laptop it is at the top of the screen in a bar. Copy it (on a phone, click on it and options will appear - you choose 'copy' and on a laptop highlight it and right click/control and do the same) and then paste it on here by tapping where you want it to go (on a phone) and choosing 'paste', or on a laptop click where you want it to go, then right click/control and choose 'paste'.

Let me know if that doesn't make sense or doesn't work?

A friend has just sent me a link to the National Trust site where they are endorsing work by Juno Dawson, a trans woman, who has also written

an explicit sex guide for children which taught children how to perform sex acts including advice on how to have sex with adults

I’d would have liked to start a separate thread on this, but it would really need a link to verify it and I don’t know how to do those. If someone can guide me I will.

We need to protest to the National Trust about their endorsement of Juno Dawson.

In spite of what Glorianna keeps protesting the evidence Id building that the trans cause has been hijacked by paedophiles. Saying it’s only a few, isn’t good enough when it comes to the rape of children.

If GN had a decent search facility I would happily quote you, but it doesn't so I can't. I have tried, but there are so many threads on this topic that it's like looking for a needle in a haystack. Anyone who knows my posts will, however, know that I do not gaslight, do not look for 'gotcha's, and speak my mind without resorting to lies. I have no choice but to leave this one there, but I am content for anyone reading this to make up their own minds on the balance of probabilities, and will not comment further.

As I am sick of saying, I for one do not 'fear' the trans community. On the contrary, I have a great deal of sympathy for those who have been tarred with the brush of the TRAs and extremist supporters who want everyone to comply with the demands to change the language, change sporting rules and deny women the right to privacy. Basically to erase women as a sex/group/class. These people often have fragile mental health in the first place, and the additional opprobrium heaped upon them because of the vociferous braying of the trans lobby can only make things worse.

It is not hard to see the lack of consideration for fellow transpeople (or for the transpeople non-trans 'supporters' insist on speaking for) as being similar to the lack of consideration for the women they claim to have such affinity with that they want to 'become' them. Someone 'living as' a woman would understand the concerns, even if their physical build and socialisation meant that they didn't share them. Most men of my acquaintance can understand why women don't want them around in certain circumstances.

It's not just transpeople who are not always welcome in what used to be women's spaces. A friend of mine has recently given birth, and had to share the ward with the partners of other mums who were staying overnight. My friend has other small children, so her own partner was with them, and she was on her own, tired and sore from the delivery, with just a curtain between her and three men she didn't know, and who could have been anyone. She is young, fit and confident, but felt very vulnerable. It also felt like an intrusion to have people who weren't also newly delivered mothers around when she was breastfeeding or being examined by staff.

There are times when women just don't want men around, and that is just one example. If men just have to say they are women to intrude on our spaces there is nowhere to go that they can't follow, and this is what underpins feminists' reluctance to have any truck with it. That is not to say that we are not supportive of transpeople, that we 'fear' them, or that we wish them any ill at all - it's just that we don't want men in our spaces, and we'd like to have words for ourselves and our lives that are not adapted to include men.

What is difficult to understand about that?

G
If only the rest of the trans community was not regarded as people to fear these threads wouldn't exist. The people I have met have been understanding, kind and welcoming, celebrating difference, and appreciating it, if it be sexual, gender or even age.

If only the certain few trans, usually TIM, considered the impact their actions and demands were having on the image of *all trans the situation wouldn’t have arisen in the first place.
They don’t consider that, or if they do, they evidently don’t care.
It doesn’t matter how many lovely people you’ve met or I’ve met who are all the things you mention.
It’s the ones who aren’t like that, and those who excuse their actions on the grounds of inclusivity who are causing the problem.

Maybe a way back would be for example, an announcement from TIM involved in harmful-to females practices, that they acknowledge that they are not female, and will never be female and have no right to do any of the things which have bought trans into bad repute.

It takes longer to get rid of a bad reputation than it does to acquire one.

If you want to say what I think or have said do have the grace to quote where I have said it.
Once again a lot of gaslighting going on on this thread.
I never denied lesbians were being abused. I did say that asking someone to think about extending their dating pool to include transwomen was not advocating non-consensual sex.

If only the rest of the trans community was not regarded as people to fear these threads wouldn't exist. The people I have met have been understanding, kind and welcoming, celebrating difference, and appreciating it, if it be sexual, gender or even age.

As for the safe spaces they are protected by law and as I said even toilets are improving. How much better if you have a messy period to have a toilet with a handbasin next to it, so you can clean up properly. Thank goodness then for transrights which are making things better for all of us.

Doodledog

That was not telling you what you think - it was reminding you of what you said. For the record.

I agree that you have said that non-consensual sex is never acceptable - I haven't claimed otherwise. Neither, on the other hand have I suggested that it is, so I'm not sure what you are getting at your last point.

I think you often look at a post, pounce on something you think you can pick holes in, and read things that aren't there.

What I, and others, have said is not remotely that all transwomen are dangerous - we have often been at pains to point this out. Not all men of any so-called 'gender' are dangerous. Most are not.

The concern is that some men pose a threat to women, and if any men are granted access to female spaces they will give cover to those who have ulterior motives. There is also a concern for women's privacy and dignity (eg if dealing with a messy period). I have lost count of how many times I have typed that, as well as read other people saying similar things.

Doodledog, just in case Glorianny missed it I think your posts warrants repeating.

Just for your info Glorianny, if somebody repeats what you have said, then presumably that’s what you think. Or do you say things that you don’t think are correct

Posters under various names on here persist in not reading the multitude of posts repeating the fact that we know that not all TIM are dangerous, or cheats, or unkind, or desirous of claiming that their TIM status entitled them to access female spaces or rôles, nor do we see all men as acting like that.

Then read DD’s last paragraph. I don’t need to write it again.

That was not telling you what you think - it was reminding you of what you said. For the record.

I agree that you have said that non-consensual sex is never acceptable - I haven't claimed otherwise. Neither, on the other hand have I suggested that it is, so I'm not sure what you are getting at your last point.

I think you often look at a post, pounce on something you think you can pick holes in, and read things that aren't there.

What I, and others, have said is not remotely that all transwomen are dangerous - we have often been at pains to point this out. Not all men of any so-called 'gender' are dangerous. Most are not.

The concern is that some men pose a threat to women, and if any men are granted access to female spaces they will give cover to those who have ulterior motives. There is also a concern for women's privacy and dignity (eg if dealing with a messy period). I have lost count of how many times I have typed that, as well as read other people saying similar things.

Doodledog

You are doing it again, Glorianny. Extrapolating your own experiences onto whole groups. You didn't believe me ages ago when I said that lesbians were being abused (and worse) by transwomen for refusing to have sex with them. If you haven't seen it, it doesn't happen.

Here's the message telling me what I think.
For the record I have never said I didn't believe lesbians were abused.
I did say you can't blame a whole group of people for the actions of a few and non consensual sex is never acceptable.
If we were to carry the same views onto other groups, all men must be rapists and paedophiles, because a few are.

Glorianny

Doodledog you may call my posts and ideas what you wish. What you may not do (and I keep having to say this) is misrepresent my views by saying things like "Glorianny thinks" or "Glorianny says".which is your usual way of criticising me.
As for furries, wouldn't litter trays do?

I did not call your posts anything. Pathetic and Ridiculous are what you have called mine, for no good reason that I can see. You may disagree, of course, but it was not 'ridiculous' to say that legislation would not stop binding, but might deter some people from doing it, and it is not 'pathetic' to ask what is the difference between one group asking people to go along with a fantasy and another. Hypothetical, yes, but 'pathetic', no.

If you can point me to anywhere where I have said 'Glorianny thinks' I will be able to answer that one, but otherwise I can't.

And I'm not the one who keeps saying that I am 'hounded' and a victim of bullying and slurs.

LadyHonoriaDedlock

It's no longer something you have to keep quiet about

Just to point out that the survey was not about how people identified in the past as opposed to how they identify now.

Both sets surveyed were asked how they identify in the present.

So needing to keep quiet about it isn’t really relevant as both sets were living under the same conditions when asked.

I think this shows how easy it is for surveys to be misinterpreted and faulty conclusions drawn. It’s why they have to be meticulously constructed if they are to have any real value.

Doodledog you may call my posts and ideas what you wish. What you may not do (and I keep having to say this) is misrepresent my views by saying things like "Glorianny thinks" or "Glorianny says".which is your usual way of criticising me.
As for furries, wouldn't litter trays do?

Pathetic, Ridiculous. Please remember those slurs next time you complain about being treated badly on these threads, and claim that you get personal comments. I've had enough of trying to respond to your posts, as all you do is ignore any points I make, refuse to answer questions and be insulting.

As for furries - they are outliers now, but a decade ago so were transwomen saying that they actually are women and expecting people to go along with it. There were no men competing as women in sport, and men with beards and dresses would be thrown out of any Ladies and probably prosecuted for loitering with intent. If furries get the likes of Stonewall behind them, before we know it there will be people insulting anyone who they claim is 'furryphobic', and insisting that everyone accepts their right to identify as they wish, because they 'just know inside' that they are really Felix the Cat or whatever.

Actually, what is the difference? If you can sneer at people who don't accept that trans women are women simply because they identify as such, why is it 'pathetic' to say that someone who identifies as a cat is not one?

It's no longer something you have to keep quiet about

Doodledog

Glorianny

So I have just had a couple of days spending time in a new university building. The loos were separate cubicles, lockable doors, and floor to ceiling walls, each with its own washing facilities and mirror. Two women only, two either gender and two men only. And it struck me that the arguments on here are outdated. That things are already changing and will continue to change. And actually proper loo facilities, with provision for washing, benefit all of us and are more hygienic. So acceptance of transpeople can bring benefits for all.

If someone is going to tell me that most loos won't change. When I started teaching some schools still had outside toilets for children. I'd say within 10 years all of those had gone because they were considered unacceptable and indoor facilities were provided. I anticipate the same will happen with gender considerate toilets now.
The realities of what is happening in the lives of young people and the theoretical discussions on GN are worlds apart.

The arguments here are about the world we live in now, not a future Utopia with purpose-built facilities that can accommodate all proclivities. University buildings are often very old, and to install new toilets would be hideously expensive and require extensive remodelling. In several buildings I have worked in, there are few women's loos anyway, as women weren't expected to be great in number when they were built. In one base I had, there was one loo (not a block, but one toilet) for women on the whole floor, and it was also the disabled one, so was often used by men too. The building I use now has had the women's loos changed to what they are calling 'gender neutral', whilst the men's stays the same. Removing urinals and giving men three separate cubicles (which is what women are used to) would be to diminish their experience, so won't happen. Instead, the meagre provision we had is reduced to a shared block of three, and it is near the entrance, so a lot of men use it on their way in and out, sooner than walk along the corridor to the male one.

New buildings may come to accommodate everyone, but by then there may be other groups identifying in ways that they claim need separate facilities. Where would you draw the line there? Should furries have places to cock their legs, for instance? If we buy into men 'becoming' women, why not accept that some people identify with cartoon animals? There could well be other demands from different groups - who gets to decide which are accommodated and which are not? Surely it is easier to separate by sex and have separate facilities for the disabled if space and plumbing allows?

I really don't think that 'the reality of life for young people' is as you describe at all. Some of them will go to modern schools or universities with purpose-built cubicles, but most will inhabit the real world, with a mishmash of premises of different ages and designs, and have to live with it, just as we do. Othering people who post on here, and suggesting that we are all out of date and reactionary is never a good look.

I agree that replacing some staff would be a start; but the issue there is how they were employed in the first place, and what philosophy allowed them to pass through the various processes and decisions that led to their being chosen.

A very old building close to where I live- 15century with 18th century additions recently had a complete upgrade of facilities, What was a spacious ladies room and a smaller gents has also been made into single cubicles, some of which are gender neutral. It's nonsense to say old buildings can't accommodate proper facilities (and exactly that argument was made about providing inside toilets for children)
No it isn't simpler to "separate by sex" because as has been said so many times you have no idea of anyone's sex. You go by their appearance, that is the gender they present as.
The furries I'm ignoring it's just pathetic.
If you don't like your toilet provision complain or ask your students to do it. Universities know who has the financial power now.
As I said it may take time but I think just as toilet provision has changed in many ways it will continue to do so. Safer, better more private and hygienic facilities for all, why on earth would anyone criticise that?

Galaxy

And that women were jumping up and down shouting look at the red flags and were ignored or told to shut up.

Yes. The questions need to be asked about what was driving the appointments - was it incompetence or something more sinister? And why, when the organisation exists to support vulnerable children, were those women ignored?

It is all too easy to shout 'phobic' or 'you are out of touch - get down with the kids', but when it leads to situations like this, the people who do it have to be held accountable. I don't think that sacking people alone is the answer - this really needs to be a root and branch investigation.

And that women were jumping up and down shouting look at the red flags and were ignored or told to shut up.

Glorianny

So I have just had a couple of days spending time in a new university building. The loos were separate cubicles, lockable doors, and floor to ceiling walls, each with its own washing facilities and mirror. Two women only, two either gender and two men only. And it struck me that the arguments on here are outdated. That things are already changing and will continue to change. And actually proper loo facilities, with provision for washing, benefit all of us and are more hygienic. So acceptance of transpeople can bring benefits for all.

If someone is going to tell me that most loos won't change. When I started teaching some schools still had outside toilets for children. I'd say within 10 years all of those had gone because they were considered unacceptable and indoor facilities were provided. I anticipate the same will happen with gender considerate toilets now.
The realities of what is happening in the lives of young people and the theoretical discussions on GN are worlds apart.

The arguments here are about the world we live in now, not a future Utopia with purpose-built facilities that can accommodate all proclivities. University buildings are often very old, and to install new toilets would be hideously expensive and require extensive remodelling. In several buildings I have worked in, there are few women's loos anyway, as women weren't expected to be great in number when they were built. In one base I had, there was one loo (not a block, but one toilet) for women on the whole floor, and it was also the disabled one, so was often used by men too. The building I use now has had the women's loos changed to what they are calling 'gender neutral', whilst the men's stays the same. Removing urinals and giving men three separate cubicles (which is what women are used to) would be to diminish their experience, so won't happen. Instead, the meagre provision we had is reduced to a shared block of three, and it is near the entrance, so a lot of men use it on their way in and out, sooner than walk along the corridor to the male one.

New buildings may come to accommodate everyone, but by then there may be other groups identifying in ways that they claim need separate facilities. Where would you draw the line there? Should furries have places to cock their legs, for instance? If we buy into men 'becoming' women, why not accept that some people identify with cartoon animals? There could well be other demands from different groups - who gets to decide which are accommodated and which are not? Surely it is easier to separate by sex and have separate facilities for the disabled if space and plumbing allows?

I really don't think that 'the reality of life for young people' is as you describe at all. Some of them will go to modern schools or universities with purpose-built cubicles, but most will inhabit the real world, with a mishmash of premises of different ages and designs, and have to live with it, just as we do. Othering people who post on here, and suggesting that we are all out of date and reactionary is never a good look.

I agree that replacing some staff would be a start; but the issue there is how they were employed in the first place, and what philosophy allowed them to pass through the various processes and decisions that led to their being chosen.

Yes it will depend on what comes out. If an enquiry finds that Mermaids created an environment that gave access to abusers whether intentionally or unintentionally and through publicity actively recruited children to the organisations beliefs then that really wouldn’t be a better a better option than the Internet would it?

If an organisation like Barnados, that is heavily involved with vulnerable children, was suspected of something similar, not just an isolated case, but an ethos that ran throughout, then you would expect that to be shut down immediately while an enquiry took place.

They wouldn’t be allowed to continue because of the risk that the concerns were proven and more children had been put at risk while the enquiry took place.

If a teacher, or medical staff or police are accused of child abuse they are immediately removed from their position.

I can’t see that lack of alternative provision or concern over the iInternet use can be used as a reason for allowing Mermaids to continue whilst the possibility of child abuse is a concern.

And simply replacing some people in an organisation is not the answer. Not till you know what has happened and who has been involved.

There is an appalling lack of services for children with autism, gender dysphoria and mental health. In any of those areas I’m not convinced that bad advice is better than no advice at all.

I think it will depend what further comes out in the investigation and I am beginning to wonder about whether there will be claims for compensation. I imagine that in relation to the tavistock that must be a strong possibility and it's where that then leads.