Stonewall change definition of transphobia - questioning gender identity ok now

If TW were always women, they wouldn't need to falsify anything to be women.

Alternatively the words women and men both need to have the same definition of 'person who is an adult' and we all pretend sex doesn't exist. But then men who want to 'pass' would complain as they wouldn't be able to say they'd transformed themselves into being a woman. It's not possible to destroy definitions and then expect to use the definition you've destroyed.

Re: demisexual and ace/aro, I wondered about that as to whether some of the reasons for this were also the pornified (youth) culture, thus some people's way of opting out of all that. I don't mean to say that it could be the reason for everyone, but perhaps a percentage.

Several of my dcs' female friends and classmates identified as aro or ace from around 12yo until they began to have boyfriends or girlfriends. The majority had girlfriends before they had boyfriends. There was often angsty talk about not really enjoying their girlfriend relationships, even though they were lesbians. (Clue: the reason most felt like this was because they were not actually lesbians.) Many did not start going out with boys until Y12 or later.

It was as clear as daylight that the majority of these girls were just not sexually mature yet. Their bodies were physically mature, but their brains were not. In my day they would have been accepted as late starters. In the 21st century there was something wrong with them unless they had a label.

The labels made them feel safe in the pornified world of heterosexual relationships.

The boys rarely IDd as aro/ace, they just got on with ignoring or being attracted to girls or boys. The only boy I can recall who IDd as aro/ace eventually came out as gay at university. Again, the label represented social safety for him.

It's a tragedy what Stonewall has turned into to. It's legacy has been destroyed. No-one will remember it's campaigns for equality for LGB people but remember it promoting dangerous gender ideology.

In general I think people and even organizations need to be allowed to change direction on this stuff.

I don't think that about SW. I think they should be disbanded.

So what is the difference between LBGA and Stonewall now?

Yes, the new definition is not much better than the previous version. Basically saying the person always was a man / woman, just got the wrong label at birth.

Re: demisexual and ace/aro, I wondered about that as to whether some of the reasons for this were also the pornified (youth) culture, thus some people's way of opting out of all that. I don't mean to say that it could be the reason for everyone, but perhaps a percentage.

When you cannot define something, eventually, eventually, you have to admit that it is not material.

I wonder where we will be in 15-20 years. Sadly, I suspect the people who are currently dependent on stonewall as people with transgender identity will be disappointed in that organisation.

… So they are defining a trans woman as a woman, and a trans man as a man?

But we’re now allowed to call that out and say what are you talking about that’s clearly bollocks. We all know a trans woman is a man and a trans man is a woman?

They have however changed their definition of a TW and TM. They have taken out ‘identifies and lives as’ and replaced it with woman and man.

Oh my word.

Given how influential Stonewall have been in driving genderism and how influential this shift will therefore be, I'm not inclined to interrupt them in the process of reverse-ferreting.

Just to keep very good receipts.

I'd be more impressed if they had said there's no such word as transphobic.

Will the rules on here change to reflect this, I wonder? I can't imagine why they wouldn't, but you never know.

Do they still define gay as homo-genderal?

Patients who start hormones, with their parents' assistance, before age 18 years have higher continuation rates than adults.

God that is sinister. Poor poor children (and parents). They’re on a pathway and they can’t get off.

So if Stonewall has dropped this and it is no longer transphobic to correctly sex someone, then why are IPSO the BBC and all the rest still following an outdated position that even Stonewall has turned its back on?

Not to mention all the righteous scolders who come onto this board to express their outrage at "denying the gender identity" of male people who claim to be lesbians.
Stonewall has just "de-existed" them.

It’d be amazing if eg K Stock brings this up and asks for an apology, and her job back.. (not that she’d want it)..

We need JKR to put out a tweet. It doesn’t need to saying anything, just copy the Stonewall blurb..

It may be this study

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/35452119/

Our results suggest that >70% of TGD individuals who start gender-affirming hormones will continue use beyond 4 years, with higher continuation rates in transfeminine individuals. Patients who start hormones, with their parents' assistance, before age 18 years have higher continuation rates than adults.

It's briefly discussed here

https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC9516050/

RoyalCorgi · Today 20:11

Why, it's almost as if the gender expert propagandists are actually inexpert bullshitters, or something.

I don't (Google turns up all sorts of different figures, but not 30 percent), and I'm also puzzled by the use of "+/-30 percent".

If Deakins meant "about 30 percent" she could have written "circa 30%" or something like that. But "+/- 30 percent" only makes sense in the context of another figure. You could say, for example, "Detransition rates are 50%, plus or minus 30%". That would be a hell of a wide margin of error, but it would make mathematical sense, which the term "+/-30 percent" doesn't on its own.

Out if interest - does anyone know where the 30% figure is from ?

Stonewall should now be disbanded, or at the very least subsumed into some obscure review group that will knock any more of their daftness right on the head.

Amazed at the power they had/have to quasi legislate for the behaviour of so many. Mad isn't it. With no democratic parliamentary mandate either.

Oh fantastic! I wonder if all these university HR policies will be updated now? Can’t wait!
Will probably wait a long time for an apology to university academics who have been called transphobic just for stating facts, though …