Layla Moran has declared she is pansexual

DarloRich said:

It is more important it helps you. I am very happy with my sexual life!

I don't want to get further into this because my views and expression of them ( or perhaps my style/wording) will upset you or others. I am not an ogre, I simply resit the trendy "right on" desire to give everyone a label. We don't need them. I treat people as I find and treat them as people.

PS I would be hounded and banned for using the word "queer" to describe anyone.

Click to expand...

It does, which is one of the reasons why I object to it all being dismissed as just following a trend or similar.

DarloRich said:

I don't want to get further into this because my views and expression of them ( or perhaps my style/wording) will upset you or others. I am not an ogre, I simply resit the trendy "right on" desire to give everyone a label. We don't need them. I treat people as I find and treat them as people.

Click to expand...

On a slightly lighter note but making a semi-serious point on the subject of what appears to be a 21st Century desire to 'label' everyone, is there a term for someone who doesn't wish to be labelled as XXXsexual, and just wishes to be themselves?

I have to confess that until the other day, I had never heard of Pansexual (not had I heard of Layla Moran) - and the first thing that came to mind was Vic Reeves and Bob Mortimer with their frying pans! Younger readers may have to watch youtube to know what I am on about...

theblackwatch said:

On a slightly lighter note but making a semi-serious point on the subject of what appears to be a 21st Century desire to 'label' everyone, is there a term for someone who doesn't wish to be labelled as XXXsexual, and just wishes to be themselves?

I have to confess that until the other day, I had never heard of Pansexual (not had I heard of Layla Moran) - and the first thing that came to mind was Vic Reeves and Bob Mortimer with their frying pans! Younger readers may have to watch youtube to know what I am on about...

Click to expand...

Yes! They simply don't have to use a label. Labels exist for those that want to use them. Those that don't can remain unlabelled.

DarloRich said:

I am not a trendy right on student obsessed with labels so not much! I am happy for people to get on with their lives as they wish. I might not agree with their "label" but it is their label to wear. I am not looking to impose my own label or definition on people!

Click to expand...

Whether you're a fan of labels or not (I'm personally not, but the millennial and younger generations do seem to like them) doesn't alter the fact that there are people who do not experience sexual attraction to anybody.

Bletchleyite said:

I think you've slightly missed the point. Would you be attracted to a female to male trans? That's what pansexuality is about, isn't it?

Click to expand...

I'm not sure if it's only about that. There is also an issue that some people are genuinely born not entirely male, or not entirely female (Google 'intersex' for more information). That's been medically recognised for a very long time, but those people have historically often faced huge problems because in almost all countries, the law (and popular culture) has expected people to be 100% one or the other. Added to that there are other gender identities where people are not transgender or transsexual but choose not to fully identify with their medical birth gender. I'm guessing (although I'm not fully certain) that identifying as pansexual rather than bisexual implies some acceptance of those other intermediate genders.

DynamicSpirit said:

I'm not sure if it's only about that. There is also an issue that some people are genuinely born not entirely male, or not entirely female (Google 'intersex' for more information). That's been medically recognised for a very long time, but those people have historically often faced huge problems because in almost all countries, the law (and popular culture) has expected people to be 100% one or the other. Added to that there are other gender identities where people are not transgender or transsexual but choose not to fully identify with their medical birth gender. I'm guessing (although I'm not fully certain) that identifying as pansexual rather than bisexual implies some acceptance of those other intermediate genders.

Click to expand...

Pretty much, yes. That's not to say that bisexuality intrinsically rejects the idea that there are more than 2 genders.

Like it or not, coming out stories like this are still needed. Society as a whole is still somewhat against the LGBT community. There are still over 70 countries in the world that criminalise homosexuality, some of which still impose the death penalty for it.

Obviously the UK is more accepting, but there's still prejudice. My best friend is transgender and pansexual, and I've witnessed first hand the amount of abuse, hatred and scorn he's been treated with in this allegedly progressive country. It's had a massive impact on his mental health, and without getting into too much detail, he self harms, and has even seriously contemplated suicide. Such mental health issues are depressingly common among LGBT people, who live in a society that seems to do nothing but judge and mock them.

Despite that however, I can tell that he's way happier and more comfortable with himself now than when he was pretending to be someone he wasn't. He doesn't have to pretend to be the gender he was assigned to at birth, he doesn't have to pretend that he's not interested in girls, or that he's solely interested in boys. If someone makes a choice about their life, and it makes them happier, then we should be happy for them, not just blindly scream about how ridiculous these "labels" and "spectrums" are.

That's why these stories are still necessary, they make people feel represented and more comfortable and secure of themselves. It's not necessarily about politics, I'm sure a similar reaction would have occurred if this story was about a celebrity or other public figure.

coradiafan2000 said:

That's why these stories are still necessary, they make people feel represented and more comfortable and secure of themselves. It's not necessarily about politics, I'm sure a similar reaction would have occurred if this story was about a celebrity or other public figure.

Click to expand...

I agree, and I certainly think that people coming out can be very important for making others in those groups feel more comfortable. I do though think there was possibly additional hostility - at least on these forums - because (a) Layla Moran is an MP, and (b) she's specifically a LibDem MP. Being an MP attracts all the usual anti-politics cynicism, and I also get the impression that some people here - certainly on the LibDem thread that this discussion originated on - seemed determined to pick any flaw they could in anything that any LibDem does. I'm not sure if that coloured some of the reaction to this particular announcement.

DynamicSpirit said:

I agree, and I certainly think that people coming out can be very important for making others in those groups feel more comfortable. I do though think there was possibly additional hostility - at least on these forums - because (a) Layla Moran is an MP, and (b) she's specifically a LibDem MP. Being an MP attracts all the usual anti-politics cynicism, and I also get the impression that some people here - certainly on the LibDem thread that this discussion originated on - seemed determined to pick any flaw they could in anything that any LibDem does. I'm not sure if that coloured some of the reaction to this particular announcement.

Click to expand...

You may be on to to something there.

Edders23 said:

Am I the only one who thinks this is more of a PR stunt than anything serious

Click to expand...

I think that's perhaps a little unfair. If you read her statement it's clear that she knew she was going to be outed by the media, no doubt in a salacious 'exposé' way, so decided to make it public on her terms rather then let her family read about it in the press. This is what happened to rugby international Gareth Thomas and caused him huge distress.

Specifically regarding Layla Moran, here's something she wrote for the Independent. The headline is "I didn't come out to further my career, I did it because I had no choice - this is what really happened"

https://www.indy100.com/article/layla-moran-lib-dems-mp-pansexual-lgbt-coming-out-9271761

For the last few months, I had been hearing second hand that a few journalists had been attempting to make our relationship salacious or sensational. My understanding was that they had been calling around asking questions from as early as mid-October.

Then, last Saturday the Mail on Sunday contacted me directly to tell me they were publishing something with less than 24 hours notice. I pleaded with them to wait. I hadn’t yet told my 92-year-old Grandma who reads their paper “just for the crossword” and I couldn’t bear the idea she would see it before anything else.


After a series of phone calls over the course of the day, they agreed to not write it last week, but I still believed they would publish this Sunday with or without me. So I told my grandmother and decided to take back the control that I feared would be stolen from me.

In the past few days, I have learnt that reporters have been offering money and doorstepping houses of an ex-boyfriend and former neighbours looking for information about either of us. All because I had the prerogative and confidence to tell our story myself.


Today a follow-up story in the Mail on Sunday accuses me of trying to "weaponise" my sexuality. They have barely quoted anyone who met me, and many of the people quoted seem confused about what pansexuality actually is.

The story frames my actions, my telling of my story, as a calculated plan.

This couldn't be further from the truth. While I am proud of who I am, it was the media who I felt intimidated me into doing it at a time, not of my choosing.

It's possible that to some journalists and readers this is a jolly jape where they get one over me, but to me, this is my life.

Click to expand...

I hope this puts to bed the various ideas that she came out to further her career.


@coradiafan2000 - Really good post above. Thank you for sharing it.

Is there a word for someone who only experiences sexual attraction by looking in the mirror? We appear to have several of these in the top echelons of society.

Busaholic said:

Is there a word for someone who only experiences sexual attraction by looking in the mirror? We appear to have several of these in the top echelons of society.

Click to expand...

A quick internet search throws up the term 'autosexual', although I'm not quite sure if it's entirely suitable.

FelixtheCat said:

A quick internet search throws up the term 'autosexual', although I'm not quite sure if it's entirely suitable.

Click to expand...

Is that as contrasted to if you prefer to do your sex manually?

FelixtheCat said:

A quick internet search throws up the term 'autosexual', although I'm not quite sure if it's entirely suitable.

Click to expand...

I believe it may involve exhaust pipes but best not go there!

AlterEgo said:

A pansexual is a bisexual who thinks there are more than two genders and is attracted to 'all' of them; it's the epitome of "born this way, essence of personality" thinking.

It has nothing to do with her job or ability as an MP however.

Click to expand...

However what certainly does make a difference in her job and calls into question her judgement, is who she is in a relationship with. Its the ex Press Manger for the LibDems who was suspended and then resigned from the party machine before she could be dismissed for Gross Misconduct as she fraudulently created an email with a non-truthful date on it to cover up some highly questionable selling of voter data to the Remain campaign.

Her sexuality is of no issue, her judgement in partners most certainly is if she wishes to be the party leader.

DynamicSpirit said:

I'm not sure if it's only about that. There is also an issue that some people are genuinely born not entirely male, or not entirely female (Google 'intersex' for more information). That's been medically recognised for a very long time, but those people have historically often faced huge problems because in almost all countries, the law (and popular culture) has expected people to be 100% one or the other. Added to that there are other gender identities where people are not transgender or transsexual but choose not to fully identify with their medical birth gender. I'm guessing (although I'm not fully certain) that identifying as pansexual rather than bisexual implies some acceptance of those other intermediate genders.

Click to expand...

The issues arise as in order for a hermaphrodite to become one sex or the other it requires surgical intervention. This has often been done in very early childhood and can mean that the surgeons assign the 'wrong' sex to someone in a psychological sense. This can lead to mental health problems in later life and indeed I've worked with a couple who have ended up taking their own lives as a result. The answer would appear to be simple, leave any intervention until the child is old enough to decide but then you have a child who is clearly 'different' going through school, will all the issues that it would cause them. Not a simple topic.

Pansexual is really just the en vogue phrase for bisexual.

DarloRich said:

I don't want to get further into this because my views and expression of them ( or perhaps my style/wording) will upset you or others. I am not an ogre, I simply resit the trendy "right on" desire to give everyone a label. We don't need them. I treat people as I find and treat them as people.

Click to expand...

Unfortunately it's not really possible to organise human society without using labels or definitions to some extent.

For example, if we can't define someone as having a mobility impairment we can't offer them facilities which make their life easier such as dedicated parking spaces, or additional assistance when using public transport, or access to suitable housing.

Of course, at the moment there are all sorts of arguments around gender and how a man or woman should or shouldn't be defined. It's always tempting to say that labels don't matter, and people are just people, and I'd agree that there are many situations where that's the best approach and the one I'd take, but you can't ignore the fact that there are certain situations where it doesn't work. Recently we have come up against the problem of what to do about women-only spaces, now that the definition or label of 'woman' has become more contested. The consequence of saying that "people are just people" is that you can't have such a thing as a women-only space. Some might say, that's fine, we don't need women-only spaces, but naturally there are many people who are not happy with that conclusion at all. I don't know what the solution is, but rejecting the notion of definitions or labels certainly doesn't lead us to one that everyone is going to be happy with... it's not as easy as that.

mpthomson said:

Pansexual is really just the en vogue phrase for bisexual.

Click to expand...

Not really, they mean slightly different things. Bisexual basically means attracted to multiple genders, while pansexual means to be attracted to ALL genders, both can be attracted to nonbinary and/or gender fluid people. (I think that's the gist of it anyway).

mpthomson said:

However what certainly does make a difference in her job and calls into question her judgement, is who she is in a relationship with. Its the ex Press Manger for the LibDems who was suspended and then resigned from the party machine before she could be dismissed for Gross Misconduct as she fraudulently created an email with a non-truthful date on it to cover up some highly questionable selling of voter data to the Remain campaign.

Click to expand...

Again, I don't think politics is what matters about this story. As mentioned in post #41, she didn't come out to further her polictical career, but because she felt she didn't have a choice. What's important is that people like her will feel more comfortable and secure in themselves, see my previous post for why that's so important.

I think the reaction from the LGBT community would have been similarly positive if it was any other sort of public figure or famous person. But because it's a politician (like most things involving them), people HAVE to look for even the most minute flaw in their judgement or their character.

Here's a quote from an article in the guardian about her coming out.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/jan/02/lib-dem-mp-layla-moran-announces-same-sex-relationship

"Moran met her girlfriend, Rosy Cobb, the Lib Dems’ former head of press, through work. Cobb was suspended by the party during the general election after being accused of forging an email.

Moran said the she and her girlfriend had spoken to the Liberal Democrats’ welfare officer about any possible conflicts of interest when they started their relationship, but were told there was no problem. Addressing Cobb’s suspension, she said: “She no longer works for the party and she is not going back, so there is a line completely drawn.”

She said she had not been aware of the details of the case until Cobb was suspended. “At that point I went into girlfriend mode. My job is to support her through a really difficult and painful time,” she said.

“Then people were saying to me that I should call it off with her because it wouldn’t be good for me, but I said no. You don’t abandon people when they are going through a tough time. But I am absolutely convinced that, had she been a man, they would not have said that.”




If they are both happy, then we shouldn't take that away from them.

For goodness sake, why can't we have a positive news story for once??

coradiafan2000 said:

Again, I don't think politics is what matters about this story. As mentioned in post #41, she didn't come out to further her polictical career, but because she felt she didn't have a choice. What's important is that people like her will feel more comfortable and secure in themselves, see my previous post for why that's so important.

I think the reaction from the LGBT community would have been similarly positive if it was any other sort of public figure or famous person. But because it's a politician (like most things involving them), people HAVE to look for even the most minute flaw in their judgement or their character.

Here's a quote from an article in the guardian about her coming out.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/jan/02/lib-dem-mp-layla-moran-announces-same-sex-relationship

"Moran met her girlfriend, Rosy Cobb, the Lib Dems’ former head of press, through work. Cobb was suspended by the party during the general election after being accused of forging an email.

Moran said the she and her girlfriend had spoken to the Liberal Democrats’ welfare officer about any possible conflicts of interest when they started their relationship, but were told there was no problem. Addressing Cobb’s suspension, she said: “She no longer works for the party and she is not going back, so there is a line completely drawn.”

She said she had not been aware of the details of the case until Cobb was suspended. “At that point I went into girlfriend mode. My job is to support her through a really difficult and painful time,” she said.

“Then people were saying to me that I should call it off with her because it wouldn’t be good for me, but I said no. You don’t abandon people when they are going through a tough time. But I am absolutely convinced that, had she been a man, they would not have said that.”




If they are both happy, then we shouldn't take that away from them.

For goodness sake, why can't we have a positive news story for once??

Click to expand...

I'm absolutely convinced that they would have said that had her partner been male. It's a perception issue, as there is a possibility that Ms Cobb may be able to influence her and she's (Ms Cobb) has already shown herself to be untrustworthy. It may well never happen but there will always be a perception that it might and it's ammunition for her critics, see Mr and Mrs Bercow or Len McLuskey and Karie Murphy as prime examples of this. I note that she hadn't spoken to the welfare officer re the possible issues once the suspension/resignation had happened. Her statement is very cleverly worded.

That's the only thing that matters in this, not her sexuality or reasons for coming out or what any community feel about it, which aren't at all relevant.

mpthomson said:

That's the only thing that matters in this, not her sexuality or reasons for coming out or what any community feel about it, which aren't at all relevant.

Click to expand...

I've tried to explain why coming out stories are still important to people in the LGBT community. It might not mean anything to you or even I, but it will to lots of people who feel under represented and insecure in themselves. True, it might not be relevant to what you seem to be interested in, but it is to people like her.

mpthomson said:

However what certainly does make a difference in her job and calls into question her judgement, is who she is in a relationship with.

Click to expand...

Really? And what do you suggest she does about it? Ditch her partner (one can surmise, probably breaking her partner's heart), in order to further her own career, so that no-one can make insinuations about her partner? And if so, how do you think you'd feel about a politician who was prepared to sacrifice people close to her in order to satisfy her own ambitions?

If you're a normal person, you don't choose who you fall in love with. It usually tends to just happen. And, as far as I can make out from the details posted, she appears to have started her relationship with Rosy Cobb before the stuff with the email happened. And there is no indication that Layla herself was complicit in any wrongdoing. So no, being in that relationship doesn't call her judgement into question. What matters is how she responds to the delicate situation that she has ended up in. I would have thought that making clear your disapproval of the wrongdoing while supporting your partner seems a pretty good and ethical approach.

DynamicSpirit said:

Really? And what do you suggest she does about it? Ditch her partner (one can surmise, probably breaking her partner's heart), in order to further her own career, so that no-one can make insinuations about her partner? And if so, how do you think you'd feel about a politician who was prepared to sacrifice people close to her in order to satisfy her own ambitions?

If you're a normal person, you don't choose who you fall in love with. It usually tends to just happen. And, as far as I can make out from the details posted, she appears to have started her relationship with Rosy Cobb before the stuff with the email happened. And there is no indication that Layla herself was complicit in any wrongdoing. So no, being in that relationship doesn't call her judgement into question. What matters is how she responds to the delicate situation that she has ended up in. I would have thought that making clear your disapproval of the wrongdoing while supporting your partner seems a pretty good and ethical approach.

Click to expand...

There would always be a concern that sensitive information dealt with by the MP could end up in the wrong hands as a result of her partners past indiscretion

I went to school in the days of Section 28, and as a not-particularly-manly bloke at an all-boys grammar school rife with toxic masculinity and homophobic bullying, I welcome anything that makes it possible for people to talk about who and what they are.

I'm 100% straight and have never had any doubt about that, but I've really struggled with the expectations of traditional gender roles. I've occasionally wondered if I'd have been happier being a woman, but I've never seriously thought I've been trans. I present as a man and will always do so, I expect, but the fact that being non-binary is now openly discussed has immensely cheered me, and if that discussion had been held 30 years ago, it might have made me much happier just to be myself.

My kids have grown up and gone to school in a FAR more inclusive environment, and it's a joy to behold. They're in their late teens now and seem much more open and sure of themselves and their sexualities/gender identities than I did at that age, when there was a huge pile of shame and repressed crap in there, not helped by my attendance at a rather strict church as well.

I can understand this stuff makes some people uncomfortable, and if you're 100% happy with your gender, sexuality and orientation, and fit into a traditional box, I can see why. But a sizable chunk of society has been marginalised and has suffered a great deal because they don't fit in with those traditional, binary labels that we take for granted.

It's a shame this stuff is still such a big deal, and I appreciate it can look like virtue-signalling or something designed to trip people up by luring them into a debate they don't understand, but we do still need to have these conversations.

If you just want to mock, deride, or claim her identity doesn't exist, I'd suggest the best thing you can do is shut up.

Journeyman said:

I've really struggled with the expectations of traditional gender roles. I've occasionally wondered if I'd have been happier being a woman, but I've never seriously thought I've been trans. I present as a man and will always do so, I expect, but the fact that being non-binary is now openly discussed has immensely cheered me

Click to expand...

I know what you mean. I too have wondered if I'd have been happier as a woman. In fact as a child I was often mistaken for one because of my long hair and high pitched voice. It continued into my early teens. I remember one bloke who got confused when he saw me in the toilets at Weatherspoons! I also find I make better friends with girls, in high school I had very few male friends, which has sort of continued to this day. Despite all that, now that I'm out of school and now all the boys have stopped hurling homophobic slurs at me (I am 100% straight by the way, just a bit "flamboyant") I am perfectly comfortable being a male who is a bit more feminine than others.

Journeyman said:

I went to school in the days of Section 28, and as a not-particularly-manly bloke at an all-boys grammar school rife with toxic masculinity and homophobic bullying, I welcome anything that makes it possible for people to talk about who and what they are.

I'm 100% straight and have never had any doubt about that, but I've really struggled with the expectations of traditional gender roles. I've occasionally wondered if I'd have been happier being a woman, but I've never seriously thought I've been trans. I present as a man and will always do so, I expect, but the fact that being non-binary is now openly discussed has immensely cheered me, and if that discussion had been held 30 years ago, it might have made me much happier just to be myself.

My kids have grown up and gone to school in a FAR more inclusive environment, and it's a joy to behold. They're in their late teens now and seem much more open and sure of themselves and their sexualities/gender identities than I did at that age, when there was a huge pile of shame and repressed crap in there, not helped by my attendance at a rather strict church as well.

I can understand this stuff makes some people uncomfortable, and if you're 100% happy with your gender, sexuality and orientation, and fit into a traditional box, I can see why. But a sizable chunk of society has been marginalised and has suffered a great deal because they don't fit in with those traditional, binary labels that we take for granted.

It's a shame this stuff is still such a big deal, and I appreciate it can look like virtue-signalling or something designed to trip people up by luring them into a debate they don't understand, but we do still need to have these conversations.

If you just want to mock, deride, or claim her identity doesn't exist, I'd suggest the best thing you can do is shut up.

Click to expand...

I think single sex schools are a bad idea. I suffered in one too for much the same reasons as you. It was compounded for me by having little contact with girls from age 11, with my then out-of-school activities confined to scouts and church choir (all male) and such children as there were in the area I lived in were all boys too! My sister was three years younger, went to an all-girls comprehensive, and I found the friends she brought home annoying in the extreme. It was particularly galling for me, because I had an interest in girls a year or two before other school friends, so couldn't talk about it with them. It didn't help that I had strict parents who virtually never went out in the evening.

coradiafan2000 said:

I am perfectly comfortable being a male who is a bit more feminine than others.

Click to expand...

I think many males are like that yet society sometimes struggles with this concept more than LGBT people

scotrail158713 said:

I think many males are like that yet society sometimes struggles with this concept more than LGBT people

Click to expand...

Oh definitely yeah. I think people would be far more comfortable with themselves if they were taught from the beginning that boys don't have to be super masculine, and girls don't have to be super feminine. Too many times did I doubt myself as a kid for doing things that "proper" boys wouldn't do, like watching TV shows primarily aimed at girls. I recall I even had a phase when I played with dolls.

Busaholic said:

I think single sex schools are a bad idea. I suffered in one too for much the same reasons as you. It was compounded for me by having little contact with girls from age 11, with my then out-of-school activities confined to scouts and church choir (all male) and such children as there were in the area I lived in were all boys too! My sister was three years younger, went to an all-girls comprehensive, and I found the friends she brought home annoying in the extreme. It was particularly galling for me, because I had an interest in girls a year or two before other school friends, so couldn't talk about it with them. It didn't help that I had strict parents who virtually never went out in the evening.

Click to expand...

I'm so glad I didn't go to an all boys school. I'd have found it even harder to find friends who actually cared about me. I'm still perplexed as to why single sex schools are still around in 2020. They only seem to exacerbate all the current problems we have with gender stereotyping.

coradiafan2000 said:

I also find I make better friends with girls, in high school I had very few male friends, which has sort of continued to this day.

Click to expand...

Absolutely. One side-effect of my education is that I have nothing but contempt for all the macho nonsense I had to deal with, and I found, when I actually had the chance to meet women, that I was FAR more comfortable in female or mixed company than I was in exclusively male company. About 90% of my close friends are women, and have been for some years.

Busaholic said:

I think single sex schools are a bad idea. I suffered in one too for much the same reasons as you. It was compounded for me by having little contact with girls from age 11, with my then out-of-school activities confined to scouts and church choir (all male) and such children as there were in the area I lived in were all boys too! My sister was three years younger, went to an all-girls comprehensive, and I found the friends she brought home annoying in the extreme. It was particularly galling for me, because I had an interest in girls a year or two before other school friends, so couldn't talk about it with them.

Click to expand...

Yeah, after my own fairly miserable experience in one, I was determined to avoid sending my kids to single-sex schools. All-boys schools are hotbeds of toxic masculinity, and all-girls schools can exacerbate a particularly nasty kind of psychological bullying. I appreciate that mixed schools can have problems too, and I know of parents who have sent girls to single-sex schools because of nasty experiences of sexual harassment, but generally, mixed schools are a much more natural and realistic environment.

I actually ended up getting very involved in church activities when I was 15, which involved a very friendly and welcoming youth group. It was the first time I'd had any contact with girls since I'd left primary school, and on top of that, the people there were actually nice. I've long since stopped going to church and have moved a long way from the area, but many people from those days are still my friends, 30 years later.

coradiafan2000 said:

Oh definitely yeah. I think people would be far more comfortable with themselves if they were taught from the beginning that boys don't have to be super masculine, and girls don't have to be super feminine. Too many times did I doubt myself as a kid for doing things that "proper" boys wouldn't do, like watching TV shows primarily aimed at girls. I recall I even had a phase when I played with dolls.

Click to expand...

This really needs to be emphasised a lot more. I think a lot of people go down the trans route when it may not be right for them, mainly because they're uncomfortable with what society expects from their gender. It worries me especially when young people have issues in this area, as it seems the only solution a lot of people can come up with is transitioning, which can often create more problems than it solves, and beyond a certain point is irreversible, leaving those who go down that road infertile as well.

It's taken me quite a long time to realise that I'm quite a mixture of stuff. A lot of my interests are quite stereotypically male - trains (obviously, that's why I'm here!) and technology in particular. But...I'm quite a sensitive and reflective sort of a person, and I relate to a lot of things in the same way you might expect women to do. I think like a woman in lots of ways, if that can be said to be a thing.