LGB Alliance to plan helpline with Lottery funding

ArcheryAnnie

If you don't mind, could you point us in the direction of the significant successes that Stonewall won in the first 3 years?

Are there some that spring to mind?

Just so we can make sure we are comparing like for like as much as possible. Only this time I guess, the hostility towards LGB Alliance is from within the Stonewall alphabet community, maybe more so than from extremists outside the Stonewall community.

I was an ordinary volunteer back at the very beginning of Stonewall. I carried boxes of flyers and condoms at festivals, I sat on committees, I did all the things you have to do to try and help a small campaign get off the ground in a hostile environment. Those were the days when to walk in a Pride March was a political, risky act, not the result of your corporation buying a ticket.

I barely recognise the bloated, homophobic behemoth Stonewall has since become. And if you'd told me in those days that I'd ever describe Stonewall as "homophobic", I wouldn't have understood at all. Yet here we are.

I'm now a supporter of the LGB Alliance.

I repeat earache

What did you 'correct' about my statement below?

"Perhaps you might be surprised to also realise that young people are also some of the least tolerant people in the UK."

Did you notice I used the word 'also'? Did you look at the other studies I suggested? What did you 'correct'?

That's what I've always loved about Pride events, it's always such a wonderful inclusive celebration and protest, based on love, inclusiveness, unity, community, LGBTQ+ all happy together and supported by the general public, just how it could always be 😎

This is a response to an article about a gay man getting booed and intimidated by the crowd because he turned up at Pride with a T-shirt the mob didn’t like.

Do people like this ever get tired of talking like background characters in a dystopian novel?

I mean, I am just doing a cursory glance over the raw data. I could run some correlations if you'd like. I would need to dig out my uni statistics texts, but I am very happy to do so.

Or, I could just graph it too.

The data is rather interesting, and to be fair I have not looked into the methodology yet. Just looking at the questions, I would say there is a distinct bias in the questions asked. Such as asking a question about 'hormone blockers' without pointing out the health risks that most health systems now acknowledge are there in those drugs use. Same with the cross-sex hormones.

I find as someone who has commissioned quite a number of focus groups and questionnaires that those biases should not be there. It would be ethical to make sure respondents are aware of the many health risks before asking that question.

@starlee But weren’t some lesbians banned from pride events for stating they wouldn’t date TW? How is that inclusive and supporting lesbians?

That's what I've always loved about Pride events, it's always such a wonderful inclusive celebration and protest, based on love, inclusiveness, unity, community, LGBTQ+ all happy together and supported by the general public, just how it could always be 😎
Such a shame when bigots try to spoil it.

Oh, wasn’t one of the founders of stonewall campaigning for PIe, and said sex with children was not necessarily bad for the children. Wasn’t that Peter Tatchell?

In fact the 'feelings' those 18-24 felt when asked both:

How would you feel if your child, sibling, or close family member came out as gay/bisexual/lesbian?
How would you feel if your child, sibling, or close family member came out came out as transgender?

show those extremes.

They have the highest ratings in the following emotions:

Understanding
Proud
Happy
Excited
Angry
Disgusted

Or are you saying these reactions are not extreme emotions and actually judgemental when you consider them? "proud', 'happy' and 'excited' are obviously judging positively vs 'angry' and 'disgusted' being negative judgement.

They are hardly neutral. And they are all 'reactive'.

No wonder there is such a need for more services. And specific services too.

Stonewall didn't just follow Aimee Challenor, but had Challenor as a core part of their team.

Cracking bit of quality control, that

🤦‍♀️ that is embarrassing.

This whole thread has been embarrassing for the TRAs, time and again they return and are constantly shown up by smart, educated women.

It's like NATO - an attack on one is an attack on all of us.

If you haven't heard of the word 'solidarity' I suggest you google it.

so where is your solidarity for the lesbians being harassed by TW? What are stonewall doing about that? Or do they not count? When a lesbian gets attacked by a TW, why are stonewall not defending her? Why is Nancy Kelly telling lesbians they are ‘sexual racists’ and genital preference is akin to anti semitism. Where is the solidarity for lesbians there? When gay men are told if they don’t date transmen they are bigots, where is the answer from stonewall supporting them? I’m sure you have many examples of stonewalls support for these people right? After all, an attack on one is an attack on all right?

The question (you know this, of course, I'm just trying to get it clear) is a subordinate question to that involved in the well-known mind/body problem ('mbp'): how do (non-material) minds relate/interact (causally and otherwise) with (material) bodies?

Given the assumed possibility of 'matching', trans metaphysics has to take it that minds and bodies, although different in certain ways, are nevertheless the same sort of thing. But this, now, constrains the solution-space of the mbp.

Generally, the trans metaphysician has to say one of three things about mind/body interaction: it's a miracle ('God does it'); mental things reduce to physical things; physical things reduce to mental things. Generally she doesn't want to say any of those; the question you pose, then, remains, not just unanswered, but unanswerable.

A more promising line with mbp (given we don't like any of those three answers), is to deny that minds and bodies are the same sort of thing. Gilbert Ryle, for instance, in castigating what he called the 'myth' of the 'ghost in the machine', described the mistake involved in thinking minds and bodies are the same sort of thing as a 'category error', a locution which has become relatively mainstream. (That's in his Concept of Mind, of course, though not exclusively.)

Others have made similar moves. I mentioned David Hume in an earlier post. Buddhism has an interesting, some would say similar, take on mbp. And so on.

OK, that all needs further explanation. This is not the place. But two things strike here:

1. If minds and bodies are not within a single category, it is difficult - say nonsensical - to think of matching them one with another. So trans metaphysics collapses.
2. The important thing here is not so much that trans metaphysics is wrong (although it is); the important thing is that it is debatable. Given the possibility of error, and the fact of disagreement, it would be crazily unreasonable to base public policy on such grounds. We should not, that is, allow trans metaphysics, or the policies it claims to underpin, into any part of our public weal.

So, in short, those who believe in matching minds to bodies should be left to their own devices and not allowed any group influence in public policy or public institutions such as schools and healthcare services. Such a bar is of course well possible without discrimination or any kind of 'phobic' outcome: it is a policy well established for other different metaphysical, philosophical and religious groupings of believers.

LG and B? Different, of course. We have every reason to accept LGB concerns into deliberation on public policy. Just not T, for the reasons I have outlined.

The data there is certainly an outlier and I produced evidence that corrected you

🤦‍♀️ that is embarrassing. The two data sources are from the same organisation.

You didn’t “correct” anything. They don’t contradict each other. Nuance and intelligence and critical thinking and even empathy (real empathy, not performative empathy) are required to interpret data like this.

You may not have much of the above, but you’d still benefit from actually reading and thinking instead of reflexively reaching for a source you don’t understand to slap down another source you don’t understand purely because the latter contains information you don’t like.

You want me to answer someone else's question for them? I didn't realise you had so much faith in my opinion!😂

It's like NATO - an attack on one is an attack on all of us.

If you haven't heard of the word 'solidarity' I suggest you google it.

You don't show 'solidarity' by not attending conferences and events or having discussions with other groups or individuals that you disagree with.

This is how 'echo chambers' are created and how group think eventuates.

A mature approach is to continue to engage with respect and ensure that the organisation's voice is heard and that lines of communication are left open.

I really do see now that when some posters who visit FWR, not necessarily on this thread, start accusing MN of being echo chambers, they really are projecting.

It's like NATO - an attack on one is an attack on all of us.

There were good reasons why Ukraine was not admitted to NATO

It's like NATO - an attack on one is an attack on all of us.

This is just too funny for words, how can the person posting this post it with a straight face after what they have been posting interminably on this thread.

The data there is certainly an outlier and I produced evidence that corrected you.

In what way do you think you 'corrected' me?

You seem to have not done an analysis on the raw data that that article draws from.

And please do read the Dr Frank Luntz study from mid 2021 on YouGov and the follow up released by YouGov in December 2021. It too showed that while many in that generation are on the face of it 'inclusive', the reality is that they are also the most intolerant and that people in that generation felt it was sometimes impossible to be truthful for fear of being ostracised or worse.

So.. that is two studies from last year and those stats from that 'muchincommon' study showing that while they may be 'inclusive' they are also the group that was the most 'disgusted' and 'angry'.

The extremes exist and the extremes mean that there is a definite need for LGB helplines that deal just with LGB issues.

Or do you deny that there is a polarisation shown there within that age group?

What does "act like men" and "act like women" actually mean?

'Act like a man' is basically how transwomen behave. Watch them and you will see how men act.

Why do you always try to bring other issues in. Could it be because you don't have a leg to stand on when your issue stands alone?

The fact is: a male with dysphoria is a male with dysphoria. Everybody knows this, even people who say they don't. If they thought they were women they wouldn't do what they tell them to do.

It's like when in the 1910s there were women who opposed the right to vote:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-suffragism#:~:text=The%20first%20women%2Dled%20anti,Madeleine%20Vinton%20Dahlgren%20in%201869.

They were sexists in the same way gay people who are against gay rights are homophobes.

There's no such thing as innate gender identity . It's impossible.

It's like NATO - an attack on one is an attack on all of us.

If you haven't heard of the word 'solidarity' I suggest you google it.

I did indeed. You said:

"Perhaps you might be surprised to also realise that young people are also some of the least tolerant people in the UK."

The data there is certainly an outlier and I produced evidence that corrected you.