LGB Alliance starts Helpline for teens and young adults

LGB Alliance cannot possibly say that there are LGB kids as they will get slaughtered.

By who? Bigots who wish to treat same sex attraction as an adult perversion. All the more reason to stop aligning themselves with such groups. They also get ‘slaughtered’ by TRAs but certainly don’t do any hand wringing over that.

If someone started talking to you about sex at age 9 then that is a safeguarding matter. As we keep saying, it needs to be very carefully managed.

Again, being sexually attracted to another is not the same as engaging in sexual activity with them. Allowing children to be open and providing a place in which they can discuss feelings they are worried about is not the same as encouraging them to have underage sex.

Similarly, compassionate and exploratory discussions can be facilitated for trans-identified children without supporting their mutilation. Safeguarding is essential, but the answer is not to be scared of much needed services who do things the right way. The need will not disappear, and those children will turn to those who have no such concerns about their wellbeing.

I'm not trying to drag them down I'd love this to succeed but this is a really huge flaw.

This is basic stuff.

Same here. Who wouldn't want it to succeed. But the rules are the rules and no one gets a free pass because we like them.

If the triage is done by LGBA then the flaw is on them if they are tricked for not putting adequate safeguards in place.

If the person calls the child number and not the legal adult one, or goes onto the child chat then the onus is on them.

For one.

I'm not trying to drag them down I'd love this to succeed but this is a really huge flaw.

This is basic stuff.

Mermaids has both a helpline & a webchat process. I couldn't see anything about any lower age limit. They also have a forum for 12 to 19 year olds to chat. So 12 year olds in a forum with 19 year olds, having a good old chat about being 'gender diverse'. That's a safeguarding issue.

If FWR would be up in arms about a similar service from Mermaids (which frankly looks a far better bet that what they currently offer) then it would be because we know that Mermaids push children and young people down a very particular route. We know they advocate for early medicalisation, for binders, for puberty blockers. We know they are big fans of Gender GP. So unless you think that the LGBA are similarly pushing, I don't know, 'gayness', then the parallel doesn't really work.

As others have posted, no one is saying this isn't something that shouldn't be done with care and with robust safeguarding, just that we disagree that the 13-24 age range is by definition a bad idea.

If Mermaids had announced what the LGBA have announced, FWR would be up in arms. But the GC blinkers go in and it's all fine because we like the LGBA.

Take a step back. Look at this cold. You might see it.

And how does having separate helplines for under and over 18s stop someone lying about their age or leading off into inappropriate discussion? And again, where do 16 & 17 year olds go? Under 18 but over the age of consent. Do you have 3 helplines?

That's the point.

The line is so easily crossed, the age declaration is self Id, the person can stray from genuine discussion and I can very easily see a bad faith caller trying to trap them into discussing inappropriate content and posting it online and scuppering this whole shebang.

If there was a clear seperation between below and above the age of consent then the lines are much clearer.

If someone started talking to you about sex at age 9 then that is a safeguarding matter. As we keep saying, it needs to be very carefully managed.

@AlisonDonut please could you clarify what you mean by “talking about sex”. In the above context i read it as meaning sexual acts. I’m pretty sure the helpline is offering talking to young people about their sexuality, ie their feelings, not advice on their sex life.

Get off your high horse and read the previous posts will you?

LGB Alliance cannot possibly say that there are LGB kids as they will get slaughtered.

You treat kids and teens below the age of consent in a with a different framework to those that are not. No matter what potential sexuality they are.

If someone started talking to you about sex at age 9 then that is a safeguarding matter. As we keep saying, it needs to be very carefully managed.

Stonewall have never been shy about the fact that they are 'above' supporting lesbians!

Stonewall, I note, has never offered helplines. It has always been a political lobby group. I was once, after asking Stonewall for a financial contribution to a nationa lesbian event, reminded very snootily that Stonewall was above all that.

I always thought it was a ridiculous comment from Kate Harris. There is a world of difference between recognising that sexual attraction may not be fully worked out until an adult age, and denying the existence of same sex attraction in children. The constant conflation of sexuality with having sex (but only for LGB people of course) is also exhausting. A celibate exclusively same sex attracted woman is still a lesbian, not someone who might become a lesbian!

In my opinion the only reason they are playing this game is to appeal to anti-LGB organisations with whom they (on the surface) share a goal with regards to transgender issues. Such groups are increasingly changing their messaging from attacking LGB attraction across the board to a ‘we need to protect children’ line. That is purely a pragmatic decision, with the realisation that the first message is increasingly unacceptable in society; it is still the position they hold.

In the same sense, I have nothing but contempt for organisations that target trans-identified children and vulnerable adults due to right wing bigotry. Trying to safeguard traumatised and unwell people against irreversible harm has nothing in common with an approach that denigrates and abuses them for failing to live in keeping with conservative and deeply regressive values.

Yes, absolutely. The idea that you don't have a sexuality until you actually have sex is really offensive.

Not arguing any of your other points but it is simply a fact that some trans-identitied people do not subscribe to the notions of gender identity etc. that is propagated by genderism. Treating a very variable presentation as a straight forward issue with only one underlying cause is inaccurate and unhelpful as outlined by Dr Cass.

Pages and pages ago somebody posted a statement from the actual LGBA helpline, and I've gone back to their website because some recent posts give the impression that the LGBA haven't given any thought to safeguarding, just because they cater for 'young people' up to 24.
My personal opinion is that by the time you're 24 you're over the crest of the hill and on your way to being middle aged, so I'd trim the upper age limit, for that reason.
But that doesn't make me suspect that they are not cognizant of the importance of safeguarding. I've read what they actually say about it on their website:

At the very start of this process, LGB Alliance decided that if we could not deliver this service safely, we wouldn’t deliver it at all.
So we developed Safeguarding, Code of Conduct and Privacy policies, which were reviewed and approved by the safeguarding lead on our Board, and which were read and signed by all candidates.
We undertook a Safer Recruitment process that included an in-person assessment and training day where sample scripts were discussed, scenarios were role-played and ethical questions around the operation of the line debated.
Each candidate also underwent an interview with a panel, certified in Safer Recruitment, and was asked questions that explored their understanding of safeguarding and their responsibilities as they relate to young people.
Despite the fact that no personal data is captured by the Helpline, we asked all candidates to sign a non disclosure agreement (NDA) forbidding discussion of any of the conversations they had or viewed, to add an additional layer of confidentiality.
Finally, each candidate underwent an Enhanced DBS check with Barred Lists. This is the highest DBS Level.
Our volunteers have all received a training manual which includes the relevant policies and processes and we are committed to refreshing training at regular intervals.
Our helpline is open! - LGB Alliance UK

I also don't understand why having age appropriate groupings is a "massive drain". Appropriate services for children shouldn't be regarded as such. If you do regard them as such and it's easier for you to lump them in with adults - including if it's "only" about comms - then you're in the wrong job.

They even acknowledge the two groups are different in the Q&A but seemingly didn't think they'd need different targeting in the comms. Why? Too much work or something else?

They've had a unique chance to show up this whole industry that rotates around adults talking to children about sex and sexuality, where they could have made theirs totally distinctive and put the others to shame. But they didn't.

Absolute, offensive nonsense. Do you honestly think people only 'become gay' when they have sex? I knew I was a lesbian when I was 9 because I had crushes on girls, not because I had sex with them!

Are there no straight children either? Or is that allowed because they're normal?

I usually post as ArabellaScott. I've got a new username in honour of Aston University's fuckwittery. I'm posting in totally good faith.

Those of us that not only worked with young people but started small organisations who worked exclusively with 14-24 in different cohorts, on premises outside of mainstream school, with those with disabilities, learning difficulties and behavioural problems and who was the sole owner and responsible person know very well how hard it is and how careful you have to be.

Not in good faith indeed.

It doesn't offer support to this group for the same reason it doesn't offer support to children who are diabetic, or Deaf, or have lost a parent (unless, of course, they are also LGB)- that is not its remit.

It's called the LGB Alliance, not the LGBT alliance.

Abeona, I meant the other poster conflated the two. I didn't mean you. That other poster responded to my post saying that genderism is inherently transphobic.

And yes, I completely agree, genderism denies same-sex attraction - my point was that genderism is based on homophobic ideas.

Where, precisely, does it say they will be discussing sex with children?

So we can never have helplines for under 18s? Like Child line for instance, they've no way of verifying a users age any more than LGBA have, but I've not seen any calls that Childline shouldn't exist for that reason.

What the fuck? Of course LGB kids exist! Sexual attraction doesn't begin on your 18th birthday!

It doesn’t mean if you don’t like the politics of an organisation that they have necessarily got the age range and service delivery model wrong.
I thought the discussion from some of the posters on this thread would be a bit more nuanced in understanding of the issues of service delivery to children and young people after all the discussion this key topic has had on this board.