LGBTQIA+ Meetings for young people, aged 14 to 25

[HereForTheGloss]

A local Community Interest Company is advertising a weekly LGBTQIA+ meeting for young people aged 14 to 25.

I am responsible for a young person that has expressed an interest in attending but I have a concern about the age range and am not that happy about a 'young for their age' 14 year old, or any 14 year old actually, mixing with 25 year olds when the focus of these sessions (I assume) is on sexuality and gender identity. The only information I can find about the sessions online is that sessions act as a gateway for members to meet others from the same community, they also teach attendees the importance of LGBTQ+ history.

This is all new to us and the age range feels off to me. I'd be more comfortable if the meeting was for age 13 to 16 year olds for example.

I emailed the organisation to ask about the format and content of the meetings and the supervision and safeguarding procedures in place. I basically want to know who has eyes and ears on these children during the meetings to make sure they're not being groomed by the adult attendees at the meetings.

I got a response which did not answer any of my questions. The response was that they're "a professional organisation with all policies and procedures in place. I understand your concerns around 14 year olds mixing with 25 year olds but as a qualified teacher I risk assessed and made a decision based on the need for the group after receiving calls from parents who wanted their 14 year olds to be able to attend. As a mum and nan I treat the people in our care with the same respect that I treat my own. The group is always facilitated by one volunteer with lived experience and a qualified professional".

I can't find any policies, procedures or risk assessment info on the website. The CIC has been set up by 2 people and they and several of the volunteers have a bio on the website in which they detail their own mental health issues, how they were victims of child abuse, alcoholism, gender questioning from a young age, etc, but nothing about any relevant qualifications they have, or courses or training they've undertaken, or DBS checks.

Would they be required to have all this stuff in place and should they show me a copy of their risk assessments and policies if I ask to see them? Do I have the right to ask if everyone working there is DBS checked and ask for proof?

Tell me honestly am I just being ridiculously over protective? As I said if I knew it was a group of 13 to 16 year olds I'd feel much more comfortable as I'd see them more as peers, I'm not comfortable with a 14 year old hanging out and chatting about sexuality and sex with 25 year olds.

Sounds groomy.

[quote BiscuitLover3678]@MangyInseam I have never seen them included before. What a shame they were! I agree it seems unrelated.[/quote]
I believe it's now unusual in the UK, Stonewall tried to shoehorn them in but stopped when asked. It's quite common to see in North America though.

Wow that sounds like a recipe for disaster. I'm bisexual and at 24, I was more into going out, than joining a group with a bunch of children.

A LGBT group for teens, great fabulous. A group for young adults, yeah great. Mixing 14-24 year olds? No, not appropriate at all, 14 year olds do not have anywhere near the maturity nor life experience of those in their early 20s.

Sounds like something a groomer has come up with tbh. And I'd question anyone age 18+ going to it.

Any 25 year old wanting to jag out with 14 year olds… I’d be very wary.

Kids at school who can’t vote/drink/have sex/smoke - and 25 year old adult with a job/mortgage/spouse etc etc etc. they have nothing in common.

I think your gut instinct is telling you to keep the teenager in your care AWAY from this group. Listen to your instincts. This has grooming written all over it.

Are you in N'Wales OP?

My sons school gave me some info about a group to contact in our area. Thankfully (and luckily for them, coz i would have kicked off big time!) I looked at their web page before hading details to my son.
The group was same age range 14-25, the next arranged 'meeting' was a zoom meeting for them all to watch and discuss Its a Sin together.
My son had only just turned 13 - the school did get an earfull about that!

It felt dodgy to me, for all the reasons stated above. The school didnt seem to have an issue with the organisation (or hadnt really thought about it til it was raised)
I certainly wont be directing my kid there even when they are old enough to.
These kind of voluntary orgs need some closer inspection. This is the only group available in our town, I dread to think how many kids have been advised to attend? It's creepy as fuck.

There is an LGBT charity in Wales that runs an 11-18 year group. I don’t know what discussions are had but it is labelled a support group.

Those age ranges are too wide - what clubs do kids go to with adults? Unless they are going say rock climbing or playing chess .

@nosyupnorth you clearly missed my post. Can confirm I'm a bender and think this group isn't appropriate.

(And no, I wouldn't think a support group for heterosexuals - where the only thing they have in common is their heterosexuality - should have an age range that lumps children with grown adults, either.)

Your replies are going to be a load of homophobic drivel by people who clearly think gay = groomer and I suspect you will cheer to have the biases that are obvious in your OP confirmed but YABU.

This is nonsense. Do you think people would be OK with that age range if it was a group of straight people talking about sexuality? Exactly the same safeguarding concerns would arise.

It does no one any favours to accuse people of homophobia when they raise safeguarding concerns.

What does the "A" stand for? I thought it was "Aromantic". Am I correct that this means people who have sexual intercourse but do not engage romantically? What value is there in proctoring a meeting with a 25 year old male Aro and a 14 girl exploring her sexual identity?

When did these Aro men become a protected class?

As a 15yo I joined one of these groups (20 years ago) it was invaluable in helping me find a safe space to explore the "unnatural " feelings I was having, and find other people like me.
Not all parents/carers are so accepting of their child's preferences as you are, I had to do this in secret. It helped me come out to my parents 5 years later.
While I understand safeguarding concerns at opposite ends of the age range, give this organisation a chance. Its a wonderful thing that organisations like the one you describe exist in the UK. I know several of my Lebanese/Emirati/Indian friends would have been very grateful for its existence

I would be equally worried about the volunteers... Massive safeguarding risk.

This is massively inappropriate. A 14 year old child and a 25 year old adult should not be mixing like this. The child should be with other children and the adults with other adults. Massive safeguarding risk, not only because of the age difference but also because of the fact that the group is associated with sexuality?

"Your replies are going to be a load of homophobic drivel by people who clearly think gay = groomer and I suspect you will cheer to have the biases that are obvious in your OP confirmed but YABU"

What utter nonsense. A support group for heterosexual teenage girls and heterosexual adult males would be absolutely unacceptable and probably wouldn't even be allowed to run at all, especially if the focus was on sexuality.

Your replies are going to be a load of homophobic drivel by people who clearly think gay = groomer and I suspect you will cheer to have the biases that are obvious in your OP confirmed but YABU

And

Sounds like the age has been lowered for particular children. If you have concerns then you should go along to the first one to see what’s what.

Absolute garbage. All children deserve the same protections and levels of safeguarding. No adults get to mix with children because it's a particular subject. The CIC arrangement and the topic is a distraction. The issue is adults accessing children.

The organiser needs to be reported to their employer.

@Boxowine

What does the "A" stand for? I thought it was "Aromantic". Am I correct that this means people who have sexual intercourse but do not engage romantically? What value is there in proctoring a meeting with a 25 year old male Aro and a 14 girl exploring her sexual identity?

When did these Aro men become a protected class?

No it’s asexual! Or ace.

I can see how this might be useful as it’s young people talking to adults who have gone through something similar and can actually be supportive. A lot of the teens will be still going through it.

It depends how it is all talking place. I agree that just general mixing and a 25 year old taking numbers of teenagers is horrendous. Is that what this is though?

@nosyupnorth

Your replies are going to be a load of homophobic drivel by people who clearly think gay = groomer and I suspect you will cheer to have the biases that are obvious in your OP confirmed but YABU.

If it's a local group the community might not be big enough to run seperate age group meetings, especially not if it's a newish group. Their response to your concerns might be unpolished but that doesn't mean it's nefarious. If you're that worried inquire about going along for support at least for the first meeting to get a sense of the group.

Do you ban you child from mixing with heterosexual adults? Almost certainly no. So it is pure homophobia that you think talking to LGBTQ adults would be inherently inappropriate. I would bet that the adults in that group have no interest in discussion sexual or adult details with a 14 year old any more than you want your 14 year old in that discussion, honestly there is higher risk from having group comprised solely of teens in which older teens may not recognise what is age appropriate for the whole group.

It’s not homophobia, it’s basic safeguarding. Children attend all sorts of groups - sports clubs, cubs, brownies, guides, youth clubs etc. they are all categorised by age. For a reason!

I’m not entirely sure that we should be having groups that are for a specific demographic - it sounds exclusionary to me. How would people react if there was a group set up solely for straight people? White people? Able-bodied people? Shouldn’t the aim in society to be that groups set up for a particular purpose - eg Guides, are inclusive of all girls within the age limits set by the group? Whether gay, straight, disabled etc?
LGBTQI+++ is a massive demographic. Including ‘I’ in that group seems a complete nonsense. It’s the only letter that stands for a physical disorder - intersex is a very outdated term too. It’s DSD. It’s not a sexual orientation, or an ideology. Having it in that letter string is like having D (for Down) in there. It makes no sense!
Q is seen by many many gay people as a massive homophobic insult.
LGB are sexual orientations
T is a gender identity
+++ is just daft.

So no, questioning the appropriateness of such a group covering the ages that this group covers isn’t homophobic. It’s common sense safeguarding and applies to any type of group where this age range is catered for. Parents know that when they send their children to school every single member of staff has undergone rigorous safeguarding checks and training. As teachers, we accept that we have to do this. We don’t think that our employers or the parents believe we’re all paedophiles!

@BiscuitLover3678

I would hope that all children are asexual up to a certain point in their development! The alternative is to be ‘sexual’ - see the dictionary definition below.

asexual
/eɪˈsɛkʃʊəl/
adjective: asexual
1.
not involving sexual activity, feelings, or associations; non-sexual.
"he led an asexual life"
2.
BIOLOGY
(of reproduction) not involving the fusion of gametes.
"each polyp is capable of budding new polyps though asexual reproduction in spring"
noun
noun: asexual; plural noun: asexuals
a person who has no sexual feelings or desires, or who is not sexually attracted to anyone.

Of course we should be having groups for the LGBT demographic. Gay teens are excluded from finding meaningful relationships and often have nowhere to socialise as they are very much the minority. It is incredibly hard to connect with others like them. It can lead to safe guarding risks with online behaviour and MH issues.

We need more LGBT groups. If we did maybe they wouldn’t all be squashed into 1. I doubt very much it’s set up to groom.My son’s was 11-19( up to 25 if a disability). He was groomed online on one of the streaming sites open to all sexualities and which many teens access in their own rooms. He was never groomed at his group which involved paperwork to join and had adults supervising.

I think split age group is best as gay men/ teens can feel shit enough as it is without being classed as a groomer due to being in the same room as younger gay boys/men. Personally I think under 16s should be the ones to have a separate group.

[quote Soontobe60]@BiscuitLover3678

I would hope that all children are asexual up to a certain point in their development! The alternative is to be ‘sexual’ - see the dictionary definition below.

asexual
/eɪˈsɛkʃʊəl/
adjective: asexual
1.
not involving sexual activity, feelings, or associations; non-sexual.
"he led an asexual life"
2.
BIOLOGY
(of reproduction) not involving the fusion of gametes.
"each polyp is capable of budding new polyps though asexual reproduction in spring"
noun
noun: asexual; plural noun: asexuals
a person who has no sexual feelings or desires, or who is not sexually attracted to anyone.[/quote]
I agree that asexual is something I wouldn’t expect to be assumed until adulthood.

But being asexual in general is a bit different. I’m sure you can look it up if you actually want to learn about it.

Quick update - so the owner has seen this thread.

I had emailed again today and asked whether copies of policies and procedures were available as I couldn’t find them on their website, and whether group facilitators were DBS checked. I got an email reply which didn’t answer the questions, but said she’d be happy to have a talk on the phone.

As I said she’s seen this thread and I thought her tone was (maybe understandably?) quite defensive. During the conversation she asked me to remove this thread, but then later asked me to update it. I said if she though I’d misrepresented anything she could come and post on the thread herself but she declined.

She clarified that the group isn’t for 14-25 year olds, that’s a mistake in the advertising, she just hasn’t got round to updating the social media flyer yet.

For clarity, the social media flyer that has been circulated for months says the group is for 16 to 25 year olds, it’s only in the last week the age has been lowered to 14.

So the ad that was posted 2 days ago stating that the group is for ages 14-25’s is incorrect.

She agreed that 14 year old children meeting with 25 year old adults to discuss their sexuality was inappropriate, I pointed out that seemed to me at odds with her email reply I understand your concerns around 14-year olds mixing with 25-year olds; however, as a qualified teacher, I risk assessed and made a decision based on the current age range, and need for the group. She said she was rushed sending out the email as she’s so busy and hadn’t articulated her response properly. I’m pleased she clarified and agreed.

I kinda struggled to get a word in edgeways tbh . I don’t for a minute think the group was set up with nefarious purpose in mind but it has just been not well thought through.

I’ve spoken to a friend who is a teacher and sent her a screenshot of the advert. If that advert continues to be circulated as it stands she is going to have a chat with the safeguarding person at school when they’re back but she pointed out that there is little if any regulation around these type of voluntary groups.

I have had a chat to the young person and explained that currently I’m not comfortable with them attending and why, but I will speak to some people as soon as the Easter hols are over and find an appropriate group. I don’t mind ferrying them around so if we end up having to travel into one of the 2 nearest cities to us if there are some good groups there, that’s not a problem and I’m totally on board with them accessing some peer support in this area.

Sorry, that wasn’t that quick or concise

Hello owner of the group.

I’m delighted to hear that the repeated references to 4 year olds turn out to be a typo. I’m not convinced that 16-25 is much better, but at least it’s not an illegal child grooming club eh?!

Just a teeny reminder that paedophiles have relentlessly tried to use the rainbow umbrella to gain sympathy, respectability and access to children. Anyone involved in LGBT youth activities needs to be on high alert and offer these children the highest standards of safeguarding.

Good update Op!

However I agree with the PP that 16-25 age range isn't much of an improvement. I'd be a lot more comfortable with 18-25 personally and under 18's as groups.

I don't think her responses to you were all that great tbh. You had reasonable questions around the child safeguarding for the group and as a teacher and the person responsible for setting it up I think it's her duty to make sure all the I's are dotted and T's are crossed when it comes to safeguarding. Being able to give a concise and understandable outline of that to parents is an important part of that.

I wouldn't feel reassured by her responses anyway. Hopefully if she is reading this she won't get upset, hopefully instead she will take on board what has been said and next time someone asks be better equipped and able to answer them in a reassuring way.