It's an AIBU but it belongs here - Stonewall

[Doyoumind]

I know some will say this doesn't belong on this board but I believe it is a response to certain GC groups.

Stonewall is trending with #IfirstknewIwaslgbtq, saying that people don't believe it is possible at age 12. The cynic in me says they are going at this angle in response to those who say children can't know they are trans. Of course I believe people can know they are gay by 12. I can even accept people know they are trans by 12. Being gay at 12 may have a huge impact on you socially but being trans at 12 and starting on a medical pathway is something entirely different and it is dishonest to conflate the two.

[FindTheTruth]

@yourhairiswinterfire

I think garden is right, it was because of Allison Bailey bringing up the safeguarding issue by lumping in 12 year olds with 23 year olds.

They (Exist Loudly, their group) told Allison to fuck off so not the kind of people I'd like my child contacting, tbh.

The massive massive irony with #IfirstknewIwaslgbtq is that it all started in objection to Allison Bailey's tweet saying A 12 year old is a child. Stop putting children in with adults and labelling them LGBTQ+. Let children grow up without adult agendas. What you’re doing is a safeguarding red flag'.

The Exist Loudly founder has said herself in interviews that she didn't know she was LGTBQ at an early age (Which is fine and normal and the same for lots of people) so Allison was pointing out something that would equally have applied to the Exist Loudly founder when she was a child - safeguarding and letting children grow up without adult agendas, ...

[GrolliffetheDragon]

The organisation I work for has done surveys of young people in the past - 11-25 I think? We had huge discussions about safeguarding, particularly for the 11 and 12 year olds and again for under 16s and under 18s.

While the project covered 11-25, we still broke down the age groups within that iyswim. Tbh we mainly ended up focussing on the 16-25 year olds, which was a shame as it meant the younger people didn't have their voices heard as strongly.

[Thingybob]

Ok my point was just that I wouldn't expect someone doing a short workshop to need any assistance.

[needaMNnamegenerator]

Where did I say she organised the festival?!

My point is she's been doing a load of stuff under the Exist Loudly banner for a while and she doesn't need to have staff working for her on PAYE for someone to consider themself "staff" or Exist Loudly. They may have just helped her out a few times, or something like that.

[Thingybob]

NeedaMN, your screenshots show that she did a workshop that lasted an hour and a half, there is no suggestion that she organised the festival.

[needaMNnamegenerator]

Here's an event Tanya did in July 2019 under the "Exist Loudly" name at Camden Roundhouse in London. I doubt she put it on all by herself; someone involved could easily see themself as her staff.

In her bio she's described as a "self-proclaimed unapologetic baby girl/person, committed to existing loudly and passionate about working with young queer Black people."

Baby girl is BDSM/fetish stuff, isn't it? I think it means she's into "age play" where she pretends to be a baby/child while having sex, isn't it?

Having a MAP working for her is looking more likely tbh

[needaMNnamegenerator]

I hope they don't work for her, but then why doesn't she set the record straight?

[needaMNnamegenerator]

Well she must have some people collaborating with her if she has any intention of delivering all these workshops, Christmas parties and things:

gaytimes.co.uk/life/tanya-compas-launches-exist-loudly-fund-for-black-lgbtq-youth/

[Thingybob]

I'm with Arabella, it's unlikely that Exist Loudly has ever had any staff.

[yourhairiswinterfire]

Ah, x post.

[yourhairiswinterfire]

I think Arabella meant that they don't think that person really works for EL, not that the account didn't exist? That's how I read it.

[ArabellaScott]

Yes, sorry, I appreciate it existed! But I would be a bit surprised if the person behind it actually works/worked for Exist Loudly. Well, I'd be bloody horrified. But it seems a bit unlikely.

[needaMNnamegenerator]

If what you mean is - is the account real that belongs to the person who's a "MAP" (i.e. pedo) and claiming to work for Exist Loudly, then here's proof that it did exist. Google wouldn't show this result if this account didn't exist. The account has been deleted now though.

[needaMNnamegenerator]

Oh hold on, do you mean the profile belonging to Tanya or the MAP one (Brianna)?

[needaMNnamegenerator]

It doesn't exist any more, but it used to. If you Google it, Google comes up with the account in its results but when you click on it, it's not there.

This means it did used to exist.

[ArabellaScott]

I have doubts that the twitter profile claiming to work for Exist Loudly actually does.

[needaMNnamegenerator]

Who can we report this to?

[needaMNnamegenerator]

One of the twitter threads on this is here: twitter.com/ripx4nutmeg/status/1303956081329176576

[needaMNnamegenerator]

Also, why is Susie Green of Mermaids following this unashamed paedophile on Twitter? Or she was - he seems to have deleted his account now.

[needaMNnamegenerator]

Here's one of Tanya's responses to being asked if this paedophile does indeed work for her as he claims.

Oh and also, she's also offering to give out the instagram profiles of kids who have got in contact with her to people who are "interested in commissioning them" as artists. What could possibly go wrong?

[needaMNnamegenerator]

The plot thickens, sadly (and not entirely unpredictably).

Someone who proudly describes themselves as a MAP (= minor attracted person = paedophile) who includes in their twitter bio that they're attracted to (AOA) 1-11 year olds, has claimed that they're an employee of Exist Loudly.

When asked to confirm or deny this, Tanya who runs Exist Loudly has refused to engage, calling everyone asking questions about this transphobes.
This is looking more dangerous for the kids involved by the second. Who can we report this to?

[Goosefoot]

@MichelleofzeResistance

I think the failure to see what is wrong from a safeguarding perspective is related to the strength with which they believe the idea that kids can reliably identify as lgbtq+ at age 12.

I'm afraid after 20 plus years of safeguarding experience I am far more hardened and cynical than that. I think there are a number of adult ideas at play beyond this one.

In a lot of cases, yes. But there are aksi plenty of well meaning people who simply have no clue about kids. A woman in my homeschooling group for example who thought it was a good idea for the preschool to talk to pre-school kids about genocide when learning about Native Americans, came from a similar perspective - well meaning but no concept of how young people think differently than adults, determined that their political ideals be transmitted to children at as young an age as possible. There's a kind of fear behind it as well, I think.

These are the people who are duped by those with a more targeted agenda, and if they were less gullible those agendas wouldn't get the time of day.

[MichelleofzeResistance]

I think the failure to see what is wrong from a safeguarding perspective is related to the strength with which they believe the idea that kids can reliably identify as lgbtq+ at age 12.

I'm afraid after 20 plus years of safeguarding experience I am far more hardened and cynical than that. I think there are a number of adult ideas at play beyond this one.

[SoManyActivities]

If these people just bloody followed safeguarding rules then no one would give them a hard time. Why does it seem to be such a theme that basic safeguarding stuff is just overlooked, this is another instance in an increasingly long line.

[Clymene]

And actually it's a criminal offence not to file a confirmation statement!