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.

@MillyMollyFarmer

Thank you. Do only 1 of us need to or is it better for more to do it?

I'm hoping that they'll respond within 14 days and provide a case number so that messages /evidence can be sent by anyone using the case number here ico.org.uk/global/contact-us/email/...

I've got the automatic email confirmation ... so far

I guess more could do it.... what do you think?

It's a childish, unprofessional approach

It's not really inspiring any confidence that this organisation can be trusted with the sensitive data of children & young people.

@FloralBunting

I noticed Stonewall retweeted a trans man saying "I came out as ‘lesbian’ at 12 and trans at 15. I then started T at 16 and had top surgery at 17. To claim children cannot understand themselves is unbelievably damaging. I am so grateful I transitioned when I did."

No irony detected in Stonewall promoting a person of the female sex putting their sexual orientation in scare quotes and cheerfully exclaiming that they began cross sex hormones at 16, a year after deciding they were actually not a girl, and a year later had a mastectomy.

Stonewall is lesbophobic to the very core and they don't even see the horror in promoting cosmetic mastectomy on teenagers. I just can't...

In the U.K., you can't get a tattoo under the age of 18, even with parental consent. And yet you can have a double mastectomy of healthy breast tissue.

@ArabellaScott

It's a childish, unprofessional approach

It's not really inspiring any confidence that this organisation can be trusted with the sensitive data of children & young people.

Nor the ambition to then go on to provide various services for these children and yp including 1 to 1 mentoring

The woman running the organisation seems passionate and wants to help young people. That's great; she should maybe spend some time working with reputable organisations to learn how they operate and best practise.

"ready to fight whoever, legally, verbally and physically. I don't care at this point"

How pathetic does one have to be to immediately jump to wanting to "fight" rather than engage in good faith, acknowledge and since any issues that have been raised? We see it all the time, I don't think it's ever helped anyone's cause.

Oddly I rarely see it in a professional environment.

[quote FindTheTruth]According to The information commissioners office (ICO), in their Guide to the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) and Children:

Where the child is below the age of 16 years, such processing shall be lawful only if and to the extent that consent is given or authorised by the holder of parental responsibility over the child.

ico.org.uk/for-organisations/guide-to-data-protection/guide-to-the-general-data-protection-regulation-gdpr/children-and-the-gdpr/[/quote]
Does this mean that Mermaids is also in breach of GDPR with this form for children to join their 'youth community'?

This page is reached from a link from here, so it is definitely for the children themselves to use. There is no mention of a minimum age.

There is a link from the youth forum application page to their code of conduct, which appears to be for parents, and says nothing relevant to children filling in the form.

The application to join the youth forum requires a phone number, and Mermaids say: "This is so a member of the admin team can call you for a confidential chat prior to approving your membership. Our number will come-up as "withheld" when we call. This is for complete confidentiality."

I'm wondering if the Information Commissioner is the right place to make a complaint about this?

Do these groups think data protection law and established safeguarding practices only apply to other people?

Out of interest I looked at the Childline safeguarding policy - they are an established charity with the purpose of being a sort of emergency private helpline for children (I am harking back to Esther Rantzen's days so may be wrong here).

I assumed that they must have some sort of super gold standard for safeguarding and wondered how they get over the parental permission and age thing.
I was surprised to see that Childline is part of the NSPCC and their policy doesn't mention anything about the age of a child and the law relating to holding data.

They have a Confidentiality promise section where it does say that if a child tells them about a risk to safety they will have to report it but no mention of age or talking to parents.

They also have a How to guide on Covering your tracks to hide browser history etc - again this is slightly worrying as it is obviously designed to help vulnerable children but what is in place to prevent unexpected consequences?

We already know that the NSPCC has employed people who have been caught indulging in unacceptable sexual behaviours in the office so where are the checks and double checks for that?

Sorry if I've missed someone suggesting this but wouldn't you report them (and Stonewall for supporting it) to CEOP?

www.ceop.police.uk/safety-centre/

Oh, hm. Yes, you would expect all child and young people charities/orgs to have really clear information on that, wouldn't you?

@gardenbird48

Out of interest I looked at the Childline safeguarding policy - they are an established charity with the purpose of being a sort of emergency private helpline for children (I am harking back to Esther Rantzen's days so may be wrong here). I assumed that they must have some sort of super gold standard for safeguarding and wondered how they get over the parental permission and age thing. I was surprised to see that Childline is part of the NSPCC and their policy doesn't mention anything about the age of a child and the law relating to holding data. They have a Confidentiality promise section where it does say that if a child tells them about a risk to safety they will have to report it but no mention of age or talking to parents. They also have a How to guide on Covering your tracks to hide browser history etc - again this is slightly worrying as it is obviously designed to help vulnerable children but what is in place to prevent unexpected consequences? We already know that the NSPCC has employed people who have been caught indulging in unacceptable sexual behaviours in the office so where are the checks and double checks for that?

I don't think Childline keep any data on their contacts unless it is something that is escalated as a safeguarding concern.

The person behind this proposed organization (Exist Loudly) is tweeting that she is

"ready to fight whoever, legally, verbally and physically. I don't care at this point"

Are you sure this person is female? The fighting physically bit, sounds a very male thing to say.

@LizzieSiddal

The person behind this proposed organization (Exist Loudly) is tweeting that she is

"ready to fight whoever, legally, verbally and physically. I don't care at this point"

Are you sure this person is female? The fighting physically bit, sounds a very male thing to say.

Yes, have a look at the interview I posted down thread. But maybe she isn't tweeting. Suck your mum doesn't strike me as a very female thing to tweet either

In her personal tweets she does seem to confirm that she is also tweeting from the EL account Clymene.

No irony detected in Stonewall promoting a person of the female sex putting their sexual orientation in scare quotes
Scare quotes? Surely it was in quotes because the person was saying they thought they were lesbian as they didn't have the words, or the knowledge to know they were trans as had never been taught people could be trans, so thought they must be lesbian.
Hence the "quotes" around the word lesbian.
That's how I read it anyway

Clymene thanks I’ll have a look.

@OldCrone
re Does this mean that Mermaids is also in breach of GDPR with this form for children to join their 'youth community'? and if the Information Commissioner is the right place

I don't know... but Yes you can ask the information commissioners office ICO for advice here ico.org.uk/global/contact-us/email/

This whole incident just encapsulates a major aspect of the TRA/GC divide: a perfectly reasonable and legitimate concern was raised (children given a financial incentive to divulge personal information online without parental consent, issues around grouping together age range 12-23 when discussing sexual attraction and identity) TRAs completely misinterpret the concerns and spin into 'transphobes don't believe in LGBT children and don't want them to get help'. GC/ other groups explain that's not the case and continue to explain the problems, giving specific reasons why. TRAs simply scream 'transphobic!' with some offering physical threats. TRAs walk away thinking they've shot down the 'transphobes' and the crucial answers to the initial concerns are mysteriously never given. I've not been aware of this stuff for very long but the predictable pattern is already wearing very thin for me.

@moptophairshop

This whole incident just encapsulates a major aspect of the TRA/GC divide: a perfectly reasonable and legitimate concern was raised (children given a financial incentive to divulge personal information online without parental consent, issues around grouping together age range 12-23 when discussing sexual attraction and identity) TRAs completely misinterpret the concerns and spin into 'transphobes don't believe in LGBT children and don't want them to get help'. GC/ other groups explain that's not the case and continue to explain the problems, giving specific reasons why. TRAs simply scream 'transphobic!' with some offering physical threats. TRAs walk away thinking they've shot down the 'transphobes' and the crucial answers to the initial concerns are mysteriously never given. I've not been aware of this stuff for very long but the predictable pattern is already wearing very thin for me.

Absolutely.

It's also as you have all these new organisations aimed at LGBT youth, and also existing organisations used to dealing with adults broadening their scope to include LGBT youth, who have no actual experience of working with children and no awareness of safeguarding.

Stonewall, for example. Why are the guidelines for schools? What actual expertise do they have with working with children? None as far as I know?

This is weird.

Tanya Compas says Exist Loudly is brand new in an interview with Time Out www.timeout.com/london/news/tanya-compas-is-changing-the-lives-of-black-queer-young-people-in-london-and-beyond-071620

"In December 2019 she launched Queer Black Christmas, [...] Then, during lockdown amid recent Black Lives Matter uprisings, she decided to create an entire programme called Exist Loudly, packed with day activities and retreats."

But Exist Loudly was incorporated in 2018 and dissolved without having published any accounts in February 2020, well before lockdown... beta.companieshouse.gov.uk/company/11582060

Is there any accountability related to the money donated through crowdfunding? The limited company looks to have been dissolved purely because of no accounting, which could be a bit of a red flag.

How interesting xanthangum

It wasn't just dissolved, it was compulsorily struck off by Companies House for not paying tax and/or failing to submit accounts.

Shame that there are no actual journalists looking at the background of some of these organisations and asking the tough questions of their founders.

So Exist Loudly was set up in 2018, struck off in 2020. Then the founder has a major fundraising drive in June? Bit odd.

£110,000 raised. To be split between other groups/charities, apparently.