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.

I was reading the exist loudly page last night and asked a legitimate question in relation to safe guarding, I was actually fairly pleasant and agreed that children's lgbt support is something that is needed especially as mermaids and stonewall dont give a shit anymore
And was instantly blocked, there's definitely something odd with them, lots of people appear to have been blocked too for asking basic non intrusive or abusive questions.

@FloatOn

I was reading the exist loudly page last night and asked a legitimate question in relation to safe guarding, I was actually fairly pleasant and agreed that children's lgbt support is something that is needed especially as mermaids and stonewall dont give a shit anymore And was instantly blocked, there's definitely something odd with them, lots of people appear to have been blocked too for asking basic non intrusive or abusive questions.

Safeguarding = questioning their motives ie implying they are less than savoury.

I'm sure Tanya is a perfectly nice woman and she's clearly passionate about supporting vulnerable black LGBT youth which is great. I'm sure her personal experiences will be of great benefit to younger people. But really I think she could do with some professional people in her corner because I think she's probably a bit out of her depth.

But it is frightening how easy it is to set up a children's charity with zero background in education or understanding of safeguarding. I know this because I used to work in a semi-voluntary capacity for one. I don't work there any more because I was concerned about how unprofessional it was and decided that I needed to distance myself for professional reasons.

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

Doesn't every other company get struck off and it's usually nothing to do with tax or accounts. It's usually because after a Ltd company is formed there are problems with it ever getting off the ground so paperwork doesn't get submitted. That sounds the most likely explanation for Exist Loudly Ltd. Tanya has then tried again, raised a lot of money and this time is intending to run Exist Loudly as a CIC.

I don't think it's helpful to assume that those with a different point of view always have nebulous or fraudulent motives. In this case I have to take my hat off to Tanya as she does seem genuine and has lots of the qualities that I admire in a woman (although I don't like the swearing if you are reading Tanya). I have no reason to doubt that she passionately believes in what she is doing and recognise that she has achieved a lot for someone so young even if I think her project is misguided.

I also feel extremely sorry for her at the moment, in the same way that I feel for Allison, as I'm sure the Twitter storm has caused them both an awful lot of stress and upset. It's so sad that there never seems to be any proper discussion or middle ground.

Jo Bartosch has written a brilliant piece on the spat. The following extract articulates how I feel about any LGBT club.(not just the T) aimed at children.

"As with other stages of self-awareness, coming out and the process of understanding one’s sexual orientation can be daunting. Children and young people need to learn about who they are free from shame and stigma. But there is a difference between ensuring children and young people know that different types of families and relationships exist and forcing an adult understanding of sexuality and identity on to children."

www.spiked-online.com/2020/09/09/the-new-section-28/

Who is assuming anything about motives?

I expect there are very good motives behind this campaign. But it seems a bit slapdash, to say the least, and that's not fair on children and young people taking part. Good intentions achieve a lot, but they need to be backed up by solid safeguarding awareness and at least a modicum of professionalism (not telling people in public to 'suck their mothers' seems a reasonable ask).

It's usually because after a Ltd company is formed there are problems with it ever getting off the ground

Yes - It’s very easy to set up a company, but the paperwork can be a pain, so lots of people will ask for their company to be struck off if they never get round to doing anything with the company.

It was still an irresponsible request to make to 12 year olds and AB is right.

@ArabellaScott

Who is assuming anything about motives?

I expect there are very good motives behind this campaign. But it seems a bit slapdash, to say the least, and that's not fair on children and young people taking part. Good intentions achieve a lot, but they need to be backed up by solid safeguarding awareness and at least a modicum of professionalism (not telling people in public to 'suck their mothers' seems a reasonable ask).

I wasn't aiming my comments at you Arabella nor anyone else specifically and agree with all you say about safeguarding. As Clymene pointed out she is clearly out of her depth and could do with some assistance. Sadly she has alienated a lot of people who could have provided that assistance.

She didn't ask for the company to be struck off though. That's my point. Companies House are fairly good at communicating with people and telling you what you need to do when.

She needs some professionals around her who can guide and mentor her. Part of getting a successful organisation off the ground is recognising where your weaknesses are and getting people around you to fill the gaps. Not deleting and blocking anyone who asks questions.

Looking at the dates, no accounts or tax would have been due.

It looks as though she was struck off because she didn’t file a confirmation statement. As there are no penalties for doing this - you just get told that your company will be struck off - it’s likely that she just allowed this to happen.

I might be going against the overall approach here, but 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.

It comes from a place of not understanding child and adolescent development, they think 12 year olds are essentially tiny adults. So they can have the freedoms of adults. They seem to take the fact that some gay adults are quite sure they are gay at 12 to mean that's something that is a reliable and secure fact, when actually lots of people do not have the same understanding of their sexuality at 18 as they did at 12, or even at 25 as they did at 18. Much beyond that it's more stable IMO but teen sexuality can be all over the place.

Anyone trying to collect reliable statistics about homosexuality by asking 12 year olds is likely to find the numbers pretty useless and I think that's widely understood, so I'm not sure why it's considered a no-no to see assertions of belonging to a particular sexual orientation at 12 as being pretty provisional. Some kids that age aren't even very interested in sex yet.

Sorry - her company was struck off - not her!

If she wants to carry on using that name, it's a complete pain in the arse to reinstate it as well as costing money. It would have been much cheaper and simpler just to file a confirmation statement which she's going to have to do anyway if she wants to revive it.

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

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.

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.

@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.

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?

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?

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

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

Who can we report this to?

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

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.

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

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.

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.