LGB Alliance to plan helpline with Lottery funding

[pombear]

Fantastic news.

I would link to their Twitter announcement, but in usual state of play, Twitter has marked it ' may not be appropriate for people under 18'. A helpline planned for 13 to 25 year olds, planned by a panel of experts in child protection, education, helpline delivery, fundraising and psychology.

Yep - shut them down (much better to have helplines planned by IT workers who took their child to Thailand...)

As LGB Alliance state there is no dedicated national service of its kind for young LGB people in the UK.

I'm sure the Lottery Fund will be getting a lot of feedback right now, given the outpouring of hyperbole against LGB Alliance right now on Twitter.

So they may appreciate feedback from those who may see this as a positive move too:

""We really value your feedback. If you have a comment or complaint about the services that we provide, or if there's something important you think we should know, we'd love to hear it. Please email us at [email protected]"

In fact, 10seconds, I consider it even more professional of a charity to not block and to actually follow people who disagree with you because it does show that as an organisation you are prepared to engage in discussions and open to feedback.

Obviously, if any account gets abusive towards you as an organisation or your staff, you have to reconsider that social media relationship.

If a person merely disagrees and states it, why would any professional organisation not keep channels of communication open?

And I also note, most of those tweets in that image you pulled off the internet were from 2011 and 2013. Only one or two from later. And are simply stating an opposing view. Are you that keen that people cannot change to a more nuanced view?

TastefulRainbowUnicorn

yes. Although I would be surprised. Any PR person worth their value would not just block people or close down any avenue of discussion on a professional account if that organisations purpose was to convince people and governments to listen to them.

And to engage in feedback, even from people with opposing opinions, to ensure that organisation has considered all views to strengthen their service offer.

I mean, isn’t that what LGB Alliance is there to do?

And to not operate in a silo?

Having now looked at the image with Caroline Farrow's tweets, the only ones from 2020 are:

23 September 2020: "Yes, gay sex is a sin as is any sex outside heterosexual marriage. Please see this thread from last night as a basic explainer/primer."

and

23 September 2020: "Why are we debating ay marriage when the issue is about what's taught in schools? However many people believe that marriage is an institution that can only be entered into by 1 man & 1 woman."

All the rest are from before 2013. So... are you truly saying '10questions' that people cannot change and develop their understanding and their point of view over 7 years? I mean, how many supposed allies have now been caught saying horrific things about transpeople back 10-15 years ago and they seem to continue to be lauded just the same.

So, why are others not allowed to grow and develop their understanding too. How do we know it isn't because of conversations with people from the LGB Alliance that has allowed more nuanced thinking in Caroline Farrow even though she obviously still takes a view that reflects her religious beliefs.

And please, by all means engage with those two more recent tweets (nearly two years old) on what they are saying without ad hominem attacks on the tweeter.

How tolerant are you to be declaring Caroline Farrow's views that are likely to be held by quite a large number of people with views shaped by their church are not worthy of respect in a democratic society?

Just how do you think you are showing respect for other's views with what has amounted to demonising Caroline Farrow? Just because someone else on the internet put together that collection of tweets just for that purpose.

And you are lecturing people on respect?

That’s not true. Many people are telling lesbians that if they would not consider having sex with a male who says he is a woman then they are transphobic.

Stonewall's official account follows Michael Fabricant. In July 2018, Fabricant was accused of being Islamophobic over a subsequently-deleted tweet he shared depicting London mayor Sadiq Khan, who is a Muslim, in a sex act with a pig.
In May 2021, Fabricant was accused by Hope Not Hate of racism, after he tweeted that pro-Palestinian protesters in London were "primitives" that are "trying to bring to London what they do in the Middle East".

And Aimee Challenor (now Knight) In 2018, David Challenor, Knight's father, who had been serving as her election agent, was convicted and jailed for raping and torturing a 10-year-old girl, and for making indecent images of children.[3][4] Knight's recruitment of her father, despite her knowledge of the charges for 22 sexual offences, led to an investigation and Knight's suspension from the Green Party. She later resigned and joined the Liberal Democrats, but was suspended in 2019 over tweets allegedly posted by her partner concerning sexual fantasies around children.[
In March 2021, Knight who had been hired as an administrator by Reddit became a topic of contention on the website over her connection to David Challenor, leading to several sub-communities to protest her employment by the company. This resulted, after the banning of a moderator and sitewide protests, in an official statement by the website's administrators being released; in it, Reddit confirmed that it had not properly vetted Knight before hiring her and that she was no longer employed by the company.[8]

So does that mean Stonewall endorses these two people @10questions10? Is it unprofessional for them to follow two people who have offensive and questionable views?

And that is absolute rubbish, all in you imagination, homosexual people are the same as they've always been, they haven't changed and no-one is telling them they must.

Sorry.

As a homosexual person, I'm telling you that yes this is happening and I have been told that I have no right as a homosexual female to say no to a male person who informs me that they are a lesbian as a potential sexual partner, and any problems I have with this being absolute disrespect for my sexuality, for homosexuality in general, with shattering disregard for a woman's right to enjoy sex instead of 'learn to cope' and the conversion therapy of 'you must learn to overcome your genital bias and prejudice' has happened. Including multiple times right here on MN.

This is happening. It is happening now. The evidence can easily be found on recent threads about this right here on the board where multiple screenshot collections demonstrate exactly how horrible and homophobic the pressure is upon gay people to stop being gay and validate TQ+ people's identities. And also how they're excluded from groups, Pride and exposed to threats upto and including corrective rape and death threats if they dare to say 'but I don't want to' or 'that's fine but not for me thanks'.

Here is one collection of screenshots. Brace yourself, you will need a strong stomach, this is not nice or pleasant reading.

terfisaslur.com/cotton-ceiling/

Saying "look who is friends with who" is a massive klaxon demonstrating that you can't produce an argument about what is actually being discussed, so can only point at something else as a distraction.

There are currently Christian students at a blatantly homophobic university in Seattle campaigning for LGBTQ+ rights. Does this mean these students are wrong and to be hated, because they are Christian? (And paying huge sums to a homophobic organisation)?

I think there really needs to be a helpline for people that don't know whether they're gay or not. I thought I wasn't, but because no-one's ever explained how I can find out what my gender identity is, or my partner's, I've got no way of knowing, if we use Stonewall's definitions.

A much cheaper and valuable option would be for Stonewall to set out very clear definitions about what they mean by woman, man and gender identity, so that everyone can at least be on the same page about that. I don't understand why they refuse to do so.

So... are you truly saying that people cannot change and develop their understanding and their point of view over 7 years?

It's great that Farrow has developed her understanding and changed her homophobic point of view, give it another 7 years and I'm sure she'll do the same with her transphobic point of view.

Some people just take time I guess.

🤷‍♀️

I'm not sure there is ever going to be a way to 'develop my understanding' to the point of believing that homosexuality is apartheid, women should not have equality of access and inclusion and should be subordinated to male interests, and safeguarding should be subordinated to TQ+ political interests.

Not because I do not understand it. But because I do fully understand it and it is wrong. If you want to call it transphobic, you call me whatever names you feel you need to. I could throw a few labels myself, but I don't think it's a particularly adult or helpful way forward really.

Given that people are called transphobic now for stating that sex is real, immutable and biological that doesn’t seem likely.

There are people saying it’s transphobic for lesbians to not consider males as partners, which is clearly ludicrous, but a common TRA belief.

It's just so telling who suffers from logic fail, when one incorrectly believes that in twitter land, those who follow/are followed, must mean they 100% support everything that is posted by that person or organisation.

Perhaps it's just repeating what one has been brainwashed to believe? So here is something:

I heard TERFs' like to drink water and eat fruit and vegetables.
If you don't want to be considered a TERF, then stop drinking and eating.
If you drink and eat, then you are admitting to the world that you are transphobic.
If you associate with anyone that eats and drinks, then you are also a transphobic.

And this crap just continues.

Yes... Caroline Farrow would probably think me a 'sinner'. I don't agree with her on some stuff, I don't even know if I agree on her views on many things. I don't care, I ignore her mostly.

If YOU want to not interact with her on social media, that is your right and your choice. If you feel that she is not entitled to have an opinion that disagrees with yours, well, that says probably just about everything about you. She is entitled to have an opinion. YOU are entitled to disagree. You are entitled to state your opinion to her and discuss it.

An organisation should not be blocking people based on an opinion that is stated without abuse. If a person disagrees with the organisation's policy or their communications, they should be able to make comment without that organisation blocking them.

What a world we live in where those two tweets above from one person who LGB Alliance follows and may or may not have even interacted with recently:

23 September 2020: "Yes, gay sex is a sin as is any sex outside heterosexual marriage. Please see this thread from last night as a basic explainer/primer."

and

23 September 2020: "Why are we debating ay marriage when the issue is about what's taught in schools? However many people believe that marriage is an institution that can only be entered into by 1 man & 1 woman."

.... delivered without any abuse, just a mildly stated opinion, is being used as a reason for LGB Alliance to not be able to start up and run a help line for young LGB people.

And.... posters are proud that they are the allegedly tolerant ones.

@DeaconBoo "A much cheaper and valuable option would be for Stonewall to set out very clear definitions about what they mean by woman, man and gender identity, so that everyone can at least be on the same page about that. I don't understand why they refuse to do so."

It doesn't really matter how Stonewall assigns any definitions here. In law, a man is a person of the male sex of any age; a woman is a person of the female sex of any age.

In law, "gender identity" does not exist; it is not written anywhere in any law. To do so would be the equivalent of writing any other article of faith into law. Further, if it cannot be defined it cannot be written into law.

The same goes for "non-binary". This is a non-existent status in our law because it is meaningless. Law recognises the natural state of humans as males or females. It is not possible for anyone to be neither male nor female or to be both. It is another fantasy state.

@10questions10 If you work / worked in PR surely you are very familiar with monitoring the competition? Competitors who are likely to be saying and doing things differently and not necessarily in a way that agrees.

Surely any account that chooses to follow others who have views with which one disagrees is no different? How else can one formulate an adequate argument in defence of one's position if one avoids listening to / reading those with opposing views?

How else can one formulate an adequate argument in defence of one's position if one avoids listening to / reading those with opposing views?

Because Maude, actively seeking to hear other opinions is akin to supporting that person and their opinions it seems.

And why does anyone need to know what others are saying, just stay down the bottom of your silo and listen to the echoes.... and love that confirmation and hate, hate those challenges.

How else can one function in the real world as a person, let alone a campaign organisation?

That's what a second account is for, it's very likely that 'your competition' has blocked you so you don't get to see what they're tweeting anyway.

This is why it's best a to have a secondary 'clean' account.

Only today I've had to unfollow someone on Twitter who I originally followed because she was a gender critical feminist. For years I've not seen anything she's posted that caused me concern. In the last 24 hours she's posted some quite extraordinary stuff about the refugee/ Rwanda situation and has outed herself as racist. I've unfollowed.

Just because you've followed someone doesn't mean you agree with everything they write or believe.

Exactly where have I opposed a group offering to support those who need it? But supporting one group of people does not excuse being openly hostile towards another group of people who also need help, like the LGBA are doing with vulnerable trans people - the LGBA was set up with the stated aim of opposing transgender people, they are against transgender, they are anti-trans, they are transphobic. How many more ways does it need saying that this is not a reputable non-discriminatory, unbiased group. They are based on hate and division, like any hate group.
They are a very small minority of the LGB community, most LGB are inclusive, supporting LGBTQ+ and DO NOT support the LGBA anti-trans stance.

Far from "doing a disservice to the T community" I am pointing out the great harm being done to them by the LGBA and other GC groups who are trying to remove the legal rights and protections of trans people by spreading misinformation and outright lies about them.

It would be very interesting to know how many Mumsnet supporters of the LGBA are actually close to any trans people in their lives, or even know any and how much they actually know about the lived experience of trans people rather than what they're been told by the LGBA? I do speak from experience of being LGB with close trans family and friends.

Gender identity, gender dysphoria and trans people (men and women!) are of course very closely linked. And nothing like anorexia which is a serious mental illness and no comparison whatsoever.

Who said that suggesting that trans people receive counselling is transphobic? Certainly not me, and many do seek counselling, but not to be told they are not women, they need counselling not 'conversion therapy'! Many need more help with the effects of everyday transphobia aimed at them than anything else.

(1)A person has the protected characteristic of gender reassignment if the person is proposing to undergo, is undergoing or has undergone a process (or part of a process) for the purpose of reassigning the person's sex by changing physiological or other attributes of sex.
Equality Act 2010, Section 7 - Legislation.gov.uk

Where did the judgement say specifically that "denial of the existence of gender identity" is a protected belief?

It also said:
"The EAT made it clear that the judgment does not mean that it was expressing any view as to the merits of either side of the transgender debate or that any of the existing protections for people with the protected characteristic of gender reassignment under the Equality Act were in any way undermined. Also that it considered that the judgment does not mean that employers and service providers will not be able to provide a safe environment for trans persons."

"Stonewall, et al, who have bastardised the term to mean same gender attracted which completely undermines the whole basis of homosexuality."
No they haven't changed the meaning of anything, "same sex attraction" means the same as it ever was.
No-one is "undermines homosexuality", myself and most members of these organisations are also LGB so it really doesn't make any sense does it.

Matter of interest, what do you call trans women who are attracted to men, and trans men who are attracted to women? Trans people don't all fit into your neat little boxes you know.

Where have I even suggested that homosexuality is transphobic?, of course it's not!
And you appear to agree with me that trans women and trans men can be homosexual, so what do you think I don't understand?
Actually I don't understand the obsession with 'labels', they make no difference to who or what a person actually is.

@Starlee needs to educate themselves a bit about the LGB Alliance, instead of posting falsehoods. Starlee, when you understand a bit more, you will (I hope) be ashamed of the homophobia you've been parading here. In the meantime, please just understand that repeatedly yelling "it's haaaaaate group" convinces nobody.