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]"

LGB Alliance is supported 'overwhelmingly by heterosexual' people

Gay/lesbian/bisexual people are supported overwhelmingly by heterosexual people. Isn't this a good thing? Showing the reduction in homophobia across society?

The LGB Alliances conference attendence was 87% LGB.

Stonewall, on the other hand, seems fixated on straight white males.

The LGB Alliances conference attendence was 87% LGB.

Why did it have so many heterosexual speakers though, including 'anti-transgender activist" Graham Linehan?

How bizarre... people dictating that experts be ignored at a LGB conference, with no LGB alternative that can ideally fit the discussion, because they are not LBG....

And yet another poster who seems to be declaring that an organisation that gets the best people to discuss the topic, rather than just people who are 'part' of the organisation or membership is an organisation to be demonised and monstered.

Do you really understand what you are trying to posit?

That at conference sessions that was discussing issues from a LGB perspective but that were NOT LGB specific, you feel that LGB Alliance should have ignored any expert that was not LGB.... hence creating an 'echo chamber'.

Can we assume that if they did that, you would not criticise them for being in an echo chamber?

"anti-transgender activist" pro-women's rights activist Graham Linehan?

There you go, fixed it for you.

Can we assume that if they did that, you would not criticise them for being in an echo chamber?

Or "anti-straight"?

I mean if just not standing for "T" specifically but still welcoming trans people is "anti-trans", then excluding straight people altogether would be practically "straight genocide", right?

@citrusbaby, those first two images on this meme are very sexist and old-fashioned. Surely you don't support that 1950s view of gender roles?

And if tickets are available so no LGB person was unable to attend, are we to believe that no heterosexual people who are either a) reporting on the event , b) supporting an LGB person and c) may be interested in hearing an LGB perspective on issues discussed at the conference d) people employed in roles supporting LGB people, should be welcome to enter?

Does this work with any other open to the public conference?

Do you understand just how 'echo chambers' are built?

If this was a 'trans' event, would any non-trans person be welcome? No allies, no family members or support from friends, no people working with support.... no health care professionals who were not trans themselves, no one but trans people?

Do you see how weak this 'gotcha' is?

I despair at the posters plopping on this thread.

What is clear is that so many people have ill thought out prejudices against an organisation. They simply cannot provide anything close to convincing and evidence supported reasons and have resorted to repetitious whatabouts, memes and simply repeating trope they have been convinced is righteous by other social media platforms that cannot withstand a skerrick of scrutiny.

I despair because some posters believe this is convincing. That they have been convinced by it...

@NonnyMouse1337 "Get your own bloody words instead of changing ours!"
You mean like the word "gay" that always used to mean 'happy'?
Times change, words evolve, ranting about it won't make any difference.

By the way, you might find this interesting from today's Guardian: www.theguardian.com/society/2022/jun/16/britons-not-bitterly-polarised-over-trans-equality-research-finds?CMP=share_btn_tw&fbclid=IwAR2Di4M-IqHA7PQr0vkj_HzuchsRX6VIw7cKmWyiR3GqPYKIVapF31dyLPU

Hmm. There's a different interpretation to that of the captured Guardian if you look at more reputable news sources:
www.mumsnet.com/talk/womens_rights/4570160-public-want-trans-women-kept-out-of-female-sport-times-16622

Obviously it's right to despair at those so enmeshed in an ideology that they can't cope with facts, science and opinions they disagree with Hellofabore . But I'm pleased to see this thread repeatedly bumped to the top of the board. There are so many knowledgeable posts, so many women patiently explaining (again and again) about lesbophobia, woman hatred and giving factual information to the ploppers.
I know it's tedious but for the countless lurkers, it's so important.

True MrsO. But it is the glimpse into what has convinced people that is concerning.

And that some people honestly believe that others should be similarly convinced by the same paucity of data and though.

They're already there.
LGBTQIA2S+ is an acronym for Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender, Queer and/or Questioning, Intersex, Asexual, Two-Spirit, while the “+” symbolizes the many other ways an individual can choose to identify. https://olc.sfu.ca/topic/equity-diversity-inclusion/lgbtqai2s

More specifically, non-whites are already included under all the current letters same as white people, LGBT is not a racial description. And black and brown stripes have been added to the rainbow flag, as have the trans colours.
Same goes for disabled people, they are also there under all the various letters, LGBT is not a disablist label.
All those you mention (and more) are protected characteristics in the Equality Act.

Same goes for disabled people, they are also there under all the various letters, LGBT is not a disablist label.

Amazing.

So how come so many people can't grasp that trans people are there in the LGB Alliance under those 3 letters?

Weird.

😂

Should I post that meme again....

I mean really, do people read what they write?

You are kidding? Stonewall is subjected to constant, horrendous abuse from the LGBA, why should they defend that? The LGBA was actually set up to oppose Stonewall, and they do admit that in their opening mission statement.

As for your claim that ""Gender identity" cannot be proved to exist. It is, thus, a fantasy; like any other religion." is just ridiculous.
How do you prove lgb exists? Ask lgb people themselves, we exist.
So how do you prove GI exists? Ask the people involved. You're all talking about them here, why not try talking TO them and hearing the truth? Or are you all fantasising about them too?

Why? There already is an LGBT Switchboard

switchboard.lgbt/

Very concerning that the LGB Alliance seem to think this is something the community doesn't already have - that said it is unsurprising as there are large gaps in their knowledge of the community.

I predict this is a project that will not get off the ground. They won't have the volunteers or get many calls because most LGBT people who know of them want nothing to do with them.

How do you prove lgb exists? Ask lgb people themselves

Um, no, actually. We observe people's behaviour. If no man ever had sex with a man, and no woman ever had sex with a woman, we would be equally sceptical about "LGB" existing.

We also observe the behaviour of those who claim to have gender identities. It's not perceptively different from those who don't. Men who say they're women act like men, and women who say they're men act like women.

There's no perceptible commonality between a man with a "woman identity" and an actual woman, and there's no perceptible difference between that man and any other man. Hence the scepticism.

Sure, maybe that man has "dysphoria", but a "gender identity" shared with the opposite sex? Totally counter to all observable evidence.

Stonewall is subjected to constant, horrendous abuse from the LGBA, why should they defend that? The LGBA was actually set up to oppose Stonewall, and they do admit that in their opening mission statement.

Please post links. Which opening mission statement was this please?

Two spirit? Nice bit of cultural appropriation there.

You seem to be struggling here. We know that homosexuality exists, it’s observable. There is no evidence of an innate gender.

It’s a religious belief, like the existence of a soul.

Sadly trans activists seem unable to understand this, what with them nearly all being quite poorly educated, and not the sharpest tools in the box.

Same goes for disabled people, they are also there under all the various letters, LGBT is not a disablist label.

When they're so close to getting it...!

They won't have the volunteers or get many calls because most LGBT people who know of them want nothing to do with them.

That's such a confident assertion that it would be helpful if you'd share your source for that. It reads as if you have at least seen a representative survey that was collected by a reputable survey organisation with a fine reputation for analysis.

starlee, as citrus hasn't returned, can you answer? You believe that heterosexual (ie a person of one sex attracted solely to people of the opposite sex) people can be gay, don't you?