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]"

And to be clear here.

This 'gotcha' actually highlighted that a transitioned male was not able to respect the needs of females.

We keep being told by activists that transitioned males fully respect the needs of females and would respect a plainly signed single sex toilet to be solely for the use of females and females only.

This 'gotcha' posted by RhinestoneCow merely highlighted that females are quite right to be suspicious of assertions such as that. That while many transitioned males WOULD and, in fact, DO respect the need for single sex spaces to be for females only when sex matter, this activist clearly cannot respect it when clearly notified.

I have stated many times that many trans people are also LGB. It's the LGBAlliance who want the T excluded, they don't want them there.

I have stated many times that many trans people are also LGB. It's the LGBAlliance who want the T excluded, they don't want them there.

Please post the evidence where LGB Alliance 'excludes' trans people?

It actually doesn't matter how many time you state it. If you cannot provide the evidence, it remains untrue. Despite the repetition.

The indoctrination on display is astounding. No evidence, no proof, just constantly parrot the same line over and over again.

So as well as you thinking that trans people are wrong, you also think LGB people can't be trusted to know themselves either, that you know better by observing them?

"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."
What does "act like men" and "act like women" actually mean? I though you didn't go in for sexual stereotypes, that's one of the main complaints I've seen mentioned against trans people?

you also think LGB people can't be trusted to know themselves either,

Honey there are LGB people talking to you directly on this conversation thread. I'm one of them. I know at least one other has similarly identified themselves.

What does "act like men" and "act like women" actually mean?

There are many average differences between male and female behaviour. Men are more violent, more aggressive, more likely to be narcissistic, including overestimating their own physical attractiveness, more likely to misread social cues, especially from women, more likely to commit sexual assault and more likely to have paraphilias. For example.

Of course some women also do some or all of these things. And many men do not. But you’d expect that a group of men who identify as women might display less stereotypically masculine behaviours than other men.That is not the case.

Oh ffs, now you're being completely stupid, and ridiculously judgmental. So do these "quite poorly educated" trans supporters include those who are also LGB, or just those you consider to be hetero? How bloody arrogant can you get?!

Oh ffs, now you're being completely stupid, and ridiculously judgmental.

😂

I did indeed. You said:

"Perhaps you might be surprised to also realise that young people are also some of the least tolerant people in the UK."

The data there is certainly an outlier and I produced evidence that corrected you.

It's like NATO - an attack on one is an attack on all of us.

If you haven't heard of the word 'solidarity' I suggest you google it.

There's no such thing as innate gender identity . It's impossible.

It's like when in the 1910s there were women who opposed the right to vote:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-suffragism#:~:text=The%20first%20women%2Dled%20anti,Madeleine%20Vinton%20Dahlgren%20in%201869.

They were sexists in the same way gay people who are against gay rights are homophobes.

Why do you always try to bring other issues in. Could it be because you don't have a leg to stand on when your issue stands alone?

The fact is: a male with dysphoria is a male with dysphoria. Everybody knows this, even people who say they don't. If they thought they were women they wouldn't do what they tell them to do.

What does "act like men" and "act like women" actually mean?

'Act like a man' is basically how transwomen behave. Watch them and you will see how men act.

The data there is certainly an outlier and I produced evidence that corrected you.

In what way do you think you 'corrected' me?

You seem to have not done an analysis on the raw data that that article draws from.

And please do read the Dr Frank Luntz study from mid 2021 on YouGov and the follow up released by YouGov in December 2021. It too showed that while many in that generation are on the face of it 'inclusive', the reality is that they are also the most intolerant and that people in that generation felt it was sometimes impossible to be truthful for fear of being ostracised or worse.

So.. that is two studies from last year and those stats from that 'muchincommon' study showing that while they may be 'inclusive' they are also the group that was the most 'disgusted' and 'angry'.

The extremes exist and the extremes mean that there is a definite need for LGB helplines that deal just with LGB issues.

Or do you deny that there is a polarisation shown there within that age group?

It's like NATO - an attack on one is an attack on all of us.

This is just too funny for words, how can the person posting this post it with a straight face after what they have been posting interminably on this thread.

It's like NATO - an attack on one is an attack on all of us.

There were good reasons why Ukraine was not admitted to NATO

It's like NATO - an attack on one is an attack on all of us.

If you haven't heard of the word 'solidarity' I suggest you google it.

You don't show 'solidarity' by not attending conferences and events or having discussions with other groups or individuals that you disagree with.

This is how 'echo chambers' are created and how group think eventuates.

A mature approach is to continue to engage with respect and ensure that the organisation's voice is heard and that lines of communication are left open.

I really do see now that when some posters who visit FWR, not necessarily on this thread, start accusing MN of being echo chambers, they really are projecting.

You want me to answer someone else's question for them? I didn't realise you had so much faith in my opinion!😂

The data there is certainly an outlier and I produced evidence that corrected you

🤦‍♀️ that is embarrassing. The two data sources are from the same organisation.

You didn’t “correct” anything. They don’t contradict each other. Nuance and intelligence and critical thinking and even empathy (real empathy, not performative empathy) are required to interpret data like this.

You may not have much of the above, but you’d still benefit from actually reading and thinking instead of reflexively reaching for a source you don’t understand to slap down another source you don’t understand purely because the latter contains information you don’t like.

The question (you know this, of course, I'm just trying to get it clear) is a subordinate question to that involved in the well-known mind/body problem ('mbp'): how do (non-material) minds relate/interact (causally and otherwise) with (material) bodies?

Given the assumed possibility of 'matching', trans metaphysics has to take it that minds and bodies, although different in certain ways, are nevertheless the same sort of thing. But this, now, constrains the solution-space of the mbp.

Generally, the trans metaphysician has to say one of three things about mind/body interaction: it's a miracle ('God does it'); mental things reduce to physical things; physical things reduce to mental things. Generally she doesn't want to say any of those; the question you pose, then, remains, not just unanswered, but unanswerable.

A more promising line with mbp (given we don't like any of those three answers), is to deny that minds and bodies are the same sort of thing. Gilbert Ryle, for instance, in castigating what he called the 'myth' of the 'ghost in the machine', described the mistake involved in thinking minds and bodies are the same sort of thing as a 'category error', a locution which has become relatively mainstream. (That's in his Concept of Mind, of course, though not exclusively.)

Others have made similar moves. I mentioned David Hume in an earlier post. Buddhism has an interesting, some would say similar, take on mbp. And so on.

OK, that all needs further explanation. This is not the place. But two things strike here:

1. If minds and bodies are not within a single category, it is difficult - say nonsensical - to think of matching them one with another. So trans metaphysics collapses.
2. The important thing here is not so much that trans metaphysics is wrong (although it is); the important thing is that it is debatable. Given the possibility of error, and the fact of disagreement, it would be crazily unreasonable to base public policy on such grounds. We should not, that is, allow trans metaphysics, or the policies it claims to underpin, into any part of our public weal.

So, in short, those who believe in matching minds to bodies should be left to their own devices and not allowed any group influence in public policy or public institutions such as schools and healthcare services. Such a bar is of course well possible without discrimination or any kind of 'phobic' outcome: it is a policy well established for other different metaphysical, philosophical and religious groupings of believers.

LG and B? Different, of course. We have every reason to accept LGB concerns into deliberation on public policy. Just not T, for the reasons I have outlined.

It's like NATO - an attack on one is an attack on all of us.

If you haven't heard of the word 'solidarity' I suggest you google it.

so where is your solidarity for the lesbians being harassed by TW? What are stonewall doing about that? Or do they not count? When a lesbian gets attacked by a TW, why are stonewall not defending her? Why is Nancy Kelly telling lesbians they are ‘sexual racists’ and genital preference is akin to anti semitism. Where is the solidarity for lesbians there? When gay men are told if they don’t date transmen they are bigots, where is the answer from stonewall supporting them? I’m sure you have many examples of stonewalls support for these people right? After all, an attack on one is an attack on all right?

🤦‍♀️ that is embarrassing.

This whole thread has been embarrassing for the TRAs, time and again they return and are constantly shown up by smart, educated women.

Stonewall didn't just follow Aimee Challenor, but had Challenor as a core part of their team.

Cracking bit of quality control, that