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]"

That really is the fundamental sticking point.

The LGBA was formed by homosexual people who choose partners based on their sex, and are exclusively attracted to those of the same sex.

TQ+ politically controlled groups see this as appalling because it places limits on how far a homosexual person would validate a TQ+ person's choice of identity.

That this places limits on how far a TQ+ person will validate or tolerate a homosexual person's identity is apparently fine though.

I doubt the LGBA would 'steer' children in any direction

I agree with Artichoke.

I would expect any young person help line to be supported but not ‘steered’ any direction.

Providing a range of age appropriate information and referring unbiased organisations, with follow up if ever appropriate, will mean that those young people are being well looked after.

Having young people be comfortable as who they are may well mean less who go onto transition medically. But the key is to provide extra support services for those LGB young people.

Has anyone asked the LGBA what their policy on this helpline would be?

I very much doubt they would seek to steer children in any direction. An LGB focused group would reassure that it is ok to be confused or disturbed for example that they are gender non conforming and don't feel like a traditional girl or boy, and to be same sex attracted, that this does not automatically mean they are automatically the opposite sex in the wrong body. That many gay people feel like this. I doubt in the long term a child who is truly trans would find that the answer and would continue to seek transition, but children like Keira Bell? They may have found that saved them a lot of pain and distress.

Equally an LGBA led group would be willing to say to a child being told that they should be attracted to male and female people as a lesbian and that they are wrong and bigoted and should be shunned if they are not - and I have seen those letters and worries from confused gay kids - that it is ok to be homosexual, that it is ok to see sex, that it is ok to say no, I am a female who is exclusively attracted to only other females and that does mean I am not attracted to any male regardless of how the male person identifies.

And that's the sticking point. That's the heresy. That's what TQ+ politics does not want children to hear. Regardless of how it may affect an LGB child. Regardless of how it's affecting LGB people now.

Personally, I think TQ+ politics need to be able to respect that there are times and places where sex matters and do a bit of letting live.

@Starlee

No I don't believe in a 'greater being' as in a god etc, but I do believe there is a soul, essence, that inner being or whatever you choose to call it that makes a person uniquely them.

And I believe that 'inner being' can feel at odds with the body because I've seen for myself the changes before and after transitioning and it's not something that can be 'put on' if it's not real.

You've said repeatedly that there are mismatches and matches between 'inner beings' and 'bodies'. Please, please, can you explain - which bodies match up with which type of inner beings?

I'm honestly trying to understand, but you keep ignoring this question which would help me get what you mean by matching/mismatching.

I feel we have someone posting here for screenshots btw. (not starlee - on one hand I do appreciate that they keep coming back, but on the other they keep asking questions about what they've said that have already been answered, and don't seem to be able to answer any of their own, so I draw my own conclusions from that).

DeaconBoo

I suspected the same thing. It was uncanny….

Has anyone asked the LGBA what their policy on this helpline would be?

it has been suggested and ignored

The main message I would like LGB children to be able to hear is the same one I stick to as an LGB person:

• It is ok to be exclusively homosexual and to have exclusively homosexual attraction.

• It is ok to not be attracted to any biological members of the opposite sex regardless of their identity and gender. Sex and gender are not the same thing.

• This is not wrong, or something that you must learn to overcome in yourself (ie to stop being homosexual). It is ok and healthy to act on your natural attractions, and to expect to enjoy sex equally to a partner.

• Sex and access to your body is never something you have to agree to unwillingly, out of a feeling of social duty to someone else or because you feel pressured. Someone making it clear that your stating your own boundaries will mean they will make you a target for harassment, shunning and other punishments is coercing and bullying you.

• You do not have to train yourself to try and like body parts that you're not attracted to for someone else's benefit when it comes to your body, sex and relationships. This should not be an expectation on anyone, ever.

• Homosexuality and sex do not have to be always and exclusively seen through the TQ+ political lens. There are other ways to look at it and think about it and they are ok too.

The problem is, at this point, people would be screaming 'hate crime'.

I guess I just can't ever imagine saying to anyone 'Yes, you have the wrong body, because your kind of true self/soul/personality is only ever found in other types of body'.
This is why I need the thinking explaining clearly, because it seems outrageous to me.

This special report by Janice Turner on the Tavistock is very relevant here. She says that even some senior Stonewall figures are starting to express concern.

www.thetimes.co.uk/article/e1356292-ebdd-11ec-8821-d2e916a7eab3?shareToken=7d215351dcddcbcfde7e212a6273df05

Also Lucy Bannerman’s interview with a former Tavistock patient who was basically ditched after making the rare decision not to go onto cross sex hormones.

www.thetimes.co.uk/article/0bf8b08e-ebe2-11ec-8821-d2e916a7eab3?shareToken=1fe1dab8eb1d48cc9e1dd17fc9fb1eb2

I know Starlee & friends are likely to ignore these reports because they’re from The Times, but I’m sharing them anyway.

Sometimes it is important to disambiguate.

"You are wrong to say x" could mean , (1) "You ought not to say x." Or it could mean, (2) "x is not true."

"I feel I am a woman" (said by a man), should elicit the response, "You are not wrong in sense (1)," (it is probably good to share your feelings, after all), but "You are wrong in sense (2)" (because you are not a woman, you are a man, after all).

Of course Starlee will disagree with the desirability of this response. But I wonder if she can understand the disambiguation. I suspect that not.

[I do not expect a reply, Starlee.]

Just putting this here too. Because obviously a group in Australia is seeking to legally prevent any lesbian group defining themselves as single sex.

Very tolerant of female’s who define their sexuality based on the sex of their partners and nothing to do with gender. So ‘inclusive’ of all people’s views, isn’t it, not allowing females to establish their sexual boundaries and then their own spaces around that definition?

(Somewhat similar to an earlier post, a moment ago.)

This idea that "My opinion is as good as anyone else's", is commonly offered these days. It comes from a good place, that of a concern for tolerance and democracy. But it leads to a fallacy of ambiguity if you're not careful. Let us disambiguate, again.

"My opinion is as good as anyone else's," might mean (1) "I have as much right to an opinion as anyone else," or (2) "My opinion is as likely to be correct as anyone else's".

Starlee herself in this very thread gives us many examples of instances where case (1) applies but not - no, really, not - case (2).

In my opinion, some opinions are really not worth much at all, even though, of course, people very much have the right to hold them. Amongst such opinions are, for instance, that humans have a separable soul that may or not match their body in some inexplicable sense, and that human beings can change sex. Both these opinions are just plain wrong.

(I leave disambiguation of the notion that my experience is as good as anyone else's for another time.)

[I can't bring myself to misuse 'valid' the way Starlee does, old pedant that I am. (She is far from unusual in this misuse; soon 'valid' in her sense will make it to the OED, aargh. Not quite yet, though. If you are tempted - if you use 'valid' how Starlee does - look it up, and desist. Please. It's just sloppy.)]

[And again, Starlee, I don't really expect a response.]

Well, there's a surprise a post which was factual, truthful and evidence is available to back it up is deleted because some people just can't handle the truth and yet certain posters are able to make unfounded, unevidenced, untruthful claims about LGBA for pages and pages.

Just so you know starlee I did not report your post that ended with this statement , that seems to have been deleted.

I would say you have said something that those from other platforms who constantly monitor this board for snap shots or to control what is being said here didn’t want left to stand. Considering a number of posts have gone this morning from today and yesterday, I’d say there is a high likelihood that you have probably said something in one of the other paragraphs that one of those visitors didn’t like being said.

It wasn’t me at all. Posts showing readers the tactics used by those with the same arguments as extreme activists are very useful to be left standing.

Yes, it is always interesting to note what TQ+ political activists regard as too dangerous to leave in writing.

Those who would like equal freedom and tolerance for gay people and women tend to be willing to let pretty much everything stay there in evidence and add the evidence of arguing with it, rather than seeking to control reality by deleting and silencing the bits of it someone finds unpleasant.

Because whatever you do to hide that bit of reality you don't like, the sad fact is that it doesn't go away.

If it was last night, it might have been me that reported it - posts that are just "I never said that, you're saaad" or similar I tend to think detract from civil discussion. Happy to leave them up in future, in case there was any doubt as to whether the people posting those sentiments and not actually engaging in questions being asked, are here in good faith to have an honest discussion?

Fair enough Deacon. I suspect quite a number of Starlee’s posts would have been deleted if reported for the negative generalisations they keep using amongst other things.

And hey, if they cross the line, they cross the line.

Like the way they successfully reported the tweets by a detransitioner, concerning the effects of medical transition on his own body.

Twitter is full of pornographic videos, posts minimising the impact of child abuse, and tweets glorifying violence against women and so much more.

But what do TQ activists seek to remove from the site? A man being negative about the impacts of the medical procedures he had. Were they scared someone might change their mind as a result of his thread?!

Maybe the posters who are so vehemently against LGBA could also point out where a young detransitioner or desister who is LGB can go for advice about getting to know themselves as not a trans person.

How many detransitioners have reported the significant lack of support for them at Stonewall and Mermaids and other trans inclusive groups?

How many detransitioners report the complete ostracism they face when they start asking questions that they groups cannot countenance answering and actively refuse to engage with?

starlee, hearach? Any suggestions?

or are you incapable of acknowledging the young desisters and detransitioners? Do you seek to further isolate them by withdrawing potential support?

Who do they contact for help?

If your claims are 'facts' then you'll be able to provide the evidence that "Stonewall are actively homophobic and leading action to harass and forcibly drive homosexual people out of the support they set up."

What a nasty, ignorant comment. Being disabled is not unusual, there's lots of us around.

What a nasty, ignorant comment. Being disabled is not unusual, there's lots of us around.

Only too well aware of that.

It's not me making ignorant, nasty comments it is you.