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]"

I'm sorry if you think I should sit here on tenterhooks waiting for your next question, but I do have other things to do with my life apart from sitting here looking at mumsnet! And I have answered you.

@starlee this is - again - breathtakingly dishonest. My post - the one you responded to - had ONE question in there:
Can anyone, ANYONE, say - clearly and unambiguously - which types of mind match which sex?

You now claim you have answered that question? Where? It's not true, is it?
It's the dishonesty I can't stand.

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."

you really need to go first with the ‘evidence’ starlee

youve spent a lot of time saying that the LGBA are transphobic etc with no evidence at all

You've tried far too hard to appear clever but you've just ended up looking foolish

the little gems of projection and such a lack of self awareness still takes me by surprise in these posts.

If they were genuinely sure they were right, that what they said was true, they would be happy to talk about why, how, explain what they meant to us who are wrong. It would be easy to explain.

Instead it's lazy insults, tedious deflections, pretending they haven't even said what is there in their own posts, talking about how they use mumsnet, what they imagine people on MN are like - they will post literally anything as long as they don't actually engage with what's being discussed.

It's all they have and we can all see it.

So now you're telling me it's a "fact" that I've not seen any homophobic content from Stonewall?

You've been repeatedly shown links, given the evidence, I have no idea what goes on between your ears and frankly given how very rude you are I have lost all interest, but it is important for anyone rational who at this point is still managing to follow this utter farce of a conversation to realise that you are being wilfully and purposefully blind to evidence. Obviously you have reasons for that. As you say, you're entitled to your own view and opinion.

However it has to be plainly understood by all that those adhering to this agenda and insisting it is fine are only managing to do so by vigorously editing reality and ignoring any bits of it they dislike. Such as not looking at the homophobia, the exclusion of females, the male dominance and powerplays going on, the raping of women in prisons, the females stuck in dangerous relationships because male people not in danger want to enact being in a female refuge surrounded by females and are using the same denialism to manage to avoid that they are endangering and blocking women in order to serve their own wishes and fulfilment.

This denialism is up to the individual. But like other inappropriate, harmful behaviours to society, it should not be indulged and enabled.

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."

Well, you’ve repeatedly ignored my posts about Stonewall’s CEO equating lesbian homosexuality with racism.

starlee your post here is staggeringly dishonest.

Or have you simply hand waved away the quote that has been posted more than once on this thread from Stonewall’s CEO.

“If you find that when dating, you are writing off entire groups of people, like people of colour, fat people, disabled people or trans people, then it’s worth considering how societal prejudices may have shaped your attractions.”

And this comment here from her also: In her email, Kelley suggested that the BBC article would end up being ‘transphobic’ because it represented trans women as ‘sexual predators’, which was a ‘central anti-trans argument’.

She further complained that the ‘highly toxic’ cotton ceiling issue was ‘analogous to issues like sexual racism’.

From this article (non paywalled),
www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10225111/amp/Stonewall-brands-lesbians-sexual-racists-raising-concerns-sex-transgender-women.html

It is really dishonest to make the implied accusation that no evidence has been supplied, yet the hypocrisy of you even making this claim seems to be lost on you.

We know we shouldn’t play chess with pigeons…

it is important for anyone rational who at this point is still managing to follow this utter farce of a conversation to realise that you are being wilfully and purposefully blind to evidence. Obviously you have reasons for that.

I think we can start making some deductions that would probably be fairly accurate. I obviously won’t post them, but I think there are some people who are so heavily invested now that they cannot begin to process that they have been misled or simply didn’t do or was unable to do, deep enough research for themselves.

I don't wear makeup or nail polish. Been 26 years since I wore a dress or skirt or high heels.

I've worked in male dominated industries. When I completed my bachelor's degree, there were only 10 females to 120 males that began the course.

I have birthed 4 kids. Haven't had my periods in 8 years as I use a Mirena.

Am I man, non-binary or a woman?

How can I feel if I have been literally erased? How do I know I actually exist?

Can anyone here prove we are not stuck in The Matrix?

Starlee:
"We're all entitled to our own beliefs, including me, and I don't give a jot to what you think of mine."

Indeed so. As I said, "the unthinking ignorance and associated prejudices of so many of our fellow citizens" is well exemplified. The internet is useful for such exemplification, inconscient though it often be.

Starlee is a lost cause, I suspect. Most grown-ups, though - and some well-brought-up children, too - know it is good to have one's beliefs challenged, particularly with explanations and reasons proferred; most of us are grateful when others do this. Resentment of such challenges is as clear a sign of intellectual immaturity as there is.

It is kind of depressing that so many of our fellows just don't seem to grow up, intellectually speaking. But, well, there it is. It is something we have to face up to.

It is kind of depressing that so many of our fellows just don't seem to grow up, intellectually speaking. But, well, there it is. It is something we have to face up to.

Some people are just not very bright and deserve our sympathy.

How interesting is this reaction to Dame Kelly Holmes (not the stonewall reaction, but the stonewall followers).

twitter.com/stonewalluk/status/1538409898798632961?s=21&t=L5UTDtoRqsWRSG5en6FU0A

So… please do tell us again why an alternative to Stonewall is desperately needed for LGB people?

We are still here and waiting for a coherent answer.

Starlee:
"We're all entitled to our own beliefs, including me, and I don't give a jot to what you think of mine."

Priceless, utterly priceless. The level of hypocrisy is off the scale.

Oh indeed. It is not 'transphobia' to have concerns about fairness in women's sport, yet that's how she was labelled. I saw that Rachel McKinnon/Veronica Ivy even tried to get her sponsors to drop her. (As an aside, sponsorships are still overwhelmingly given to male athletes, one of the man sex-based inequalities in sport.)

I found it heartbreaking reading that Dame Kelly was worried that coming out would retrospectively affect her career in the army. Despite it being twenty two years after the policy allowing LGBT people to serve openly in the armed forces, and she being a well-thought of public figure (some TRAs aside), she has waited until 2022 to feel able to come out publicly, and she is still facing a backlash from certain quarters.

I say congratulations and good for her, I hope she can live freely and happily as a lesbian.

I also say that it highlights that LGB people still have a way to go feel fully accepted and it is only in very recent history that gains have been made for them that they should have had for a long time.

It also shows that, yes, the LGBA is very much needed. I'm sure they (like most) would applaud Dame Kelly and not call her a 'transphobe', which she is not.

Man sex-based? I meant main, although it could be a Freudian slip

I've been following this thread from the start.

I'd really like to know how to handle some of the more practical aspects of starting this helpline.

Such as how would we expect LGBA to handle a call from a young person who feels same sex attracted but also feels gender dysphoria.

Well then we might as well give money to a bunch of straight people to set up a hotline to persuade vulnerable gay kids that they're straight.

Hearach, if you hadn't spotted it, I don't think that poster was being entirely genuine....

🤫😆

Non-sequitur.

Once again (with feeling!). Being gay is different from being trans:

-If a man sincerely says "I am gay", he is telling the truth. (Because to feel attracted to someone is to be attracted to that person ... etc.)
-If a man sincerely says "I am trans", he is mistaken: not about being trans, but about the entailed claim, "I am a woman". (Because human beings can't change sex ...)
Of course, you could deny that entailment. I'm not sure you want to, though, do you, Hearach15?

Yes of course, but as with other kinds of immaturity, it can be particularly depressing when a child behaves as though she does not want to grow up in this regard.

I also say that it highlights that LGB people still have a way to go feel fully accepted and it is only in very recent history that gains have been made for them that they should have had for a long time.

As with women's rights, it's disturbing how many people are delighted to throw those gains and acceptance aside the minute they have an excuse to do so. It was never more than skin deep.

How will LGBA handle a call from a kid unsure of their identity? Well for a kid to call the LGBA as opposed to a TQ+ focused group would suggest that what they want to talk about is homosexuality as opposed to identity focused discussion, as they wouldn't call a heart disease group to discuss leukemia - but the thing to do I guess would be to ask the LGBA.

There are TQ+ members of the LGBA leadership so I'm sure the policy will have this covered. It is possible to be pro supporting homosexual people without this automatically be dangerous to TQ+ people. As it's possible to let women have rights without this automatically being an overwhelming threat to TQ+ people. A bit of chilling out is needed here.

Bev and Kate will be on GB News with Andrew Doyle tonight and it will be good to hear more about the helpline from them directly.

twitter.com/bevjacksonauth/status/1538560409061441536?s=21&t=S0mcdW_WmKOmKFlgTUH2qg

Yes, their charitable status is under investigation for good reason.