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]"

Just posting this to see if Hearache will answer

Well, I guess it's been shown very clearly which people are willing to discuss ideas and statements, and which are too close-minded to.

so they decided to discriminate against trans women? Wow, at least they are open about it.

They discriminated against all men, by not allowing them in the women's toilets. And against all women, by not allowing them in the men's.

Somehow everyone else was okay with this discrimination, presumably because most people have no wish to violate the privacy of the opposite sex.

I’ve got a request for all of the GC people on this thread.

Would each of you mind repeating my question about Nancy Kelley’s equating lesbianism with racism, in your own words? Just in case for some weird reason my posts on the topic are invisible to @Starlee , @Hearach15 & their friends?

Thank you.

So now you're telling me I shouldn't enjoy pride events? Nothing you can post can "disprove this rather fanciful and not just a little propaganda like statement." it is a statement of my opinion of pride events, who on earth do you think you are to 'disprove' that?

Err.. no. I am not telling you anything like that you 'shouldn't enjoy pride events'....

That is what you have taken from my post? Bizarre.

No. I am stating that you seek to portray another very prejudiced viewpoint. This time that everything is wonderful with the trans community and that there is no dissension ever within the groups and that everyone is supremely inclusive.

Again. I am seeking to show just how blinkered your approach is and it doesn't seem to reflect the reality.

Of COURSE, you will enjoy pride events.

People who have been doing the reading, have been following the news events also know just how that same community you are declaring are inclusive and loving are most definitely not. You have repeatedly ignored Nancy Kelley's quote and have tried to declare other lesbian's views as being irrelevant when they are showing you what Stonewall has been saying, what else has been happening.

You even seem to ignore that a man wearing the supposed wrong apparel was assaulted and had his property stolen at a Pride event.

Of course, no is saying they are all bad, but we are most certainly calling out the claim that everything is wonderful, full of love and inclusion.

Yes, I too would like to know if the extremely persistent posters denigrating LGB Alliance have anything to say about the Stonewall CEO's thoughts on lesbianism as "sexual racism."

Specifically, do you agree that same sex attracted girls are harmed when same sex attraction is compared to racism? And do you agree that they deserve access to a helpline run by people who would never do that?

I really have nothing else to say to you, you have been rude and arrogant all the way through, twisting what I say and resorting to insults

Righto! I have read through the 29 pages of this thread.

Please point out where I have been 'rude and arrogant'.

Or. Do you consider my continued pointing out that you have not provided one shred of evidence to support you continued deep prejudice against an organisation, your resorting to hyperbole, emotional reasoning, polarised thinking, name calling, and sometimes quite clear dishonesty as my being rude and arrogant?

Why should anyone not hold you providing evidence to support some outrageous claims that you have brought to this thread?

Why should you be allowed to label people as 'anti-trans' without providing evidence and not be expected to front up that evidence if you want to be considered credible as a poster?

Yes, @Starlee , @Hearach15 Do you agree with Nancy Kelly that lesbianism is akin to sexual racism?

And, as asserted at the Allison Bailey
tribunal, that it is like apartheid?

Do you understand when the head of one of the largest organisations in the world who are meant to be advocating for lesbians, claims that same-sex attraction is like racism, that there is then an urgent need for an organisation that advocates for lesbians?

Or are you still hung up on the fact that the definition of lesbian does not include males?

Just reposting.

Why should anyone not hold you to providing evidence to support some outrageous claims that you have brought to this thread?

Sorry about the typo

And reposting the same quote posted yesterday as well.

And also with the news article where it is stated in an email that Kelley said "... that the ‘highly toxic’ cotton ceiling issue was ‘analogous to issues like sexual racism’."

Please point out where I have been 'rude and arrogant'.

Or. Do you consider my continued pointing out that you have not provided one shred of evidence to support you continued deep prejudice against an organisation, your resorting to hyperbole, emotional reasoning, polarised thinking, name calling, and sometimes quite clear dishonesty as my being rude and arrogant?

Channelling Dr. Patrick Grzanka from that recent documentary perhaps? As he said:

"You keep invoking the word 'truth' which is condescending and rude."

Maybe that sort of huff works in "gender studies", but Mumsnet's made of sterner stuff.

Keeping going @Starlee, I think you've underestimated the wonderul, intelligent women of this board and you're ill-informed posts just continue to let the sunlight pour in!

Why yes Necessary, you may well be right.

It is quite eye opening really. I wrote a long post a few pages back (as I am disposed to do as per my user name) about the MN Talk Guidelines. I believe that that post of Starlee's would be delete if it was reported.

They seem to be completely un-self-aware in their increasingly personal attacks that they are crossing the Talk Guidelines. It is remarkable how some people can feel they are so very righteous that that behaviour is inappropriate, like seemingly telling me that pointing out males making fucking horrendous comments about females is 'not trans supportive'.

I actually cannot be arsed to see Starlee's reason that I am supposedly 'not trans supportive'. Because it seems to involve accommodating or completely ignoring very poor behaviour and not based on accepting reality.

Damn it...'appropriate'. Not inappropriate.

Like in the transcripts in Allison Bailey's court case where violence and aggressive is hand waved away because 'they are trans people fighting for their rights...' And that too was from a senior manager of Stonewall, Kirin Medcalf!

Do you consider my continued pointing out that you have not provided one shred of evidence to support you continued deep prejudice against an organisation, your resorting to hyperbole, emotional reasoning, polarised thinking, name calling, and sometimes quite clear dishonesty as my being rude and arrogant?

The fact you had the temerity to notice that poster's inadequacies at all probably marks you as rude and arrogant in their mind does this remind anyone else of Laurie Penny's claim that the young girl who noticed the semi erect penis in the WiSpa women's area was rude for seeing it?

Please post evidence that LGB Alliance is an "anti-trans" group.

Otherwise we shall simply assume that you are speaking from a place of unevidenced prejudice.

Strange that you use the post of a poster with only a few posts in the FWR board as being representative of the other posters on this thread. Despite a larger number saying that no helpline should be telling young people who they are.

Again, this shows how some people attempt to support and to even form their opinions. It is not a strong decision making process at all...

I think it's been shared above, although not in so many words.

They are not wholly controlled by and all about the T.

Homosexual people are worthless and inferior, they have no right to services or to be part of the community unless they are serving the T.

As a homosexual person, bloody hell am I reminded why the existence of a separate, independent and entirely homosexual focused group is absolutely crucial for homosexual people, which is capable of actually valuing and caring about them.

And it proves all over again the growing concern: once T is involved in anything, that group or agency is no longer able to do anything or serve anyone but the T so long as the T is entirely serving a specific political agenda. T people not serving that agenda as as ditched as homosexual people are.

Spot too the determination that no one else must have anything or be allowed to ever be independent of the political TQ control. There is no other justification for this than absolute bigotry and intolerance.

ugh sorry, wrong thread! I'll report it.

Cheers everyone. At least I feel reassured that some people can see my posts.

And that too was from a senior manager of Stonewall, Kirin Medcalf!

Am I right in recalling that Kirin Medcalf, Head of Trans Inclusion at Stonewall, said under oath that 'Bodies are not inherently male or female. They are just their bodies.'' ?

So there's no way anyone can be homosexual, because there aren't any sexes.

This is the sort of thing we mean, denying that anyone can be same-sex attracted. It's repulsively homophobic.

(also, there would be no way for any 'type' of body to have a 'match' in terms of a gender/soul/psyche, because bodies are just bodies with no sex).

Andrew Doyle did a twenty minute interview with Bev and Kate last night re the reaction to the funding they've received.
It's well worth a watch.
Nothing but admiration for these two women.

It also doesn't matter how much someone argues that there is a much nicer form of homosexuality (which is not to be homosexual)

The massive majority of us are going to roll our eyes and go right on being attracted to who we want and not giving a fuck, because frankly its insane. It's like women. You can forcibly try to cover up the surface with what you want, but it's a neverending game of whackamole, doomed to failure. The huge bubbling mess underneath is going to get away from you.