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]"

The LGBA and supporters' continued attempts to trash Stonewall is transphobic, pure and simple.

First, this does rather crystallise that Stonewall is now all about the T and against LGB people.

Second, this thread isn't about "trashing" Stonewall but about the LGB Alliance doing something very positive for LGB young people, which you also oppose.

So we are at 37 pages and not one shred of evidence has been provided that LGB Alliance is not going to provide a high quality, unbiased service.

Just a thread full of repetitive posts based on glaringly obvious prejudice and frankly, this last two pages has spilled into out and out hatred of an organisation set up as an alternative to other organisations who now focus on TQ and not LGB.

Again, not even an actual engagement around what LGB Alliance would be providing, just continued doubling down on what seems like rhetoric pulled from Twitter .

I think it has continued to have been a convincing display of the incoherent and lack of evidence based tactics of extreme and entrenched trans focused activation.

whose founder stated was actually set up to oppose "the damaging theory of gender identity."

Yes ? So what? An organisation can be set up to 'oppose' a theory without doing so in a 'hateful' way.

Again, your 'gotcha' is not showing what you intend. It merely seems to stem from an extreme ideological view.... which is what many people are rejecting.

In fact, that is the point.

People want a choice in LGB representation. And you seem determined to restrict that choice based on your deep prejudice.

So what? LGB Alliance was set up to oppose the damaging theory of gender identity, you quote. Yep. They set up an organisation that makes LGB the sole focus of their remit and where the campaigning of other groups conflicts with the rights and needs of LGB people.

And strangely one of the most damaging conflicts has been the forced inclusion of opposite sex people into homosexual people's words and spaces, just to start with.

If you don't agree with that statement as a LGB person, then don't get involved in LGB Alliance . But like other groups focused on campaigning for rights, the results of their campaign will still benefit all LGB people whether you support them or not.

They cannot be trusted to offer unbiased help.

You have not once presented a credible argument to support this repetitive claim.

What they can provide is a service focused on LGB needs for young people and if that young person is trans, and in need of support around LGB issues, they are there. If the trans person needs support for trans issues, they can be directed to a support organisation that specialises in that support.

it merely, refers to your gotcha. Your 'gotcha' is an indication of ideological thinking. Not rational thought.

starlee not once have you given a single example of what you believe a matching mind and body is, despite repeatedly saying the mismatch is what being trans is.

It's clear to me you don't know, do you? You don't know. You just repeat the words, but you can't communicate what you mean by them. That is a clear example of bigotry.

You agreed that children's bodies could be wrongly aligned to their minds without bothering to even find out what this means. Did you "ask the nhs" as you've advised me?

The whole belief system is underpinned by the dishonesty and hypocrisy demonstrated by your posts.

Why are you bringing 'agender' into this? I thought it was a typo, like a lot of the stuff you're coming out with.

Feel free to point out any typo I've made.
Agender people are trans. You know, the group of people you claim to advocate for? What a dismissive and exclusionary attitude you have towards them.

Will you have the decency to apologise to the many agender people on here for your ignorance? It's harmful.

I have no objection to an LGB helpline, but I do object to a helpline run by a transphobic organisation that Bev Jackson states was set up to oppose "damaging theory of gender identity".

Well if gender identity believes homosexuality is racism, aren't homosexual people allowed to find that 'damaging' and want to get the fuck away from it?

You do object to a helpline run by an organisation that wants to be about and for only homosexual people, and is not controlled by TQ+ politics. You've called it 'inferior' among other things for not being all about the TQ+ and focused on it.

Homosexual people do not all want to have to 'learn to cope' with unwanted straight sex, be excluded from Pride if they won't obey, and be called 'racist'. It's insane. 'Transphobic organisation' merely means 'does not centre gender identity politics over and above all other interests'. I don't want anything to do with gender identity politics, I want gender identity politics to leave me alone.

The LGBA don't speak for all LGB people, they certainly don't speak for me.

But they do speak for me. And other LGB people. Who don't feel that Stonewall is any friend of theirs, and is actually no friend to homosexual people.

So why don't you have Stonewall, who can believe what they believe, and I'll have the LGBA who believe something different, and we all live and let live? We all have the different organisations that support us and give us a voice.

Because the LGBA (and I) am not trying to stamp anyone and anything else out of existence. I can cope with Stonewall existing and leave it alone even though I think it's sadly now a homophobic bastion of insanity that should be consigned to the bin of history. It's Stonewall that can't tolerate LGB people being allowed to exist outside of it's control. Which tells you a lot about Stonewall and its supporters really.

This endless conversation reminds me of one I had a few months ago on here with an activist who repeatedly tried to tell me two things:

1. they absolutely did not thing coercing people into sex was ok, it was awful, no one should be pressured into sex they didn't want, they definitely weren't homophobic, how dare I suggest they'd be behind something so terrible?

2. I was a terrible person, like a racist, if I did not make myself 'get over my genital preferences' and learn to have sex with male people who wanted it if those male people liked to label themselves as lesbians. And this was the social duty of all female homosexuals.

They were incapable of seeing that they were in fact all for coercion, pressure and homophobia, they just wanted to say and identify that they weren't at the same time because to admit what they actually believed was uncomfortable for them. They couldn't own it.

Basically, that's moral cowardice.

All of @Starlee's posts are absolute proof of just how damaging gender identity is to homosexuals, it's all there for everyone to see in glorious technicolour.

So why don't you have Stonewall, who can believe what they believe, and I'll have the LGBA who believe something different, and we all live and let live? We all have the different organisations that support us and give us a voice.

Ah Artichoke live and let live for you - how very dare you think you are entitled to that?

Thank you!
Starlee themselves even said "I really don't know what you mean by "which bodies match up with which type of inner beings?"
The question doesn't make any sense."

So they acknowledge there's no such thing as bodies matching minds, yet point me to statements of 'sex matching gender' to explain it and repeatedly say it themselves - 'not matching up' or 'being at odds' being what 'trans people feel'.

And just to clarify, because it looks like starlee completely misunderstood (or pretended to) - Starlee is the person who cannot explain the difference between gender dysphoria and body dysmorphia.

One is described as 'sex not matching gender identity' - mind not matching body. The other is being extremely uncomfortable with one's body.

When I asked what a mind matching a body might mean, Starlee could not explain or give any examples, but described it as "A trans person, male or female, does not feel 'comfortable' with the body they have, they feel it is very wrong, they feel they are in "the wrong body"".

So to explain a mismatch (gender dysphoria), starlee could ultimately only describe it as the body being wrong and the person feeling discomfort with it (body dysmorphia). (They also said they feel like 'an alien' which is an entirely separate mental disorder, but I won't go into that).

They are unable to differentiate between the two and are constantly muddling them. It does genuinely seem to me that if you want to change your (healthy, able) body for whatever reason you are body dysmorphic to some extent.

If you feel your body does not match your mind, it has yet to be explained what that is and why that is a discrete, separate thing from not being comfortable with your body.

I would like to thank Starlee for engaging at such length, even if I don’t agree with her. Partly because we can be rather ‘dog with a bone’ here and it can’t be much fun having one’s posts forensically examined by people who know what they’re talking about, but mainly because I do have regular “are we the baddies?” moments, when I desperately try to look for some kind of logic in the TQ+ movement, to make it all make sense, to allow me to get on board and “be kind”.
I’m a lefty liberal who has helped organise local Stop Hate UK events, I campaigned in favour of gay marriage as an LGB ally, I’ve volunteered for various disability charities over the years etc etc. It’s not comfortable to be thought of as a bigot after a lifetime of tolerance and supporting minorities to achieve equality. I regularly think “is it me? Have I got it all wrong?”

But it never does make sense. There is no internal logic; it’s incoherent and based on hyperbole and soundbites with no substance behind them. I’m not going mad. It’s all there in black and white: the intolerance, the homophobia, the sexism of the TQ+ movement.

So thank you, Starlee.

But it never does make sense. There is no internal logic; it’s incoherent and based on hyperbole and soundbites with no substance behind them. I’m not going mad. It’s all there in black and white: the intolerance, the homophobia, the sexism of the TQ+ movement.

No. It never does make sense. I am constantly disappointed by the lack of basic level of critical thinking that comes through in the discussion points across social media. Even from academics.

It is quite purely based on emotion at this point.

However, that doesn't ever seem to be acknowledged. As none of the evidence from Nancy Kelley, Kathryn McGahey & Ivy/Mckinnon was even acknowledged. As not one peep about the completely misogynistic things that trans people say and don't ever seem to be countered by their 'loving, inclusive and happy' community. Not one.

It only makes sense if you genuinely believe that certain characteristics and thoughts are innate to men or women. And that the characteristics or thoughts that you yourself are having are only those experience by the opposite sex.

It's sexism. And it only becomes clear when you start to actually try to describe those feelings and characteristics. And to make it even worse, they're often really, really superficial.

And, of course, there are what Naomi Cunningham calls erotic cross dressers. They ain't ever gonna tell you why they want to transition. (well they do, and that's how we know, but they won't do it on here). Then it's entirely understandable. Fetishising women's oppression isn't difficult to grasp. However unpleasant.

"It only makes sense if you genuinely believe that certain characteristics and thoughts are innate to men or women. And that the characteristics or thoughts that you yourself are having are only those experience by the opposite sex."

Exactly, and I don't believe that, and I've never said it. I have consistently pointed out that there isn't a set of thoughts that belong to a certain body type. Yet @DeaconBoo appears to believe it by constantly repeating it, and constantly demanding an answer to the question that makes no sense. As I keep pointing out.

In which case if their body isn't wrong because it's the body for the correct sex, and their thoughts and feelings aren't wrong, because they are not specific to any one sex, where is the mismatch?

You seem to be saying that people are very unhappy, sometimes suicidal, because their bodies are wrong, for no reason whatsoever.

And I have to ask,Starlee, did you say you have a child who's trans?

Given you've had many conversations with them, perhaps you can answer what exactly, do they think makes them the opposite sex? If it's not thoughts, feelings, or characteristics of any kind.

In which case if their body isn't wrong because it's the body for the correct sex, and their thoughts and feelings aren't wrong, because they are not specific to any one sex, where is the mismatch?

They won't answer, they just deflect.
They can't even say what a match would be, let alone a mismatch. Because there's no such thing as a mind and body matching up.

No, there isn't.

You can hate your body, that's body dysmorphia, but saying you must be the opposite sex is ideological.

"Why do you hate your body?"

I've got no idea.

"Why do you think you're the opposite sex?"

I've got no idea.

Not the soundest basis I've ever heard for medication and surgery.

Please could you explain how agender is trans? I looked it up and apparently agender means not having a gender. So how can an agender person be transgender if they don't have a gender?

Sorry should have @DeaconBoo

I can't explain it, but it is what Stonewall say.

"Trans

An umbrella term to describe people whose gender is not the same as, or does not sit comfortably with, the sex they were assigned at birth.

Trans people may describe themselves using one or more of a wide variety of terms, including (but not limited to) transgender, transsexual, gender-queer (GQ), gender-fluid, non-binary, gender-variant, crossdresser, genderless, agender, nongender, third gender, bi-gender, trans man, trans woman,trans masculine, trans feminine and neutrois."

After lots of soul searching, I'm still pretty unsure how I work out whether I'm any of these things, but not having a gender identity would seem to align with being 'agender'. - or 'genderless'. But I can't say whether my gender or lack of it is the same as my sex, because my sex is female, and I don't know if 'agender' or 'genderless' matches with female sex.

Or perhaps agender is a subset of someone who already identifies as trans.

I tend not to label myself, but sometimes there is pressure to say whether you are cis or trans or not and it's hard to answer honestly when I can't grasp what they mean. And when I question - well, you've seen from this thread how I'm treated.

Thank you for the explanation. I have to say I'm surprised you had such a strong reaction in the above post that I quoted when you admit that you don't understand it either, it's just what Stonewall says. It seems that trans is another word that supposedly has whatever meaning the top dog gender ideologists say it has.

If someone ever asked me if I'm cis or trans (which I can't imagine ever happening in real life) I would just answer that I'm a woman. I wouldn't succumb to any pressure to put a label on myself that doesn't even make any sense. It's like someone asking me if I'm a carrot or a beetroot. I'm a woman.

The meaning of that question is are you a man who identifies as a woman, or are you not a man who identifies as a woman?

The entire female sex has been re-calibrated to only exist if it's in relation to a man.

I have followed this thread with interest. Lots of 'pigeon chess' as some have pointed out; some of you certainly have more patience than me. It is clear some posters just do not understand how the logic of argument works. What we do about this is worrying.

Here is an example (amongst many, nice in its clarity).

BenCoopersSupportWren:
"I desperately try to look for some kind of logic in the TQ+ movement, to make it all make sense ... But it never does make sense. There is no internal logic; it’s incoherent ..."
["It"? ... "the TQ+ movement"]

Helleofabore:
"No. It never does make sense. I am constantly disappointed by the lack of basic level of critical thinking ..."
["It"? ... "the TQ+ movement"]

Datun:
"It only makes sense if you genuinely believe that certain characteristics and thoughts are innate to men or women. ..."
["It"? ... "the TQ+ movement"]

Starlee (quotes Datun, then):
"Exactly, and I don't believe that, and I've never said it ..."

Here's an analysis of this little argument:

"It [sc. "the TQ+ movement"] only makes sense if you believe X".
(Equivalently,)
"If you don't believe X the TQ+ movement doesn't make sense".
"I don't believe X," [says Starlee]
(Therefore)
"The TQ+ movement doesn't make sense."

Could this be clearer? What Starlee says implies the TQ+ movement doesn't make sense. However, she thinks, on the contrary, that it does make sense. What is going on?

--Starlee does not understand the logic of the argument.

Is it strange someone can be so lacking in comprehension yet so sure she is right? Scary? Perhaps; but, well, we have to deal with this somehow. How? After all, people like Starlee seem to have access to the levers of power ... and to our children.

["Not only do [people like Starlee] reach erroneous conclusions and make unfortunate choices, but their incompetence robs them of the metacognitive ability to realize it." You may recognise this: see Kruger & Dunning, Unskilled and Unaware of It, Psychology, 2009, 1, 30.]