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]"

No hate speech from me, it's all from experience. And it's not just me who "characterise the LGBA as being anti-trans", they've done so themselves many times. And it's why they set up the organisation!

I'm also a Labour party member and can't wait for them to be in power to stop this bigoted govt damaging even more lives!

Of course trans women and trans men can be homosexual, everyone has a sexuality including trans people, being trans doesn't turn them off sex! As you say, sex and gender are different things.

@Starlee
As homosexuality and gender identity are two different things then it's entirely possible to be both.

I am confused.

Here you acknowledge that these are 2 different things - yet you are greatly opposed to one group providing support for those who need it, in regards to their sexuality.

I think your issue is that once T is forced to survive on it's own - it's going to quickly fizzle out in regards to support by the wider community.

Just because an organisation (or person) doesn't centre the T in everything, it doesn't make it transphobic. If you apply this logic to anything - then pretty much everything would be seen as transphobic.

By continuously posting in this thread, all @Starlee is achieving, is shining the light on the logical fallacies they are using - and it's just going to peak a lot more people. This sort of arguing is what peaked me and those around me.

@Starlee is actually doing a disservice to the T community and is causing them literal harm.

There does seem to be a sense of ambiguity now sneaking into the replies.

Such as ‘of course trans people can be homosexual’! While avoiding the actual substance of the post which related to definition of lesbian.

This is dishonest. The question clearly was ‘Do you think that a transwoman can be a lesbian?

So, a sleight of hand in effect.

Just like the inane denial of harm and abuse being targeted at lesbians for disagreeing that lesbians should have the right to reject males assuming the label of ‘lesbian’. We have all seen it. We have even seen the goady threads on MN created by males on Lesbian celebration days that get quickly deleted. And rightly so.

All through this thread is the assertion that the only people who seem to have legitimate claim to define everyone else is this small extremist group. Who even denounce other trans people for disagreeing with the redefinitions that are being forced on them.

So further marginalising members of the very community that are supposedly the most vulnerable and marginalised already. Because they don’t subscribe to the correct group think.

But, it is ok… ‘those’ trans people don’t count so it seems, they don’t get a say.

The consistent message seems to be ‘I hate LGB Alliance, you should too’, and that ‘you all have to agree to the new definitions of the words you use to describe yourself or you are hateful’.

There seems no substance to the repetitive message otherwise.

ZombieMumEB

By continuously posting in this thread, all Starlee is achieving, is shining the light on the logical fallacies they are using

yes. I am not sure that Starlee sees it though.

It is very hard to see the wider picture of what is really happening when you are in the bottom of a trench that narrows your vision. Perspective comes from robust evidence from a wide range of original sources and open discussion and not constant emotional manipulation and repeating mantras.

@Starlee how are you LG and B? You do know those are all very different things and it is impossible to be all three? Do you know what those letters even mean?

Of course trans women and trans men can be homosexual,

I will spell it out in a simple and unmistakable manner because the deliberate obfuscation is annoying to read.

That was in response to the question “Do you think a trans woman can be a lesbian?”

This response from Starlee has confirmed the following points:

-When they refer to homosexual trans people they mean heterosexuals.
-When they refer to LGB trans people they mean heterosexuals and bisexuals.

If they were to discuss “straight” trans people they’d be talking about homosexuals, but it seems like homosexual people aren’t at the top of their priority list.

And 10questions

Shall we start pointing out who supports organisations such as stonewall?

Really? That is all you have? Another childish tactic?

FFS

And you know that Twitter allows you to follow anyone you like.

Including people you actually disagree with and campaign against. Many people do.

There are many reasons to follow an account, only one of which is because you passionately agree with everything they say.

So, I repeat. Your tactic is childish.

Just more lies, I see.

And repetitively posting the same image is still not a convincing argument.

And people can agree on some things and wildly disagree on others and still be following someone that doesn’t share all their views on twitter.

Some people follow each other so they can have open discourse about issues they disagree with even! I know!! Amazing!

Usually mature people who can actually engage in conversation and discuss issues in a nuanced way while showing empathy for the person they are talking to.

I take it that is some images you have pulled by someone else who did it as the same ‘gotcha’? Or did you do this all by yourself?

If you want to live in an echo chamber tightly controlled with a purity spiral never engaging positively with someone over an issue you disagree on, go for it.

You are just continuing to shine the spotlight on just how intolerant some people are, how hypocritical they are in reality and how tribalism works.

My post was of course for 10 questions not pluvia.

Well, there’s Nancy Kelley comparing lesbianism to ‘sexual racism’ and Juno Dawson’s comment ‘A lot of gay men are gay men as a consolation prize because they couldn’t be women.’ For a start.

So you are pulling images compiled by others to make the ‘gotcha’ statement to make a similar statement and you still don’t understand that mature adults who disagree, including charities, may follow each other for the very purpose of having open discussion about issues where they disagree?

And you have now pivoted to it being ok for a person to do it, but not a charity? What is the difference?

Should a charity adhere to such polarised thinking to appease those subscribers wanting to exist in an purity spiral gatekept echo chamber? And mature adults think that is ok and what is considered professional?

Or would mature adults like to read that twitter conversation that might occur between a charity and a person who disagrees with them to form their own opinions?

So you are pulling images compiled by others to make the ‘gotcha’ statement to make a similar statement and you still don’t understand that mature adults who disagree, including charities, may follow each other for the very purpose of having open discussion about issues where they disagree?

oops. Sorry. Missing a bit.

So you are pulling images compiled by others to make the ‘gotcha’ statement to make a similar statement and you don’t see that this is not the gotcha you think it is?

You still don’t seem to understand that mature adults who disagree, including charities, may follow each other for the very purpose of having open discussion about issues where they disagree?

Yeah ok. I am not a PR person, however I am a marketing person with a career over 20 years, particularly in marketing communications.

And it is a very poor PR move to indulge in your blinkered approach. Particularly an organization that prides itself on being representative of a group and it’s ability to debate and discuss the rights of LGB people at individual and at government level.

It is actually respectful to maintain dialogue with even people you disagree with who are not abusive towards you. It shows that you are open to those conversations.

But yeah, PR was not my speciality, strategy and brand communications were.

Not were. Are.

Sorry, what exactly is your point @10questions10? That the LGB Alliance's Twitter should only follow accounts it agrees with?

This isn't the year 4 playground you know.

But yeah, PR was not my speciality, strategy and brand communications were.

😄I bet it will turn out the person you are talking to is a PR specialist with a THIRTY year career.

It's amazing how many various subject matter experts we have on this board, on both sides of the discussion. Though I think the "experts" on the TRA side are amazing in rather different ways than the experts on the FWR side.