Two Survivors Allege They Were “Groomed,” Sexually Exploited By Staff at Scottish LGBT Youth Charity

[WarriorN]

Care of ripx4nutmeg and Reduxx

reduxx.info/exclusive-two-survivors-allege-they-were-groomed-sexually-exploited-by-staff-at-scottish-lgbt-youth-charity/

That is so shocking, OP.

Cowie says he’s also contacted Scottish Members of Parliament, in particular Shona Robison, to no avail.

Surprise, Surprise! I watched her in the Scottish Parliament debate saying there was no evidence that sex criminals ever are transwomen or go on to fraudulently claim to be. What she meant was that they had never looked, or intended to look at all the evidence that does exist.

I cannot say what I think about her here.

And yet that wasn't enough to be taken into consideration when they were given a Platinum Jubilee Award (one of 20 recipients) to mark the Queen's death, just last Wednesday.

Read more on their own website: lgbtyouth.org.uk/platinum-jubilee-award/

Shame on the award givers

More info on the award givers.

THE QUEEN ELIZABETH II PLATINUM JUBILEE VOLUNTEERING AWARD

LGBT Youth Scotland is delighted to win prestigious Royal Volunteering Award

A judging panel chaired by Martyn Lewis CBE has recognised the volunteering programme at LGBT Youth Scotland (LGBTYS) with one of only 20 UK awards given in the name of the late queen, Queen Elizabeth.

“The work your charity does for young people was very much admired by the award’s judging panel, chaired by Sir Martyn Lewis CBE. We are delighted to inform you that His Majesty The King has approved their recommendation that LGBT Youth Scotland should receive the award. We hope that everyone involved, and particularly your volunteers, will feel immensely proud of it.”

The Queen Elizabeth II Platinum Jubilee Volunteering Award recognises and celebrates outstanding national charities working to empower young people and provide them with skills and opportunities, with volunteers playing a key role in delivering this work

I wonder if the reward could be removed?

WHY are lesbians still included in the acronym? I hate this, we have nothing in common with MALE pedophiles.

Because the entire acronym has been snatch and grab raided and now is used to mean a group of people whose sole feature in common is sharing a particular extremist view on TQ+ politics rather than meaning a diverse group of people with homosexuality in common.

The pretense of representing homosexual people is a very useful fig leaf giving political power. Hence:

• absolute melt down and insane actions to destroy any group that actually does set up and represent homosexual people, because this is disastrous to its controlling position and narrative with those in power
• insistence to female homosexuals that homosexuality is like racism, won't be tolerated, and that providing sexual access to your body for straight sex is a social duty apparently part of the birth right of being born female (while you do this you have to recite the extreme lie that sex doesn't exist for biological males who don't want it to) and that they do not represent scum like you or want you in their ranks if you insist on your right to you know, actually have a sexual orientation and believe as a female that your body does not exist as a walking sex aid for males
• insistence that you absolutely have no right to leave the LGBT+ group because Reasons and cannot ever define yourself as outside of this prison

As usual the fact that those three positions are wholly incompatible and a lot of steaming tosh is irrelevant because it all identifies as making sense. It also identifies as not being homophobic or insanely misogynistic.

It is also so TQ can keep bringing up, ‘This is section 28 all over again.’ anytime someone wants to protect children from the ideology.

Oh owning the LGB is terribly useful in all kinds of ways.

You only have to look at the huge amount of money and energy and risk thrown at trying to stop the LGBA escaping into public awareness and actually presenting a voice to the public and politicians and funding sources saying We Don't All Agree With Them And Don't Want What They Say We Want to see how very useful.

Mermaids scuttled themselves in the attempt. While telling a judge one of their reasons was that the LGBA would take funding that they felt entitled to the monopoly on.

Sanity is not big in this movement.

I don’t think this is actually about LGB or even T really. It’s nothing to do with actual LGB or T (or even the many other alphabet soupers).

The problem is the ways that, for a long time now, the cover of LGB (and any letters that people choose to add) has been used to obscure and frustrate reasonable scrutiny or, indeed, any questioning of activities. Sensible safeguarding becomes bigotry.

I mean, who on earth thinks it is in any way acceptable to organise groups focused around human sexuality for 13-25 year olds. It’s clearly ridiculous. But paint a rainbow on it and somehow you’re in the wrong for having any reservations.

No wonder that these kind of organisations have become magnets for people with extremely dubious motives. These people can see the opportunities and are delighted to exploit them.

While well meaning others are gaslighted into thinking that treating children as children is somehow regressive.

I notice that awful stuff is popping up on tik tok about the newest ism that must be eradicated: childism. This is where you ‘fail to recognise the full humanity of children’ by acknowledging that they are children and treating them accordingly. It’s terrifying rhetoric. Being lapped up by the usual progressives, and not recognised as basically another ideological opening for people with dreadful motives.

This is such a good post. Until recently an adult wanting to discuss a child's sexuality, identity, body, bodily modification would very quickly have been spotted and hauled in for questioning.
Organisations like Mermaids "normalised" adults talking to other people's children about their sex and bodies, Stonewall sells services to schools and promotes mixed age LGBT etc groups for children to talk about sexual identity with other children and adults. Gendered Intelligence offers (at a cost) adult "mentors' to children in schools confused about their sex.
Suddenly the boundaries are not just blurred but smashed to smithereens. And we find out that numerous adults wanting to talk about sex with children are precisely the type of adults (most of them men) who shouldn't be anywhere near children.
And we can only look on with horror because these predators & predatory values have been able to infiltrate everywhere with the government actively funding and rewarding them.

And we can only look on with horror because these predators & predatory values have been able to infiltrate everywhere with the government actively funding and rewarding them.

yes.

And with rhetoric that paints anyone looking to protect children as the problems.

All of a sudden these people are dreadful ‘childists’ who refuse to recognise children’s bodily autonomy and agency and who, even worse, want to control children and treat them as possessions. They’re the problem. Those awful people must be stopped at all costs. They are the ones with the ‘predatory values’.

history is progress and we must ensure we stay on the right side of it by stopping these awful people and their control and ownership (that would be safeguarding and acting in the best interests of the child).

So many well meaning people lapping this stuff up. You see the ideological roots of this all over the place (gentle parenting is awash with it). And predatory adults who see an opportunity to take advantage. Of course they are.

I was hoping 'childism' was something confined to febrile tiktok accounts. Alas, no.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Childism

www.oxfordbibliographies.com/display/document/obo-9780199791231/obo-9780199791231-0248.xml

I can see the vague logic of inventing this term. And I can concurrently see the huge risks of using it.

I think we should be very wary of rhetoric that explicitly seeks to demonise parental authority, and any actions that might be aligned with the idea that adults might exercise authority over children.

It’s rife. And it’s an absolute gift to predators.

Especially when combined with the social constructionist bullshit that has been circulating in ‘childhood studies’ for decades now.

No.

There are lots of people who will absolutely and uncritically jump on this particular progressive sounding bandwagon.

Like all extremely dangerous ideas, it’s got a lovely Teflon coat of being caring and kind and progressive. Looking too hard at it would be mean.

And right wing too. Of course. Because only dreadful right wing people would argue for adults exercising authority over a poor marginalised group. They’re the villains who are seeking to stop the good and righteous from emancipating the enslaved (there are gentle parenting websites that use this kind of terminology).

The new liberal way of keeping up with the Jones's. 🙄

Yes, I can see that narrative unfold as you describe it, Yummy.

Recent discussions of Scotland's moves to lower the age limits for various things seems to chime with it.

I know various parents who buy into this type of rhetoric, too. 'Children know best'. I didn't realise it was 'gentle parenting'. Funnily enough their children are violent and out of control (I would say desperately seeking adults to enforce boundaries).

“Gentle parenting”…yawn…the kids are usually really selfish and badly behaved.

It's straight out of the Paedophile Manifesto.

Thing is, there’s a spectrum of ‘gentle parenting’. There is value to some of the stuff. Of course, it tends to cherry pick the bits of child development theory that suit it, like all of these packagable approaches that can be marketed to parents.

But it is most definitely caught up in a wider ideological agenda in all sorts of problematic ways.

It is an ideological agenda about childhood that is particularly popular in sectors within Scotland (and has been for quite a long time). i can imagine Maggie chapman banging on about the evils of childism, and wielding it as a weapon against anyone who wants to discuss safeguarding.

Yes, but I think it's because they are terrified. Their responsible adults don't set clear boundaries, they are small, confused and helpless beings in a world that nobody explains clearly to them. Their behaviour worsens because they are desperate for someone to say 'no, that is not okay, and we won't allow you to hurt yourself or others'.

Yes, I've many times had to remove children from dangerous situations while their lovely, educated, middle class parents blithely ignore the violence and aggression playing out in front of them because they say it's beneficial and healthy for their children to 'work it out for themselves'.

<puts down rant and goes to have a cup of tea>

who on earth thinks it is in any way acceptable to organise groups focused around human sexuality for 13-25 year olds.

This can't be repeated enough

why would you arrange groups whose focus is sex, which include adults and children as service users?

the opportunity for child sex abuse is intrinsically built in. it's obscene lunacy

I’m amazed at the responsibility a lot of this rhetoric places on very small children.

All the talk of autonomy and emancipation just seems to end up with toddlers who have to make decisions about how to dress appropriately, how to manage social situations they don’t understand and so on. That’s a lot of responsibility. When we could just say, ‘it’s cold. You must put on a coat’.