LGB Alliance starts Helpline for teens and young adults

[IwantToRetire]

This isn't a specifically for women, lesbians but aimed at young people who are feeling confused or bullied whilst trying to work out who they are. Thought some on FWR might have siblings, children, who might find this useful.

Q: Why did you select the age range 13 – 24?

Adolescence is often a time of turmoil and change and teenagers can struggle as they begin to think about who they are.

Whilst acting on any sense of same-sex attraction may be years away, the worries and fears associated with the idea that you are ‘different’ often start early.

Young adults, on the other hand, may be more settled in their sexual orientation but struggling with a new world of relationships.

Whilst the support would be framed differently and always in an age appropriate manner, the underlying message from our volunteers will be meaningful to all teens and young adults – it’s always fine to be you.

Q: How is it different to any other service?

Like other helplines, we’ll be there to support teens and young adults facing a whole host of issues – ranging from coming out and bullying to break-ups and family alienation.

What makes us unique is that the service won’t suggest to a teenage girl who feels different, because she prefers short hair and playing sport, that she might really be a boy. And it won’t tell a teenage boy who is being bullied for being effeminate that maybe he’s really a girl.

Many young adults report being shamed for their lesbian, gay or bisexual relationships by those who would say that same-sex attraction is in some way bigoted. We start from the premise that homosexuality is perfectly natural.

There is much more info about safeguarding and how volunteers were recruited on this web page https://lgballiance.org.uk/our-helpline-is-open/

Tell me you don't understand safeguarding without telling me etc

Indeed.

Safeguarding should be reflexive and proactive.

Safeguarding is also there to protect the worker as much as the client.

The idea seems like a really good one. It's a much needed service and one that may need to grow as more and more children and young people who've been fed an ideology in schools, universities and on social media try to work out how to make sense of things in their own lives.

The initial care that seems to have been given to setting up the service seems robust and responsible, hopefully a model that can be shared with other organisations wanting to emulate good practice but, however carefully one plans and starts a new project or organisation, there will always be teething problems and of course they'll be aware of that and will be responding accordingly. The LGB helpline is unusual in that they are setting up something in a climate of controversy that will attract adults wanting to see it fail, journalists wanting a controversial story and other 'mystery shoppers'. It will be stressful for them until this dies down.

For all of you going on about safe guarding, please can you directly address what LGB Alliance have said (see above) - it would be far more productive and help clarify rather than this yes it is, no it isn't.

After all, as I am sure everyone on FWR will want teens and young adults to have somewhere safe to discuss feelings, if there is an agreed list of problems with LGBA statement, it could be forwarded to them.

Thanks

Same as when I typed this.

"going on about safeguarding"

Actually I understand safeguarding very well - better than people who apparently think children should continue to be directed to Mermaids.

Still waiting for the, you know, real evidence. So far it's one person claiming not to have been asked their age - if you want to believe that - and they didnt actually have a real chat.

If you are worried about safeguarding look at this

Promoted by the Mayor of London
https://www.mumsnet.com/talk/womens_rights/5101354-5101354-pride-month-poster-in-london

Mermaids are a dangerous, appalling organisation.

Evidence? The suggestion is that instead of one website/chat channel it may be better practise to have a separate website/chat channel for children and for adults.

This is not an accusation, nor is it malicious, its a.good faith suggestion for how to potentially improve the service. As LGBA rightly and sensibly ask for feedback and helpful criticism, this is it.

I'm scunnered that so many people are so defensive.

We cannot have exceptions and unquestionable sacred castes, and that has to go for organisations that we agree with as well as those who are - in my view - beyond teh pale (LBTYS, Mermaids, GIRES, etc).

Can people here honestly not see.the difference? Do you think any organisation that upholds gender critical views is beyond reproach? Can you not see the problems with that?

And again, I have enormous respect for LGBA, who are brave and brilliant and sorely needed. I hope the helpline goes really well.

And of course its quite possible that I am wrong and a helpline for 13-25 year olds is the best way to set it up. There may be really good solid arguments. It'd be great to hear and discuss them.

For the love of fuck, though, we cannot be so defensive when it comes to safeguarding children. We have to do better than the existing shitshow; that is really the whole point!

"The suggestion is that instead of one website/chat channel it may be better practise to have a separate website/chat channel for children and for adults.

This is not an accusation, nor is it malicious, its a.good faith suggestion for how to potentially improve the service. As LGBA rightly and sensibly ask for feedback and helpful criticism, this is it.

I'm scunnered that so many people are so defensive.

We cannot have exceptions and unquestionable sacred castes, and that has to go for organisations that we agree with as well as those who are - in my view - beyond teh pale (LBTYS, Mermaids, GIRES, etc).

Can people here honestly not see.the difference? Do you think any organisation that upholds gender critical views is beyond reproach? Can you not see the problems with that?"

This* *bears repeating.

The defensiveness on this thread and also on the Genspect thread is quite something to behold.

Who thinks this?

That poster is an abomination and should be roundly condemned. However it's not the subject of this thread.

Maybe the people on this thread who are pointing out safeguarding concerns should lay out a comprehensive protocol for how they would proceed with this Helpline?

If they could spell it out from the start how they would initiate this and how it would work in practice then we can role play a few potential scenarios that could crop up perhaps, so we can see how their proposals pan out.

All of this. No sacred castes.

LangCleg wrote Thu 21-Feb-19

"How did the scandal of TV entertainers grooming and exploiting children get so bad before anything was done?

How did the scandal of Catholic priests grooming and exploiting children get so bad before anything was done?

How did the scandal of on-street gangs grooming and exploiting children get so bad before anything was done?

Because if you create a sacred caste of any group and silence anyone asking questions about individuals on behalf of the sacred caste, abusers will see, infiltrate, and groom and exploit children. That''s how."

www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/3512177-Julia-Long-asking-Munro-Bergdorf-about-child-exploitation?pg=12

Part of safeguarding is being open to considering the unthinkable. From what I've seen of the LGBA, I think they're very open to reflection and much of what's raised has been very constructive.

This is such a positive initiative and reflecting on concerns, discussing and debating boundaries is all part of good safeguarding. I've every confidence that the Alliance will approach the issues raised in good faith.

On a 100% purely personal note, talking about myself; when I received basic training in safeguarding, for a public sector post many years ago, I felt really uncomfortable and couldn’t figure out why until the trainer herself mentioned that it’s a wholly new way of thinking and it often transgresses expectations of politeness. She warned us that it can make service users feel like you’re accusing them of being capable of doing something bad and she was right, it could set some of our service users off in indignation.

I think I also resented the fact that the training showed how naive I was; some areas of concern just never occurred to me until I was told to be aware of them.

Sadly, I never had the skill at making the necessary interactions less awkward but I saw the necessity of pushing through my dislike. I have to admit that I’m glad I don’t have to worry about it as part of a job anymore cos it’s a serious responsibility - I don’t begrudge LGBA and their helpline staff the responsibility they’re accepting. I wish them the best of luck.

Obviously, surely you got the point of the post which was to alert those on this thread that there was now a thread about this.

What is it with posters on this thread.

Its like on principle they want to be antogonistic, score points.

It doesn't seem like the dispute is about LGBA being sacred caste/exceptionalised to me. The posters saying they don't think there needs to be two services for over/under 18s aren't saying 'no need as LGBA are sound and all will be fine'. But are saying it's possible for staff to tailor their work to the age of the client, and have proper safeguarding for children and over 18s, without having two separate channels. And also, there would be no way for staff to know if a user was truly the age they said they were, even if there were two services, there's nothing to stop a user accessing the one not for their age.

I don't see posters saying safeguarding under 18s doesn't matter, more that it can be done safely in the way LGBA are doing it,and other charities do it with similar age ranges which encompass both over and under 18s.

Is this a serious post? You’re the OP. You have been told some hard truths about valid concerns with the LGBA’s approach. Apparently sensing you’ve not had the reception you wanted, you said - and I quote:

“If you are worried about safeguarding look at this “

When I reply noting it’s an abomination but not the subject here, you decide the best response is in fact to try to gaslight posters into thinking the “point” was to alert us to another thread? Then you follow it up with insults aimed at posters who understand safeguarding (“they”, to use your pejorative term).

I have to ask, are you affiliated with the LGBA, OP?

Yep. Even having a DBS check can feel a bit like an accusation. Or a health visitor doing a home check, etc.

To grasp safeguarding it is imperative that nobody is ever classed as 'above' it, or exempt. That is exactly and entirely the whole point - as soon as you start thinking 'this person can't be questioned' or 'this category of person can't be questioned' that creates a haven/loophole for exploiters to abuse.

LGBA's post showed self reflexive thinking and consideration of safeguarding and openness to feedback. All of that is good practise and promising and sensible.

For me, it's just that one point, that may seem minor, and as I said, maybe I'm wrong, that it seems a stronger boundary to have two 'lines' or channels separating adults and children.

Yes this. There was largely a difference of opinion about delivery and whether a different model would necessarily mean more rigorous safeguarding. Or maybe more accurately whether the proposed model could offer appropriate safeguarding processes for different age groups.

Whilst I disagreed with some of the specific things being raised as concerns (namely the recognition that same sex attraction occurs in children), the extreme defensiveness shown here is very alarming. Followed with whataboutery regarding abhorrent practises by the likes of mermaids. A lack of safeguarding is precisely what led to such a situation, so you can be damn sure that the GC feminists who raised the alarm aren’t going to turn a blind eye regarding the safety of children anywhere. Everyone will be held to the standard required and it’s rank hypocrisy to criticise TRAs then cry when the same rigour is applied to a cause you agree with.

Again, I personally am not saying that a group whose aims I approve of should be outside of safeguarding or should be assumed to be ok because I like them or a blind eye should be turned. I don't think I've seen other posts making the assumption that it's LGBA and therefore no need to worry about safeguarding, though I might have missed some.

I personally don't think there is a safeguarding issue with LGBA having a chat system for 13-24 year olds, as long as they have good safeguarding policies for under 18s and their staff are trained and competent to work with both under and over 18s safely and appropriately. Other organisations do work with this age range safely and appropriately.