Is it really any different to how on certain topics men and women will have separate things for themselves?

I do agree on this particular topic with Mock especially. He says it very well.

Thanks Kate.:blush:

They will be talking to someone trained in all aspects of suicide prevention...I could easily have used these services in my past, would I be talking to someone going through what I was going through? Perhaps, perhaps not..heck I could be talking to someone specifically clued up on LGBTQ issues, with no life experience of what I was going through. It works both ways. All the operators care though.


You went on about funding, and made it sound like that was my isssue, it wasn't.. my issue is the extra cost for the extra line...if we had a different line for all the reasons people want to kill themselves over there would be far far to many lines at to high a cost.. training is the best way..


Shouldn't LGBTQ charities have phone lines for this if people want to talk to the people with the same life experiences...but even then you probably are not talking to someone who has been on the brink of suicide before, so the only thing you have in common is being LGBTQ.

Does the government in this country fund any help and/or crisis lines? Aren't they all funded by charity, like the Samaritans? If the feeling is strong enough surely someone can think about setting up a charitable helpline? You can't rely on governments, not really.

Trying to get people to turn their back on others by spreading falsehoods is henious.

It's not as simple as men, women, lgbtq.....people d9nt want to kill themselves cause they are one of those 3, but of course some willl, especially perhaps someone suffering mentally who believe they are in the wrong body...but even then, they would maybe expect to be on line 3, but how's that going to help them?

People feel suicidal for a magnitude of reasons, which is why the people on the end of these lines needed full and comprehensive training for all aspects of suicide.

You don't need to speak to people who have been through what you've been going through, or people who are LGBT. But you should be speaking to someone who is trained in dealing with the nuanced issues that come with being LGBT, which as stated accounts for almost half their calls.

A cancer doctor doesn't need to have had cancer to be trained in that field, just like a vet doesn't need to own a dog.

As stated, this line doesn't cost extra.

LGBTQ+ callers make up almost half their callers. That's a very important stat. Why would you cut a line and specific service in which half of all calls are being directed to? What is the logical reason when we've established it's not saving money?

Right now they have a covert specifically trained in LGBTQ+ issues, now removing that line you will need to train everybody else to also have training in LGBT issues. Do you think that additional training for everyone else won't cost money?

This makes no sense from a practical, ethical, logical or ethical POV. There is not one sound reason yet to be given.

It's been established cutting this saves no money, the budget for this remains the same, so the service will continue to exist and cost the same, but the specific service for half their users will no longer exist.

You're in favour of providing a worse service for 50% of its users despite it costing the same amount as it has done historically. Why?

I never said I was in favour of cutting it, I said you can't rely on governments.

You need to show me something that says all the operators on line 3 are LGBTQ, and all the operators on line 1 and 2 are straight.


Or is it simply all down to training, and using the people who adapted to the training the best, for each specific line..


I'm not sure why you are ignoring the cost of the extra line being in use...fair enough they ate not saving money by closing it, but the extra cost of running it is being used elsewhere, perhaps in training and extra lines for all, without differentiating people this time..


It's not about being gay or straight , it's about being suicidal.

…I was just now reading a little about the Trevor Project because it’s not something that I was familiar with…it’s a non profit organisation founded in 1998…?…so it was up and running when Trump was in his first term as President…but it wasn’t something that he prioritised to ‘scrap’ then…?…so why now…?…and has he researched the ofganisation for him to come to the decision that it’s not something that needs to continue…?…it doesn’t feel as though he has, it feels very much like Farage in commenting on an intended blanket removal of diversity funding just because these things appear to be more populist decision making …and that in itself is very concerning, but not surprising sadly…I don’t know how Government funding in the US works, it’s such a huge country in comparison to us but there does appear to be National funding as well as individual State funding…and as we (…rightly …)…criticise the reduction/removal of funding for more vulnerable and marginalised groups here, then this just feels like such a blow for mental health/people in crisis in general…I know when the mental health funding specifically for children was cut and child services reduced and removed, it’s had a huge negative impact and that impact just becomes more and more…

it's a politicaly motivated gesture that appeals to his base. This is the tip of the iceberg, there will be far worse to come down the line

I didn't say they would LGBT on Line 3, you did. I suggested they don't necessarily need to be, but they are evidently trained to deal with the cohort of people calling through.

Something being allocated a percentage of a budget doesn't mean it costs 'extra' if no money is saved when it's gone.

I think it's a lack of understanding from you, which is fine and completely understandable because how are you supposed to know, that for many LGBT people, suicidal thoughts are linked to their LGBT-ness. It is about being gay.

This stems from of lack of support, hate crime, ostracisation, pressure to stay in the closet, religious persecution, lack of self acceptance etc etc....

That's not to say LGBT people don't get depressed or suicidal over other stuff, but for the majority of LGBT youth feeling suicidal, it will be linked to their sexuality in some capacity, hence why there is the need for a specific cohort of people trained in that, particularly when it's such a large proportion of people.

I fully understand.. people are fully trained, and with this extra money now not being used on line 3, more and more people can be fully trained on all aspects of everyone's suicidal thoughts and tendencies...Which imo, is more inclusive than the divicive line 3 option.


If I was gay I would be thinking to myself, why the helll do I need to dial an LGBTQ only number to seek help...it's a bit like saying blacks this way, whites that way...that's what I'm against. The constant separation and pigeon holing we have for each other..


I've said enough on the matter now, and im totally sick to death og discussing American issues. So i wish you well, and hope you have a nice weerkend.

@BBXX …(…I presume or am thinking…)…that individual States are blocking these funding withdrawals in court so Trump may not be able to carry this through, this is all just Trump noise…?..

Judge blocks Trump administration from enforcing anti-DEI orders in grant funding

A federal judge in California has blocked the Trump administration from enforcing anti-diversity and anti-transgender executive orders in grant funding requirements that LGBTQ+ organizations say are unconstitutional.

Jon Tigar, a US district judge, said on Monday that the federal government cannot force recipients to halt programs that promote diversity, equity and inclusion (DEI) or acknowledge the existence of transgender people in order to receive grant funding. The order will remain in effect while the legal case continues, although government lawyers will probably appeal.

The funding provisions “reflect an effort to censor constitutionally protected speech and services promoting DEI and recognizing the existence of transgender individuals”, Tigar wrote.

He went on to say that the executive branch must still be bound by the constitution in shaping its agenda and that even in the context of federal subsidies, “it cannot weaponize congressionally appropriated funds to single out protected communities for disfavored treatment or suppress ideas that it does not like or has deemed dangerous”.


The plaintiffs include health centers, LGBTQ+ services groups and the Gay Lesbian Bisexual Transgender Historical Society. All receive federal funding and say they cannot complete their missions by following the president’s executive orders.

The San Francisco Aids Foundation, one of the plaintiffs, said in 2023 it received a five-year grant from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) to expand and enhance sexual health services, including the prevention of sexually transmitted infections. The $1.3m project specifically targets communities disproportionately affected by sexual health disparities.

But in April, the CDC informed the non-profit that it must “immediately terminate all programs, personnel, activities, or contracts” that promote DEI or gender ideology.

Donald Trump has signed a flurry of executive orders since his second presidency began in January, including ones to roll back transgender protections and stop DEI programs. Lawyers for the government say that the president is permitted to “align government funding and enforcement strategies” with his policies.

Plaintiffs say that Congress – and not the president – has the power to condition how federal funds are used, and that the executive orders restrict free speech rights.

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/...nti-dei-grants

It’s not about “separation,” it’s about recognition. Marginalised groups often face different barriers when reaching out for help, whether that’s fear, stigma, or past trauma with general services. Having tailored support isn’t division; it’s empathy in action.

And comparing it to racial segregation? That’s not just a bad analogy, it’s an insult to both causes.

It's great you're against separation. Certain demographics having their own services to help for their specific cause isn't separation. :)

I hope not.


They will have to wait for next general election
in the USA, I would think

I agree with this. Governments tend to be unreliable and unstable.

I do believe most here in this country are run by registered charities (correct me if I’m wrong though as I’m not overly familiar if they are).

If it didn't cost anything extra then the only reason to scrap it was red meat to his fans, simple as

Because sometimes you want to talk to somebody like you who understands the struggle. There’s nothing wrong in that. It will all depend on what they are calling for.

X3

Charity is a failure of government.