The responsibilities of a twelve-year-old deacon in the Mormon church would not tend to be as great as the responsibilities of an adult deacon as described in 1 Timothy, but their assignments introduce them to the concept of service in the priesthood for the good of others, such as the passing of the sacrament trays of bread and water. I can see how you might object to the nomenclature of referring to these boys as deacons, but how could anyone object to the service they provide for the benefit of others (such as passing the sacrament)? Most of these deacons will probably grow up to be fine, law-abiding citizens. However, if there is a large enough pool of deacons (12-year-old or even adult), the odds are that one (or a few) of these will later commit terrible crimes, but this should not be an obstacle to the worthy idea of trying to place wholesome responsibilities on these youth.
My initial comment in this piece was contrasting how 12 year old boys could be entrusted with deacon responsibilities in the Mormon Church; but if any woman dare advocate that females could carry these same "introductory" responsibilities in the Mormon Church, they are at risk of ex-communication!
If this is all so "grand" -- for 12-year-old BOYS to be introduced into "service they provide for the benefit of others" -- then why might you object to 12-year-old GIRLS who could be "introduced" into "service...provided for the benefit of others?"
Wouldn't this also be "wholesome responsibilities" to include girls -- if it's so "beneficial" for both the girls and others?