Council has invited lesbian group to join LGBTQ+ social forum

I still feel that you should contact D&I to lay 'ground rules'. Say the idea is great in theory (so you sound positive, collegiate, etc) but you are worried about how it will play out in practise. Outline your concerns, emphasise your fears, give evidence. Ask D&I to be impartial peacekeeper (don't ask them to choose sides, only to promise to keep things civilised). Send it to D&I and cc everybody in authority in the conversation. Get your POV in first.
Basically play the "most victimised" card. It stops other unnamed parties using the trick.

@Pluvia, Ah sorry, I mis-read the op and missed the bit at the end where you said you wouldn't be attending.

Obviously the LGB have nothing to do with the rest, but even if T rights and LGB rights were perfectly aligned then I think that there's an argument that the LGB (a reasonably easy to define group) should be separate from the TQ+, simply because it is so much easier for people who have nothing in common with the LGB or "real" trans people to claim membership of the TQ+. TQ+ is so f-ing vague it really shold be by itself aside from the fact it is actively fighting against LGB rights.

My gut says OP should go... but much harder to know how to play it.

Do they get that it is not inclusive to minorities to say that they can never exclude others who are not part of their group?

I would go alone Op, to get the lie of the land. If you've been invited so they can tick a box I woudn't give them the satisfaction of a group attending.

I guess the question is, does this LGBTQ+ forum include everyone who claims any of those categories, or does it exclude those with gender critical beliefs, in which case it’s hardly inclusive and tolerant is it.

This.

Because otherwise it is not in fact an LGBT+ group and cannot be called this. It is just a group whose single unifying characteristic is a political stance.

I guess the question is, does this LGBTQ+ forum include everyone who claims any of those categories, or does it exclude those with gender critical beliefs, in which case it’s hardly inclusive and tolerant is it.

We have sign language specifically for the benefit of deaf people - not to be exclusionary to blind people.

Why does belief trump fact?

I'm not a believer in anything, I'm just a same-sex attracted woman. Would you invite an atheist to an interfaith event? Surely the bottom line is faith?
The bottom line is belief. See the Forstater case: Trans have the right to believe in gender identity; others have the right to believe in science and biology. Both are entitled to hold their beliefs.

I have to disagree with Cwenthryth's analogy. In an interfaith dialogue such as the humanists and pagans that she references, both parties to the dialogue have faith in something as a commonality, however differently that faith may be expressed. In this instance only one side of the 'council' has faith in the proposition in question. That might be fine if mutual toleration was indeed a possibility, but so far in this debate all the toleration has been required of one side, and I don't see any trans rights activists lining up to move even a little bit towards the middle. That's what No Debate is all about, isn't it?

Possibly another way to phrase it is that anything labelled LGBT+ should be diverse enough to recognise.... same sex attracted women.

It's not really asking for the moon! But I see what Cwenthryth means about pointing out the need for tolerance, because the issue is belief. The belief that male people can be women and lesbians is a belief, and not one that everyone holds. Mutual tolerance is going to be needed. Or does the council feel that access to LGBT+ forums should be limited only to people performing a political belief (that homosexuality is bigotry?) as opposed to welcoming and inclusive of all LGBT+ people in their diversity?

At uni (long time ago now) the humanists and pagans attended interfaith council….. it was about representation of all parties. Just a suggestion.

Could it possibly function like a LGB/TQ+ version of an interfaith event? Or could you approach it like that?

I wonder whether the Council have a women's networking forum? I would be happy to go along to that.

If there is one, it’s very likely to have been targetted.

It may be worth attending one just to have it on the radar that this 'inclusion' is highly exclusionary in practice, and its disproportionately disadvantaging a group by sex. #inclusionfail

Your lesbian group I am sure is fully inclusive of all female homosexuals regardless of faith, disability, age etc. To insist that a female group is never valid unless it welcomes males, or that every single lesbian group must accept political redefinition as a mixed sex group open to heterosexual relationships or be excluded (for what? being homosexual?) is dodgy in the extreme.

And yes, as pps say, I would voice the absolute lack of trust and the fear of now going anywhere near public groups and council led groups because of the bitter experience of homophobia, misogyny and being told that any group not centering males (and actively excluding any females who cannot access a mixed sex resource) is not valid or appropriate for females to be allowed to have.

And then inquire where the resources are for the females who are homosexual, who have a disability, who have a trauma or who have a faith or culture that means they cannot access a mixed sex resource and so are therefore deprived of anything at all so that male people can access absolutely everything? Have the council encountered the EqA? Do they still expect those women to pay the same rates as those who are allowed to have resources? How do they justify their intolerance and discrimination against these females?

the more people's eyebrows rise the better

I would note the safety concerns.

Point out to the D&I guy that you are wary of accepting the invitation because lesbians have been under considerable threat amd pressure from other members of the GBTQ+ Community for being lesbians, and you don't want to expose women to that fear.

NitroNine well obviously that is just gals being pals.

Is it worth going just to check out the biscuit situation the lay of the land?

As StillWeRise said, either you make the happy discovery that the Council has remembered how protected characteristics work & you regain a funding stream; or this is your big moment for a truth-telling soliloquy (ensure you wear good shoes in case you want to storm out at end - tripping would ruin things) that, if necessary, would hopefully shake some scales from some eyes. Obviously you need to feel up to dealing with pushback not only in the meeting but afterwards. Utterly absurd that lesbians’ groups in the C21 have to be clandestine: if things keep going like this there will be some truth to the infamous “ew shut up girls don’t DO that - they don’t even know about that stuff STOP BEING GROSS!” 1921 voting down of a proposed Amendment to the 1885 Criminal Law Amendment Bill.

I'll have a go at wording a polite response along the lines of 'really not sure there's anything to be gained by attending meetings but would be happy to have a private meeting with I+D and other interested council members so that we can explore what they can offer and what's in it for us.'
You could ask Council person what their definition of Inclusion is. Do L have to include Trans? Or do Trans have to accept/include other mindsets? G'wan, stir up the hornets nest.