New sports club at DC’s high school only open to LGBTQ+ pupils and their allies

Me too.
But then again, back then, lesbians were same sex attracted women. They weren’t forced to include males in the description “lesbian”. They were permitted to define themselves as female only attracted females. Males who told them that they were actually lesbians too were considered lecherous creeps and not celebrated and cheered on.
We live in different, and confusing, times now.

If you ask a group of 11-18 year olds, innocent of life, not yet really old enough to be fully settled in any sexuality never mind really certain enough to define it permanently
I knew without doubt that I fancied boys and didn't fancy girls in the slightest at age 11.
(Straight)

This isn't the same IMO as general social groups designed for certain people.

It's a school, and clubs and such in the school aren't about the same things as private social clubs. The considerations are about what is ultimately good for the kids, not just what the kids might like.

In general, I don't think hiving of kids into identity groups for activities is particularly good for them. I don't think a gay basketball team, or a black basketball team, or a Muslim only woodworking club, is a great idea. It tends to mean some kinds will have more access to resources than others, and what's more, those kinds of interest groups are some of the most powerful ways for people to connect as people.

It's not possible to have a hard and fast rule about what would be ok or not, but in general, things like, girls and boys separate sports teams are probably always ok, special accommodation groups for kids with different physical needs (wheelchair basketball, for example, though in practice most of these tend to open to others,) health classes in some instances, are the clearest examples that make sense. Discussion groups or clubs for certain groups might also make sense. But activity groups only allowing certain people generally seem like a no.

Tangentially, where I live it's more and more common to see organizations targeting special programs for youth at certain groups, Summer camps with law enforcement, a group that explores careers in the trades, science camp, music lessons for queer identified kids - all at low or reduced cost. Often nothing similar exists at that level of activity for kids who don't tick those boxes, no matter their economic situation or actually social capital. It comes out of this idea that the people in such groups are always more marginalized, and the non-marginalized don't need the help.

If you ask a group of 11-18 year olds, innocent of life, not yet really old enough to be fully settled in any sexuality never mind really certain enough to define it permanently.

And take into account that you're asking a group rainbow washed and in a school context where you can get into a lot of trouble for not chanting that you love big brother and absolutely GOOD lesbians do males (shall we just mention all the lesbian girls who have identified as trans boys to escape this? And to escape the rainbow washing that doing anything unfeminine like fancying girls and NOT including in that a sexual desire for people penises means that you're obvs a boy?)

That data is worthless. Absolutely worthless. Like the '50% suicide' myth that turned out to be a whole lot of quite damaging propaganda.

Children's views do not define the entire populace of homosexual women, nor are those homosexual women permitted any voice or group that isn't underground. So the identifying as there not being any, well not many, well they're all old horrible bats who don't count as lesbians -

it's all a bit British rail wrong kind of snow.

Why the frantic effort to spin this a political way and such fear of handling the truth or any voices that don't fit the narrative?

Have LGBT groups. Have them all day. Have them everywhere. Yippee for the groups. And let's have mixed sex lesbian ones, and single sex lesbian ones, and mixed sex women's rape support and single sex women's rape support, and mixed sex women's everything alongside single sex women's everything.

Women are totally down with that. Bring it on. They have no wish to remove other people's resources. It's this political movement that absolutely insists on being the dog in the manager and denying women and girls what they need or listening to any voices of women or girls that are not all about furthering the political aims.

Hence people get pretty annoyed at the hypocrisy of 'oh they just need their own space, don't be so mean. let them have what they need, the only reason to question it is that you have bad intentions'.

If LGBT politics had the ability to have that attitude towards women and girls, we could all go home. Let's see a bit of reciprocation please. Otherwise yes, I am going to point out the raging denial and hypocrisy and appalling treatment of women and girls constantly. And as loudly as I can. For as long as it takes.

Didn't they just

As for the subject of the OP clearly it's an issue if the only way to access a particular sport in a state school is to agree to be an ally of something, regardless of what that something is.

The set up is a strange approach which isn't to say LGBT sports clubs are a bad idea but when it's the only option it's hardly ideal. I imagine it's also not ideal for the LGBT kids to find themselves outnumbered in their own club either. That never usually ends well, professed allyship or not.

For the purposes of this research, the term LGBT+ encompasses respondents who have defined their sexual orientation as gay, bisexual, queer, asexual, pansexual or questioning and/or those who identify as transgender”.

Oh look, they forgot lesbian.

How many of the lesbians responding to this survey are male?

Just popping in to leave this.
I'll be there, feel free to PM me.

So not only is the meaning of "supporting trans people" not explained, but the group lesbians, 92% of whom say they support trans people, includes trans women who identify as lesbians?

Well, quite. It includes straight people for a start.

More clearly defined, I mean. No edit button on phone?

Thanks, @suggestionsplease1. I think this may be relevant: “For the purposes of this research, the term LGBT+ encompasses respondents who have defined their sexual orientation as gay, bisexual, queer, asexual, pansexual or questioning and/or those who identify as transgender”. This is a broad church, very much in line with the current queering of certaint boundaries. Plus, it’s kids with, inevitably, limited understanding of the history & context to this queering of previously defined terms & orientations.

So the results you cited are based on a population of lesbians aged 11-18?!

It's discrimination.

A specific club to discuss lgbt issues is fine. Having an activity/sport which is ONLY open to a select group of pupils based on their identity is discriminatory

This is a good point. Most GC lesbians aren’t going to touch anything marked LGBTetc with a bargepole because it’s clearly marked as not for us.

Here is info on the methodology:

"The study started with a pupil survey, which will be the main focus of this report, exploring the wellbeing and experiences of young LGBT+ people aged 11 to 18. A total of 2,934 pupils from 375 schools and colleges across the UK were surveyed, 1,140 of whom identified as LGBT+ (39%). For the purposes of this research, the term LGBT+ encompasses respondents who have defined their sexual orientation as gay, bisexual, queer, asexual, pansexual or questioning and/or those who identify as transgender. The remaining 1,687 non-LGBT+ respondents were used as a control group, to compare LGBT+ responses with non-LGBT+ ones, as well as to explore their attitudes towards their LGBT+ peers. This was supplemented by a survey of primary and secondary school and college staff looking at LGBT+ inclusive education and interventions, with 513 respondents from 111 schools and colleges, 142 of whom identified as LGBT+ (28%). "

Yeah, it could be that they know a lesbian that identifies as "non binary" and they are very supportive of that. Great.

Now to be fair, there was a previous poll which found that while lesbians mostly weren't interested in biological males (as you would expect) they actually did have, or at least report, a higher level of "trans romantic interest" than other groups.

It would be interesting to see polling done on the question of single sex spaces.

@Snowypeaks, no, it’s not an inevitable or logical consequence by our rational standards, no. But… Well, I was going to say we’re debating with ideologists, but then realised the ideology is in part founded on “no debate”, so, really, not even that in many instances. In this context, I favour a tactical approach. It’s also an honest approach for me - I can see the issues with this club, but wouldn’t go so far as to suggest it should be prohibited on thus basis. M That doesn’t mean that, were I privy to how it’s marketted & run etc., I may - or may not! - have more concrete, actionable concerns.

@suggestionsplease1, I find the quote you used in defence of the validity of the survey interesting: it looked “at the experiences of young LGBT+ adults in the UK”. This suggests the demographic surveyed was already “trans-inclusive” perhaps in the sense you may favour. I don’t know - I’m really not strong in statistics, haven’t looked more closely, & don’t have time to do so - and maybe the survey is a valuable measure we should acknowledge. But 1) self-selection may be an issue, given the possibility of the very environment people are describing here muddying the results; 2) if a minority of lesbians are experiencing this or feeling this way - that’s worthy of acknowledgement, & still too many.

But I also think saying, “Cos this doesn’t exist (a club for other people to play the sport), then neither should that (the club in question)!” is a risky argument to make as we also argue for female-only provision.

Just as a general point, I try to never shy away from stating truth, even if it has consequences I do not like. But undermining the rationale for women-only provision is not an inevitable or even logical consequence of arguing against having a club for a group to play a niche sport that no-one else can learn. That's the significance of there only being this one club. Men have rape crisis support. Hospital wards. Sporting categories.
Separate provision for LGB and TQ children is one thing, what is happening at this school is something else. It is special treatment and further separates them unnecessarily from their peers. Women need separate rape crisis groups and hospital wards etc for the reasons we both know and I won't rehearse here. So justified under the law. But the objections of gender zealots are not that separate provision is not justified, it's that the exclusion of the male people is not justifiable, because they are also "women".

And what is the need that is being met? How is the group selected? What is trans? Homophobic bullying is definitely a problem - but how will being in a group in which some members believe that you can't be a girl if you fancy girls (and ditto for boys) help with that? Why do the gender questioning kids need a special club to play a mixed sex sport? They would not have to put themselves in their sex category whether or not it was for all of the children. Is there even an issue of under-representation at all? Why do the LGBTQ cohort need this club rather than black or brown kids? It's all ideological. Wrong anyway, but particularly so for kids.

I think it’s important that single sex sports are kept single sex
i think it’s important that sexual violence services are available to anyone who needs them, including females who need a female only space
I think it’s important that young LGBTQ+ people have groups where they feel accepted and can socialize with other young LGBTQ+ youngsters.
I think it’s important that the school provides an alternative, non LGBTQ+ focused group for this specific sport if that is what is wanted and requested.
surely all of these things can co-exist?

I absolutely support you having your own parenting group. Gay families have specific lived experience that straight families don't share and if they want a parenting group which focuses on that then there should be one.

But the only one of these groups which is not currently allowed to exist is the female only rape crisis group, and the people who are trying to ensure it doesn't exist are the same people who say they need their own safe spaces free from people who don't share their views on gender.

Isn't that a little, I don't know, hypocritical?

Shouldn't trans people understand exactly why a vulnerable group might want its own safe space and be supportive of that rather than trying to make sure it doesn't exist?