Council has invited lesbian group to join LGBTQ+ social forum

[Pluvia]

One of my neighbours (I've known him for years) is a councillor at my Local Authority. He knows I'm a lesbian and he knows that years ago I used to apply for (and sometimes receive) small grants from the council to fund lesbian-only events or apply to rent council facilities for women-only/ lesbian-only events. For the last few years I haven't tried to obtain money because we were told we needed to be more inclusive — by which they meant we needed to welcome TWs, something I will never do.

My neighbour/ councillor recently told me that there was some funding coming up and suggested I apply for it for my lesbian group. I thanked him, explained previous problems and made my position clear. He's now forwarded me an email from the council Inclusion and Diversity champion saying that it would be wonderful if members of the lesbian group were to attend the LGBTQ+ forum/ coffee sessions he runs.

My gut instinct was to say No Thank You and explain forced teaming and how inclusion and TQ+ had done terrible damage to the lesbian community. But I get the feeling from my councillor neighbour that at least some members of the council are going out of their way to support lesbians and perhaps we need to emerge from the darkness and start being a bit more public. There is a rumour that the council have fairly recently left Stonewall and we've put in an FOI but heard nothing yet.

Any thoughts about the best way of playing it? I'm not prepared to go along to a council forum and smile politely at the local TRAs who've destroyed public lesbian culture in this area.

@Pluvia

Oooh, yes — that would be a good place to start. Asking the I+D person to provide us with the council's definition of 'lesbian' and 'woman'.

Also to point out the difference between exclusionary to, a group and specifically for another group.

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

@JurgensCakeBabyJesus

Why does belief trump fact?

In the interfaith analogy - which is not exact at all but just a thought of a way to approach things - belief does not trump fact, neither trumps the other, in fact the faith-believers would think that the atheists and humanists with their actual facts are just another form of belief different from their own.

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.

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 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.

@Artichokeleaves

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.

Surely an LGBTQ+ forum should include everyone who IS LGBTQ+, not whoever claims to be? Just like a women's group should be for women not people who claim to be women?

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?

@doublemonkey

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.

That would be quite an ask — for me to walk alone into a room full of TRAs and trans allies, organised by an I+D person who may believe TWAW and that men who identify themselves as lesbians are lesbians. I don't have a lot to lose — my employment is safe and I'm part of a strong group of GC lesbians and women — but I really don't want to be put in a position where I may feel under enormous pressure to socialise politely with people who have played their parts in infiltrating or destroying public lesbian-only and women-only events in this area.

Since 2016 there have been two aggressive TRAs who have made it their mission to approach every organisation with any kind of commitment to equality to 'educate' them about trans ideology. They have used this tactic to get into organisations that run women's shelters, women-only training and support, even a women's centre. They arrive wanting to educate, then they want to join the management committee to change the organisation's remit to include transgender individuals, then they want to get attend women-only events etc. It's brought several former women-only and lesbian-only services down, driven others underground, broken long-established women's networks, turned friends against each other... I will not be put into a position where I have to stand in a room and be polite to these people.

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

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.