Meet the Other Phone. Only the apps you allow.

Meet the Other Phone.
Only the apps you allow.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Feminism: Sex and gender discussions

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

582 replies

SirChenjins · 08/09/2023 10:46

Are they legally allowed to exclude GC pupils? Or pupils who are not one of the special alphabet children?

This is a really great club - nothing like the school has offered before. Seems a shame to limit attendance based on sexuality/gender ideology rather than interest/ability.

We’re in Scotland if that makes a difference.

OP posts:
Thread gallery
9
MargotBamborough · 22/09/2023 12:53

MumOfYoungTransAdult · 22/09/2023 12:25

Secondly, you are conflating LGB with LGBTQ+.

I was going to say that I was trying to stick to "LGBT and allies" because that was what the club was about. But then I re-read the thread title!

"LGBTQ+ and allies"? In a school? Even in Scotland that's pushing the boat out and there are questions any parent might reasonably want to ask about the Q and the +.

I think the concept of Q+ raises different questions in children than it does in adults.

In adults, the best summary for me was during the LGB Alliance tribunal hearing, where the witnesses from LGB Alliance articulated very clearly why they are concerned about the Q+. Queer is a word that many older lesbian and gay people still see as a homophobic slur, and the + could mean anything. They were treated as bigoted and hysterical for questioning whether it could include things such as bestiality and paedophilia, but the point is no one is actually willing to stand up and say what it does and does not include. It's a miscellaneous category. Who wants their equal rights movement to include a miscellaneous category of people whose motivations and needs are unclear? And it obviously isn't so much of a stretch to imagine that the + might include paedophilia, since Mermaids appointed a man who had published written material about his sexual desire for children and addressed "minor attracted persons" at a conference. If nothing else we know that Pride has been expanded to include a lot of people who display their sexual proclivities, as opposed to their sexual orientations, in public. Although these things are perfectly legal, many gay and lesbian people do not want to be associated with them because they have spent decades telling the world that they aren't sexual perverts, they're completely normal people who just happen to want same sex relationships.

I think adding the T to the LGB was already a stretch, given that T means anyone who believes they have a gender identity which does not correspond to their birth sex, whereas LGB just means same sex attracted. Two completely different things. But then you add on the Q+ and it's unclear who this group actually is, apart from straight people who prefer not to identify as straight, such as Laurie Penny, and potentially shady people like Jacob Breslow.

I don't think a lot of these concerns necessarily apply to school age children. Due to the ubiquitous nature of online porn, unfortunately all children may be exposed to ideas and material of a sexual nature, some more mainstream than others, and that is the case whether they identify as gay, straight, trans or whatever. Children are unlikely to recognise queer as a slur, due to their young age. But given that LGB already covers same sex attraction, and T covers trans and non binary gender identities, what is Q? What makes children who identify as Q different in any way from children who are straight?

This club specifically is already open to "allies". So why not LGBT and allies? What on earth is the Q+ when you are talking about children?

The only thing I can think of is that the Q+ is for children who are not same sex attracted and do not identify as trans or non binary, but want to have an alphabet letter for themselves anyway because it is currently deeply uncool to be "cishet". This is essentially the Laurie Penny category, only she is old enough to know better.

That's a very long winded way of saying I think the use of "Q+" among teenagers specifically is not a sign of trying to sneak paraphilias in under the LGBT umbrella, which is what the LGB Alliance are concerned about in adults, but it probably is evidence of social contagion, where even perfectly ordinary children now feel pressured to identify as anything other than a boring straight person without a specific gender identity.

MumOfYoungTransAdult · 22/09/2023 15:00

There are concerns that apply to school age children once "Q+" is explicitly included, more than adults sneaking in paraphilias. There are safeguarding issues around children making disclosures, and around safeguarding children from each other. Not all children are nice safe kids or live in nice safe environments.

What children who think of themselves as "Q+" are more likely to have in common than children who don't think of themseves that way may be a sense of discomfort around sex and sexuality, their own and other people's. And if they're not same-sex attracted or gender non-conforming then what's that discomfort about? It might just be an exploration of different labels that's a normal part of growing up, but it also might not. Kids are more likely to bring their vulnerabilities and boundary issues to that knd of group.

A parent could wonder, are all the adults in charge fully prepared to deal with that? Though they might be thoroughly on top of safeguarding, and to be fair a school support group for very vulnerable kids that's organised around a sport activity is probably better than one that's mostly just introspection.

Perhapsperhapsto · 22/09/2023 15:27

‘LGBTQ isn't a monolith. It's fairly meaningless really. I wouldn't interpret someone attending that club as someone fully signing up to gender ideology.’

Exactly. The kid needs to go a try it out and see. Rather than have his mother rave and rant on the internet with what might be.

SirChenjins · 22/09/2023 15:34

No-one is ranting and raving, don't be so silly.

Now that you've popped back up, would you care to address the many questions that have been put to you?

OP posts:
MargotBamborough · 22/09/2023 16:24

Perhapsperhapsto · 22/09/2023 15:27

‘LGBTQ isn't a monolith. It's fairly meaningless really. I wouldn't interpret someone attending that club as someone fully signing up to gender ideology.’

Exactly. The kid needs to go a try it out and see. Rather than have his mother rave and rant on the internet with what might be.

Why can't it just be a mixed sex ping pong club?

Why does it need to be labelled as being for a specific group of people if anyone can attend?

SirChenjins · 22/09/2023 16:28

Agree. It's obviously not meaningless if there's a requirement to nail your colours to the mast in order to be able to attend - otherwise it would just be the 'new ping pong club, all welcome'.

OP posts:
Froodwithatowel · 22/09/2023 16:33

Perhapsperhapsto · 22/09/2023 15:27

‘LGBTQ isn't a monolith. It's fairly meaningless really. I wouldn't interpret someone attending that club as someone fully signing up to gender ideology.’

Exactly. The kid needs to go a try it out and see. Rather than have his mother rave and rant on the internet with what might be.

This is either extremely naive, or willfully disingenuous.

Nurture groups and clubs are the usual way to provide activities for more vulnerable kids, often on invitation, with friends for support.

They do not hold the title of a political group, which currently controls policy and claims to represent homosexuals but in fact is vigorously homophobic, while requiring that entrance to LGBT+ facilities is based upon homosexuals renouncing homosexuality. There is no way to make this appropriate to be doing with children.

New posts on this thread. Refresh page