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

[SirChenjins]

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.

Yup. I'm one of them. (GC gay.)

I'll introduce you to a MNetter currently with an active thread here about not only not being permitted an accessible rape crisis support group (T+ male people have a choice of three different options of group, women who cannot access mixed sex provisions or tried and found male people getting excited by their descriptions of their rape unbearable not to mention unsupportive have none at all) but also having a group of T+ people 'and allies' ensuring that she is not even able to organise a meet up with other women if she organises it herself as she won't permit men with TQ identities to be there to bully, control and destroy the group for her. They've emailed all the venues explaining that she's hateful and I think one framed her as potentially violent to ensure they got their way.

So the lies and absolute batshit such as 'hate on gay kids' is two a penny, it's part and parcel of this very silly movement. At this point LGBT(whatever has been added this week) is nothing more than a political group meaning 'gender politics and anti women compliant', all gay people like myself have been excluded. (And threatened with rape. And death. Barbed wire wrapped baseball bats were celebrated in this. How seriously in need of mental health care do you have to be to think that's ok?)

And no one has any illusions left. Yes, obviously therefore, an LGBT+ only (and compliant friends) which is in fact a political group, comes with problems: this is a group that does not permit other groups of the population the same opportunities or equalities. And the charity and goodwill ran out.... oh, a few years ago now. You'd have to be quite exceptionally naive, intentionally blind or deluded at this point to still think this is something innocent and well meant.

No, he can join if he publicly allies himself to a particular ideology.

So kids who join the other school sports clubs ARE allowed to be dicks to other people in the team?

So kids who join the other school sports clubs ARE allowed to be dicks to other people in the team?
Errrrr....... no.
Bizarre take.

Excellent post @Froodwithatowel I read that thread yesterday, it's horrific.

Quite.

Brown shirts and nice singing choirs to follow. Join us and burn a book.

It’s the only take. If you believe the school has set up a team specifically for non homophobic students, the only logical conclusion is that the other teams are for homophobic students…
Unless, it’s not actually about homophobia at all. It’s about aligning yourself with an ideology.

Yep. Welcome, welcome, 11 year old children - come in and take a seat.

So it's a club for evryone excpet bullies?

Schools shouldn't be tolerating bullying in any club or situation. You don't need a special club.

Gay sports clubs are fine if organised within the community. The you should eb able to organise any discrimatory club you like. Badminton for Furry Sluts. Or knitting for tall people.

But in school no activities should be segratated on the sexual orientation of children.

(Got behind, haven't read half of thread & typed this a while ago - catching up now!)

This one's fascinating. Undecided after reading lots of interesting responses.

I think it may be another example of the damage militant activism and problematic message has done to this cause.

A group of people sharing a similar characteristic? Great. With same-sex groups under threat, I think it's important to support this, to distinguish ourselves from those who seek to challenge this.

A group of people sharing a similar characteristic and focussed around a particular interest? I still think that's fine. Youth clubs may offer activities not available to kids outside the group's age range, and we'd support an all-female netball team without actively condemning the school for not starting a boys' team, for example. If we start arguing that the existence of one thing in one context means the same thing must be made accessible to all people in all contexts, we're setting an impossible precedent.

A group of people sharing a similar characteristic "and their allies"? More difficult. 1) As someone says above, it feels like it perpetuates a victim narrative (the example above of a club for black children "and allies" exposes this in a shudderingly uncomfortable way – it really highlights the built-in assumption of extreme mainstream prejudice. 2) "Allies" has become politicised: it should just mean "supportive of" but has been corrupted into suggesting adherence to an ideology damaging to other vulnerable groups.

Another analogy I find helpful, also used above, would be a Christian/Muslim/Jewish group. In itself, great. A Christian/Muslim/Jewish group based around another common interest acting as an extra social lubricant (ugh, sorry) eg. tennis? Maybe unusual, but a good idea. That group as also being open those students’ friends or those interested in the faith? Also, great! So, again, it suggests to me that the issue is that word "allies", and everything it's come to represent. Military applications, political connotations - it comes with connotations of allegiance to a political cause, division, and latent negativity outside the "safe space". It’s kind of sad but, to me, it screams exclusion not inclusion: “LGBTQ+ kids, you’re excluded as a matter of course – but not here!”; “GC kids, you’re with us or against us – choose now!”

I don’t think a lot of people would be aware of these associations, though, so it’s not a battle I’d fight at all. I just think it’s really sad that they're there, alright - the thread shows that. It didn't have to be like this...

So it's a club for non homophobes?
Call it that then.

Shows how stupid it is. As an idea and in practice.

No, it'a logical extension of your argument.

Not really, it did seem a bizarre take to go from there to saying "so you're saying that others can then?!"
Er.... no, why would it mean that?!
Did OP explain what they meant by "Special Alphabet People?"
As not being LGBT myself it seems clear that they should be able to have a club they feel safe in when attitudes like that still clearly exist.

I think the idea of schools providing Christian only tennis clubs for Christian kids and their frinds ludricrous and outrageous.

And I'm a Christain.

If you want 'Christain tennis' find a club in the community or send your kid to a faith school.
Schools shouldn't be segragating activities based on protected charaxteristics. They got better things to do for a start.

Secondly: he Eqaulity Act is for protection and not to establish 'extras' for those groups.

Don't discriminate. That should be schools goal.
Teach kids and don't discriminate or allow discrimination.

I can't believe this is not obvious to everyone.

Imagine a school saying: Has your black kid experienced racism? No worries, we now have 'Football for black kids and allies'.

It is all about aligning with the ideology and being seen as inclusive. The right side of history and all that.

My 11yo was interested and fully suppportive of LGBT rights until last year an 'ally' told him that he was homophobic (sic) for saying that there are only two genders (#). He now rolls his eyes at them.

(#) Understandably at 10, he had no idea of the differences, and used gender as the polite word for sex.

It was just logical and clearly so.

I diffre from you: I think all children should feel safe in school at all times.

Are you genuinely unaware that males identifying as trans are quite likely to be straight? Like the OPs son? So how come some straight kids can join and some can't?

Because the straight kids who can join are the ones who hold a particular political belief. That's the problem.

Not really.

For me I think the acid test is this.

In this club, if the subject comes up in conversation, prompted by a trans identifying child, would someone (whether they were there because they were gay or because they wanted to play the sport and interpreted "ally" as "doesn't hate gay or trans people") be free to respectfully disagree and say, "I don't think people like Lia Thomas should be allowed to compete in women's swimming because she has a competitive advantage over the female swimmers" or "I don't agree that JK Rowling is a transphobe, I think she just wants to make sure that everyone, including trans people and women, has access to the rape crisis support they need"?

If not, this is not a group aimed at providing a supportive, inclusive space for LGBTQ+ students, it is a group aimed at excluding students with a different opinion from student life and making them feel that they will be social pariahs if they dare to express an opinion which isn't 100% in agreement with current LGBTQ+ doctrine.

Do you make the same fuss when there's a girls netball team but not a boys one? or a boys football club but no girls one?

@MargotBamborough
Open/female is fine. But an open category in addition to male and female categories is bad in principle because there is no reason for it. Sex, age, weight, skill level - these are all factors which have a very significant impact on athletic performance and that is the reason why we have them. A person's own view that they are, or would like to be, the opposite sex has no impact on their performance. If we go down this path it will be impossible to argue against religion- or astrology-based categories - all equally irrelevant to sporting performance.

Creating extra categories costs money and other resources - time and energy for administration. Logistical challenges. Where are the competitors to change? Can we fit the extra races into the same timeframe somehow? Do we need more officials? Should there be any alterations to the rules? All for the sake of an entirely unnecessary category.
Women's sport gets about 1% of the money and 5% of the coverage of men's sport. (According to Sharron Davies.) This meagre capital is most likely what will be raided to create and support an additional men's category because, almost across the board, women's sport is just something organised under sufferance - diversity programming, if you like. There is no commitment to it. The real competition - the men's competition - will not be affected. Women's sport will be adversely affected.

Finally, only protecting the female category is effective in keeping males out. Having an additional open category is not part of protecting the female category. It would be possible to have an additional open category whether or not the female category was restricted to females only. There is no connection. It's a bit like a rape crisis centre - the existence of a trans-only group and a male group does not prevent males from participating in a women-only group, if the centre allows it. Only a prohibition on males will achieve a genuinely women-only group.
Having Open, Male and Female isn't a less bad option than just Male and Female from the point of view of excluding males from female competitions, it's just more work and more expense - and you'd still end up with males in women's sport.

To a pp - I didn't say there was no homophobia in sport, I said lesbians are not underrepresented.
And I note how the TQ is once again using homosexuals and bisexuals as cover. Lesbian and gay kids do get bullied - homophobic bullying is not bullying for claiming a special identity.

Being open about fancying boys as a young girl is not earth-shattering - it's what is expected. A girl or boy who is starting to realise or accept that they are same-sex attracted is going against the grain. That takes courage. Saying you fancy a boy in a band does not.

Sport is segregated by sex because of the physical differences between the sexes which give one sex an advantage over the other. It enables women and girls to participate in sport fairly and safely.
Sports should not be segregated based on the opinions of the participants.

@Snowypeaks I agree there is no point to the open category in sporting terms.

For me the point of having an open category is to shut down the argument that trans people are excluded from sport because being forced to play as the sex they were assigned at birth is dehumanising and distressing for them.

That's the only point to it really. That way you can say absolutely no males in women's sports for any reason whatsoever, you're still included because here is this new category for you to compete in which is compatible with your female gender identity, and now the subject is closed.

I doubt many people would care what happens in the open category.

Yes? All children should have the opportunity to participate in sports.
As another poster pointed out, this might mean having both a boys team and a girls one to make it fair due to physical differences between male and female children. I can't think of any reason why a child should be excluded from participating a sport on the basis of orientation?

You appear confused - currently, for example, girls netball teams would not be allowed to exclude boys. If they tried to they would no doubt be called terfs and would be expected to keep quiet and share their changing rooms with them.

You should try reading the news from time to time.

@MargotBamborough
Ok, I see what your rationale is. But the net result is harm to women. And going to all that trouble because male people are having a tantrum is a bad precedent to set. It is all about male people and their prizes and validation - the females claiming to be men (or at least not women) are perfectly happy to play on women's sports teams.