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.

‘Why do LGBTQ+ students need their own safe sports but female rape survivors can't have their own safe rape crisis groups?’

or is it just as simple as both of these should exist?

we’re in a gay parenting social grp - straight families aren’t allowed to join. is that okay or should it not exist unless we let straight families in too???

Oh I don’t know.
Straight people appropriating gay spaces by identifying as Q and males appropriating women’s spaces, including lesbian spaces, by identifying as women seems to be a big threat to gay and women’s rights to me.

So I asked you to explain what "supportive of trans people" means, and you replied "no, not meaningless" and then went on to repeat more of the same stuff you were saying before, without attempting to explain what supportive of trans people means.

Was that deliberate?

Does it mean using their preferred pronouns?
Supporting their inclusion in sports in the correct category for their biological sex?
Supporting their inclusion in sports in whatever category they feel best fits their gender identity?
Supporting their right to change their legal gender?
Supporting their right to live their lives free from harassment?
Supporting their right to use communal showers for the sex they feel they most identify with?
Being open to having sex with them?

I would consider myself supportive of trans people according to some of those criteria and not others, so if you asked me if I was supportive of trans people I would not be able to answer your question without narrowing down what that means more precisely.

I'll add that I'm a lesbian who believes completely in supporting trans rights to be safe and not discriminated against.

But 'support' I suspect involves me accepting that a male person's identity choice is more important than my perception, my right to bodily autonomy and sexuality is conditional on at least convincingly claiming to willing to do men who tell me their identity is of a woman, and surrendering all single sex spaces while accepting no female should have the right to do anything at all, no matter how distressing or intimate, without a male having the right to be present and use the situation (and females) to meet their own needs.

And I'm not. Because I require trans people to support women equally and to not destroy their rights.

You know, I hate to break it to you, and FWR and GC feminists may think highly of their own position, but they're really not of a significance where Cibyl "the largest provider of market research and data into students' and graduates' career thinking." can be arsed to manipulate data about lesbians opinions of trans people on a very broad report that looks "at the experiences of young LGBT+ adults in the UK, covering a range of topics from their wellbeing, home life and time in school to their experiences in the world of work, as well as taking into account intersections like faith, race and disability."

How does it work with protected religious beliefs? Surely it's exclusionary towards children from particular religious backgrounds? Would that trump gender beliefs?

Even if they wanted to secretly join they could face conflict at home if it was discovered they were attending an 'LGBTQ+ and allies' group.

I'm trying to think of a comparison such as computer club. Something that might typically attract quieter/geekier/neurodiverse kids. However it's the only computer club in the school. And it's framed as LGBTQ+ only (plus 'allies'). And that's a defining characteristic of the group, the members don't leave their beliefs at the door and get on with the activity. It's as much about identity as it is computers.

As a quiet, LGB supporting teen the vocal (often obnoxious, I'm sorry) NB/trans/'queer' element would've put me right off. I might've gone along once or twice before admitting defeat, as much as I liked computers. In my school I could also see some of the LGB kids getting pissed off with the increasing attention seeking elements, I'm not sure it would've felt inclusive to them either.

Had there been a second, mainstream computer club I'd have had less of an issue and probably ignored the second club.

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?

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?

You would have thought so @Twoshoesnewshoes - but sadly only 1 of those exists at the moment

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.

@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.

@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.

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.

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%). "

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.

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

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

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.

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

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

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?

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

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