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.

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.

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.

Didn't they just

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.

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
I knew without doubt that I fancied boys and didn't fancy girls in the slightest at age 11.
(Straight)

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.

This.

I know, right?

I remember when it was all fields around here, and people still had a grip on the idea that women were entitled to lives and choices that didn't revolve around making penises happy.

The phrase ‘alphabet people’ is a shorthand that saves knowing the various combinations of letters that have been added to LGB in recent years. It doesn’t refer to gay people, and in itself is not derogatory.

Yes, ‘special’ is sardonic, in light of the inclusion of a range of non-gay people who previously weren’t identified with "gay" (e.g. “A”: those who aren’t sexually attracted to anyone; straight people within “TQA”; “K” for Kink). Some letters have more than one significance (Queer, Questioning; Asexual, Aromantic, Ally). SGL for single gender loving (which also incorporates opposite-sex-attracted people). 2S for Two Spirit. Etcetera. It’s all fairly ‘special’ knowledge.

I think I was about 22 before I was fully certain.

YMMV.

I didn't know either way (bisexual). I absolutely wasn't able to articulate that at 11 though.

I'm fairly sure I knew at 11, but schools promoting groups for a sport asking this is weird.
TQ+ also has nothing to do with sexuality..

OP should trot off to the daily Mail with this ‘discrimination’ they love a straight ( white? That’d be even better!) boy being cruelly treated like this… the gays get all the perks these days, dontchaknow.

The girls in my 11yo's class say that they are lesbians one day, and straight/bi/pan the next one...

‘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 I didn’t like boys in that romantic way, just as straight kids start getting crushes on the opp sex. No-one has to label or define it, it just is.

though god knows, it would have saved me a lot of grief and angst if there had have been a LGBTQ grp or support network for me at school or anywhere else as a young teen.

no-one tells a heterosexual kid that them ‘liking’ someone is a phase, or something to be ignored or hidden. Or that it’s not appropriate to talk about or feel

no-one tells a heterosexual kid that them ‘liking’ someone is a phase

no…or that they will grow out of it

to be fair i don’t think anyone said that to ds1, they just said it to me

and the ‘if you keep talking about being gay then you will turn him gay’ ….that was a fucking doozy 🤦🏻‍♂️

I know what you’re saying, but, I’m straight and was told some of my choices in romantic partners was a phase.

‘I know what you’re saying, but, I’m straight and was told some of my choices in romantic partners was a phase.’

not your entire sexuality though, presumably?

@Rudderneck, a possible counter-argument to your “discussion groups, maybe ok, but activities by demon graphic, on balance not…” thinking…

I wonder if an LGBTQ etc. group with sport as an alternative focus to discussion, which can so easily become anxious introspection, could actually be a really effective way to support these kids.

It would be easier for the closeted & questioning to join; invite distraction as opposed to rumination among the the obsessive; help kids disconcerted by their bodies at a difficult time to celebrate their physicality instead…

The focus on sport could buffer the kids against too much introspection & a sense of victimisation; create positive links between their sexuality / gender identity & what they CAN do & enjoy, regardless, as they feel their way through a confusing time.

None of this would preclude discussion, too. But it could shift the tone & focus of that in a hugely beneficial way.

Wow. Demographic. Good typo. Grr, phone.

It seems much healthier to be getting this group of kids to play sport than to sit around eating biscuits and worrying, which is what the LGBTQ+ club at my children's school does.

In fact, please could teachers in all schools encourage children who are getting pulled into the gender woo to kick a ball around and have some fun together?

Doing something other than naval gaze is an excellent thing, but I think the best way to do that is actually to join an activity group that isn't centered around your sexual identity. Kids need to have something else.

I can't say I've ever been very impressed by any of the LGBTQ+++ groups I've seen at schools though. I'm not sure why, but they seem to full of bad dynamics.

I have no idea what sport is being offered but I am going to say that it is Badminton (for no reason other than to be able to avoid talk about sport X).

I think that encouraging LGBTQ+ children to play Badminton is a good thing because it will get them to take more exercise and will lift their horizons beyond themselves if only as far as the Badminton court boundaries. However, only allowing LGBTQ+ children to play Badminton is bonkers. How will the children who are not LGBTQ+ and don't see themselves as allies but would like to play Badminton feel? Will they be more or less willing to see the child behind the label?

A great way to encourage otherness.

Doing something other than naval gaze is an excellent thing, but I think the best way to do that is actually to join an activity group that isn't centered around your sexual identity. Kids need to have something else

Absolutely. I think it’s important to have an opportunity to participate in something which isn’t defined by your sexuality or ideology - these are children and young teens, some of whom have just moved up from primary school.