Quakers and Girl Guiding

I am so tired of Nice People who bend over backwards to include males, but who not only don't give a damn when women are excluded, but don't even notice when women are excluded. Even when they are told.

There is definitely a pattern emerging and I think the regulatory capture theory sums it up well. I wish I had the time, money and academic ability to go away for a few years and research it properly.

What happening now in the Quaker community is happening in many other institutions, and in every case it is women's voices urging caution and consideration that are being drowned out.

I've been on several Women’s retreats in the past, run by Triratna Buddhists. The sense of community, of spiritual and physical safety, was amazing. There are no locks on the doors, every space is shared (dorms, shared bathrooms). The retreat was very accessible, both physically, spiritually (for most retreats you don't need to be a Buddhist, just supportive) and financially (v low cost for women on low wages or in wages, subsidised by donations from those that can afford to pay more). That retreat is now open to anyone who identifies as a woman. There's no debate. I can't go back (and believe me, I want to after this past year) and I'm sure many other women have just self excluded. I'm not asking for transwomen to be excluded from loving kindness; but it would nice if women who need single sex provision weren't excluded either.

Seeing as this is a God related thread, for some time now every time I hear about ROGD and the mutilation of young females the term sacrificial virgins comes to mind. But then I had a religious education and my head was stuffed full of the benefits of martyrdom and patient suffering, so I accept that I’m unusual.

Yes. I think what's really given me pause is that these aren't necessarily publications that have been considered poor quality. They were for a popular audience, but they were considered very good publications at one time which did an important job of making good science accesible to intelligent but non-expert people.

So they have had a lot of credibility. I've noticed Scientific American, and some of the popular psychology magazines, becoming much worse for a few years, though I hadn't with NG. But for most people, and organisations, churches and stuff, these are the kinds of publications they trust to give a fairly non-biased perspective. If you say, well, Mermaids is an advocacy org, they are strongly biased, they reasonably reply that organisations like Fair Play for Women could also tend to be biased. But these supposedly neutral good sources are all coming down on one side.

I've stopped from time to time to wonder if I am missing something and I am pretty grounded in some of the relevant topics. It's made me really think about the level of confidence we put in science as something that can operate to educate society.

In some ways, regulatory capture as related to purportedly 'scientific' people and publications reminds me strongly of those ridiculous adverts for shampoo or something, where a person in a white coat points at a whizzy diagram of a 'molecule' and mentions a multi-syllabic 'sciencey' word and the clear implication is of trustworthy sciencey stuff.

When anyone paying the slightest actual attention knows its pure hucksterism. But you can fool some of the people all of the time...

I think @FloralBunting is right about regulatory capture. I think the "trusted authority" has been Stonewall.

I think organisations like this are part of it, and for a lot of people the fact that it was explicitly lumped in with the gay rights movement. And as well, all kinds of different rights movements in the last 50 years have borrowed from each other in terms of arguments and language, and a real implication that this represents some kind of inevitable social progress. The fact that different types of rights have different types of considerations and arguments is often ignored, many people don't seem to realise it.

I think that people who have been part of these movements have often been all too happy to take advantage of that. It wasn't trans rights that coined the idea that people need to be "on the right side of history." It was never a valid thing to say, and maybe there is an element of reaping what we've sowed. Accepting poor arguments without complaint so long as people thought they were convincing, and they brought people to causes we support, that was always a bad idea and maybe that kind of disregard for truth always will work against us eventually.

I've also noticed, in a rather heated discussion I've been having with a very woke friend, that it hasn't just been social organisations pushing these things. She also considers herself totally dedicated to science, evidence based ideas, and empiricism. She's not a scientist though, and so she relies on more popular publications. I had originally thought the science would be a good way to give her a different perspective, but in fact it hasn't been. It's not even just science articles in The Guardian that are supporting this stuff, it's Scientific American, National Geographic, the kind of publication people like her, who think they are science minded but really don't know anything, trust.

The kinds of sources that should be making things more clear to regular people really aren't.

I just hate this. All these religious groups very sternly assert ‘God is right!’. Along comes the trans movement... ‘God gets it wrong sometimes’

The preparation material for Yearly Meeting (an annual gathering of Quakers) has four links to organisations or writings that are uncritically pro trans identities. The more critical discussion document is listed but the message seems to be that Quakers should accept the "transwomen are women" mantra.

To illustrate what Gender critical / concerned Quakers are up against, and to inform any quakers reading this who are not in the loop.

Heather Brunskell-Evans is a Quaker.

She is, of course, the co-author of a very good book on Transgender children.

Brunskell-Evans, H and Moore, M. (2018) Transgender Children: Born in Your Own Body. Cambridge Scholars Publishers

The Quaker bookshop (at Friends House in London) has a policy of displaying the work of Quaker authors, and holds events to promote the books

Immediately prior to Heather’s request for an event to promote this book the Bookshop had hosted Christine Burns (transwoman, non-Quaker) re Her book ‘Trans Britain’. The event was also videoed by Friends House staff and Burns shares this video widely on social media, promoting Quakers as very trans friendly

After numerous attempts (emails, letters, discussion, more letters ) the Bookshop will not host an event, put the book on display, or even have copies on the shelves. The most it has done is order a copy as any bookshop would which it keeps under the desk till collection

In contrast these are the books not only on the shelves but on prominent display in the Bookshop.

Please talk about these issues in your meeting, among other quakers. The conversation has to happen, we are not a top down organisation.

I think @FloralBunting is right about regulatory capture. I think the "trusted authority" has been Stonewall. Their complicity in pushing the TRA agenda without due diligence around safeguarding (or considering the unintended consequences of such a massive change in the definition of 'woman') is at the heart of this.

Voices critical of them, such as Simon Fanshawe, need to be amplified.

Quakers are constantly running an internal version of the Mitchell and Webb "are we the baddies?" sketch. We have our own set of memes that do the rounds called "Advices and Queries", things to think about, one of is "consider that you might be mistaken". When I think about this one in the light of this issue I just consider who are my allies and who am I arguing against. Who is threatening violence, using violence, and who is advocating careful considered dialogue? Who is examining the unintended consequences of the proposed changes and who refuses to acknowledge they might happen?

The worrying thing is that employees of the Society, some of whom are not Quakers, have uncritically embraced the TRA position and there is a top down pushing out of the position that many of us are resisting. A very similar position to Guides as @AgnesBadenPowell has noted. I think this is because of the need to ensure compliance with employment law and the equalities act. Organisations, understandably, outsource the training around this to trusted external organisations - and, as we know, those such as Stonewall and Mermaids, most commonly used, push a simplistic and therefore incorrect version of the law, ignoring the existence of the single sex exemptions which are crucial to women's safety and the safeguarding of children.

I think the Quakers are in much the same position as Guides and many other orgs. For many individuals, the gender debate is new and largely unknown. Of course people want to do the right thing.

This is what I do not understand - what is it that started The Guides down this path at all. They have always been very considered and thoughtful when I was involved and stood firm with good arguments when they were under pressure to become mixed sex when Scouts did. It does not seem a natural progression for them to take (nor NSPCC nor Quakers)

I think the Quakers are in much the same position as Guides and many other orgs. For many individuals, the gender debate is new and largely unknown. Of course people want to do the right thing.

This is the effect of the regulatory capture thing, isn't it? Once you have a select few trusted authorities, people fall like dominoes, not because they're evil, or stupid, but simply because the trusted voices tell them the lie is the right thing and they want to do the right thing. That's why this is powerful, why people are afraid and why it continues to have traction.

I think the Quakers are in much the same position as Guides and many other orgs. For many individuals, the gender debate is new and largely unknown. Of course people want to do the right thing.

As happened guides, while thoughtful, compassionate people try to balance the sometimes competing needs of different groups, lobbyists can influence senior leadership and foster a top down, heavy handed atmosphere that pretty much imposes gender identity as empirical fact (and ignores many members who have concerns).

I've no time for sneering at people of faith. I don't believe and no one can make me but the reverse is also true. As a previous poster said, liberation from sex based oppression is for every woman, including the ones we disagree with.

Thanks for your kind words everyone.

To be clear - and perhaps I should amend the article to state this - I have no bone to pick with the Quakers. I'm an atheist but a very dear teacher at my school was a Quaker and I learned a little about Quakerism from her. Strangely, I'd often thought that if I was to explore Christianity, I would start with a Friends' meeting. I'm also mindful that friends meeting houses have hosted women's meetings when other venues wouldn't, and that most organisations are also grappling with the issue of sex and gender.

What I am cross about is that a print and online journal misrepresented my position. I'd expect it from the Guardian or Buzzfeed but not from the Quakers.

It's so easy to paint women like me as an unloving bigot but it's also lazy. There is so much complexity and nuance. I'm no longer letting statements like those in the Friend article go unchallenged, especially when there's much debate within the Quakers about this subject.

Perhaps writing like this will have more impact than tweeting and speaking to largely the same group of women. I might do another one!

Its so sad that the moment the word ‘bigot’ is used I can’t bothered to read any more

I used to belong to an online interest group with a guy who would not use the word racist, or the word gender, and a few others because he thought words like that simply shut down people's thinking on any topic. This was probably seven to ten years ago, and I thought he was a real nutter. I mean, I saw his point but I though he took it too far, they were useful words at times. I'm coming more and more to his perspective though.

Its so sad that the moment the word ‘bigot’ is used I can’t bothered to read any more. Its a real shame as I do have a lot of respect for Quakerism.

This is the message that brought me in to Quakers years ago.

Sadly it feels as if this has been forgotten.

Thanks @theOtherPamAyres

This is a link to a discussion document issued by Quaker Life Central Committee for consideration by Friends in the UK.

I think it better represents the position of most Quakers than the article in The Friend. It gives a real flavour of how Quakers try to proceed I think.

quaker-prod.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/store/0b13f483a23ed380b4c963c9561b0fa281d1a9de63b4271f1061625a8ac2

Helen Watts.
This is a brilliant article and so clearly expressed. It is extremely important to engage with religious groups as much as any other social group on this issue, in order to bust the myths that TRAs are putting about what women and parents are actually saying (eg about this assault on women’s and children’s rights). We need to alert as many people as possible to the obvious harms and risks that TRAs are expecting children and women to take on. That institutions are nodding through without any further critical thought. Quakers have a proud history of questioning the status quo so this is a really important discussion to have.

they are young - so true.