Quaker's response to finding that leasing a room to WPUK wasn't a straightforward booking!

Does it mean WPUK can book Quaker meeting halls in future and attempts to silence them will be resisted?

Dogs most certainly have culture. They are a pack animal recognising heirarchy and common interest. They are also highly perceptive in reading humans. They know that when we bear our teeth in a smile, this is not a threat, as it would be in their culture.

Definitely worth a read, thanks for posting OP. Agree it's a very measured and balanced report** although like some of you I'm not comfortable with that the plea for compromise, bollocks to that. I was pleased however that they refused to be bullied and faced this head on, and were persistent even when stroppy teenagers were at first unwilling to engage.

I snorted at this bit - and a man who had transitioned to female and back to male twice, and is now married to a woman.

I swear that if I read "denying trans existence " again I will F'ing scream. It's got to be the most ridiculous statement of all time.

I agree though that it is a pipe dream to think we can ever get rid of gender stereotypes, not least because so many people seem to actively enjoy performing them. Which leads me to think that all we can do is try to stop seeing the traditionally female role as “lesser”....

I take on board what Goosefoot is saying. But the only time I have ever felt I needed or benefitted from a female only setting was in relation to my biology - pregnancy/motherhood/recovering from the effects of a sexually motivated (luckily only attempted as I fought him off and ran away) assault. NEVER at any other time. That’s why I feel so strongly that gender is such a harmful notion. Only biological sex separates me from men. Literally nothing else does.

How would reflective practise be applied in this instance? Would it be prior to the listening, or afterwards? And who would - for want of a better word - referee or oversee the reflective bit?

There is no compromise to be had.
Women can’t accede half their rights??!!

Anyway, what's also important is that we recognise the material effects and impacts of ideologies. And ideological constructions of gender roles (as well as gender ideology extremism) have real effects - as an historian, this is very clear to me everywhere I look for evidence.

I agree with this totally. The mistake I think is to believe that we can remove gender constructs and be left with something pure and somehow that will be compatible with all the 21st century ideas about men and women's equality. As if that isn't also a gender construct. It creates a blindness about our own assumptions and the values we are embedding.

I was talking about gender, so I don't know what dogs have got to do with this, since they only have a sex. My whole point is that 'gender' is the socially and culturally constructed stereotypes around sex. Unpicking where 'sex' ends and 'gender' begins is important if we are going to be talking about the same thing. But 'culture' is not one thing - it varies from place to place and over time, which means 'gender' varies, but sex does not.

The point is that dogs only have sex because they do not have culture. And culture will always include elements attached to sex.

The idea that only strict sex stereotypes are meant by gender is I think reductive, that seems to be something I've only seen in discussions by feminists. In anthropology it's much wider. I'd note that the cultural differences that you note might indeed be variable over cultures, but that the idea of patters and customs that distinguish the sexes is not. And the latter is sometimes very much the point, which isn't to say that they need to be disadvantageous to one group.

I'm not entirely sure where you are really disagreeing, as I said that gender customs that are not themselves problematic or too hardened is what we might be best off to strive for, and that seems to be what you are describing too. But this sense that we can somehow create a society where people have no sense of our sex differences that is expressed culturally, that's not only naive IMO, but it's contributed to the belief of many people that aside from plumbing men and women are interchangeable, which has made them vulnerable to bizarre interpretations of gender patterns.

Its about the starting point for the person/s mediating or 'listening'.

Clearly there are many differences, however the risks inherent in the dynamic, which are considerable when one party is abusive, have clear parallels.

'Reflective practice' is/was taught as an important skill in Social Work specifically as an important antidote to confirmation biases & potential manipulation.
It is very challenging & essential.

Slight diversion ...

Historically, there have been different social understandings of sex (as opposed to gender) - in Western European medieval christianity, for example, sex was conceived of as an hierarchy rather than a binary opposition - a hierarchy of God, then angels, then men, then women (Eve was made from Adam's rib, after all ). But that doesn't mean (a la Sally Hines) that biological sex as a material fact didn't exist.

Judith Butler argues this about sex: that the way we view sex is socially constructed, but she's not saying anything that historians - and indeed biologists - don't already know. But it doesn't mean biological sex doesn't exist - you'd have to be stupid to read Butler as saying this (and I've read Butler).

Anyway, what's also important is that we recognise the material effects and impacts of ideologies. And ideological constructions of gender roles (as well as gender ideology extremism) have real effects - as an historian, this is very clear to me everywhere I look for evidence.

In fact, what's often shocking is just how oppressed and constrained gendered roles for women have been throughout history.

I think maybe some people are taking the finished statement in a way that it may not be intended.

The write up of what was heard from each group is not, as I understand it, necessarily a matter of the Quakers agreeing with either group, or agreeing with their self-assessment. It's meant to be a reflection of what they heard from the speakers, without trying to gloss it or interpret it or anything like that.

But as far as assuming a position on women's rights, IDK. Women's rights could mean a lot of things, they aren't universally agreed on even by women. And not everyone even agrees with the structural framework of rights as a way to manage society.

But more than that, stripping back one's own assumptions to listen openly when their is any conflict, I think that shows a great humility and also strength. You have to be very aware of both your own limitations which mean you can always learn something or be wrong, and your own strength so that you can be true to your convictions and truth even if you have been open in this way, and also have a deep respect for the dignity of all people, even those who are wrong. I think this is quite a fascinating process including the fact that it was written up in some detail and circulated to other groups.

If gender wasn't designed as a hierarchy, with women at the bottom, it wouldn't be such a problem. It may not even be a problem at all.

That might be true if we were dogs, but we are people and so we have a culture. Culture reflects our experience, not just as individuals, but as a class. People here talk about getting mixed up about individual experience and class experience all the time and yet mix this up.

Goosefoot I was talking about gender, so I don't know what dogs have got to do with this, since they only have a sex. My whole point is that 'gender' is the socially and culturally constructed stereotypes around sex. Unpicking where 'sex' ends and 'gender' begins is important if we are going to be talking about the same thing. But 'culture' is not one thing - it varies from place to place and over time, which means 'gender' varies, but sex does not.

In terms of definitions, I am using 'sex' to mean anything which is connected to the sexed body either directly or indirectly. Anything which has been arbitrarily assigned to one sex or the other is 'gender'. By (my) definition, 'gender' doesn't include those things which can only be done by one sex or the other by virtue of what sort of body they have, or those things which are necessary for one sex or the other.

But I would point out first that you are not correct that gender only refers to arbitrary cultural ideas associated with sex anyway.

Is there an agreed definition of 'gender' which states this? Because the definition of gender as I am using it is that it is about arbitrary cultural ideas.

Look at something like customs and regulations around sex segregated spaces. Those are not identical to sex, they are constructed sets of customs and values we associate with sex, and they could be entirely different.

But sex segregated spaces are to do with differently sexed bodies, so in my categorisation, they are nothing to do with gender, they are there because of sex.

You could consider something arbitrary though, like clothing style or hair style.

This idea that somehow people will cease to care or notice if we get rid of these kinds of customary associations - does anyone really believe that? Or think that people would even go along with that? It would require as mush authoritarian discipline as the harshest and most prescriptive of gender norms.

Why do we have to 'get rid of' these associations? They can be less rigid, so that anyone can wear anything, without forcing anything on anyone. In the same way as only about 100 years ago it was unusual and unacceptable for a woman to wear trousers, and now they are a standard item of women's clothing. The meaning of 'gender' changes over time.

And we will associate certain things with the two sexes, like motherhood, and all its associations, probably the most primal association of womanhood even though not all women are mothers, because we all have a mother.

Pregnancy, giving birth and breastfeeding are the preserve of women because a requirement is to be of the female sex, but all the other functions involved in bringing up children can be carried out by anyone, it is only gender which suggests that child rearing is a woman's job.

This may be going a bit off topic for this thread - or maybe not, since the Quakers seem to be as confused as anyone about the difference between sex and gender.

the process described by the Quakers' report doesn't really seem like mediation? More a listening exercise.

Mediation is initially a listening exercise.

The potential for resolution comes second to this.

it's hard to watch it in real time while women and girls are being hurt, and their lives constrained, NOW. But it took every one of us in this thread a process and time to work out what we think of it all, and for many of us to completely reverse our long-held, instinctive responses.

The Quakers were approached to hold a meeting by a women's group.
They agreed to hold the meeting
They witnessed the meeting & were satisfied there were no serious issues with what happened there.

Mothers are fighting to protect their daughters from life-changing medical interventions.
There is a judicial review starting in July of the legality of the NHS Tavistock GIDS paediatric service.

Safeguarding decisions should be made based on aquiring the neccesary information speedily & accurately.
Failing to be able to do so is in itself an additional Safeguarding risk

• because the process described by the Quakers' report doesn't really seem like mediation? More a listening exercise.

I have no experience or knowledge of couples therapy, but isn't the process somewhat different - largely because with the Quakers' process all parties were interviewed at different times? So the power differential/ abusive dynamic isn't really there? It's each party stating their case, as I understand it, to the third party, not discussing/arguing/debating with each other.

In fact, “mediation of an assault” is a
conflict in terms

Exactly.

The quakers appear to have some sympathy with why men want to transition.

Yes, the Quakers, like all other religious groups are deeply patriarchal, so sympathising with men should be no real surprise.

janeskettle the dangers of 'mediation' type dynamic and/or interventions by well-meaning 'mediators' unskilled in identifying abuse/power dynamics was recognised a long time ago in Social Work:

for example,
'Dangers of Couples Counseling'
(extract)
"Frank, Phyllis B. & Golden, Gail Kadison. When 50-50 is Not Fair: “The Case Against Couple Counseling When Men Abuse Women” (2002). An earlier version was first printed in Social Work (November 1994). “…when working in relationships in which a man abuses his partner,
social workers may be tempted to encourage the woman to learn to alter her behavior so as not to provoke her partner to abuse her. The woman cannot do this (Davis & Hagen, 1992). Because her behavior is in no way responsible for her spouse’s abusiveness, any changes she makes will not be the deciding factor in his stopping the abuse. Men are abusive to their women partners because of thousands of years of patriarchal culture, institutions, and laws that have permitted,
condoned, and even encouraged these actions (Jones & Schechter, 1992). Counseling an abusive man and his partner together conceals, and therefore perpetuates, the historic and damaging entitlements. It also gives the message that one can improve a relationship without exposing and stopping a man’s abusiveness. In fact, the man must end his abusiveness and his sense of entitlement to his partner and her services before couples work can be even considered (Adams, 1988). Arresting domestic violence offenders and strong judicial monitoring are actually the most effective “therapeutic” interventions yet discovered (Sherman, 1982). Conversely, family systems therapy, which isolates the problem in the relationship, endangers battered women
(Jones & Schechter, 1992). So does mediation, which assumes that the two parties have equal standing in a dispute and the ability to negotiate fairly. In fact, “mediation of an assault” is a
conflict in terms (Jones & Schechter, 1992, pg. 239) continues

www.centerfordomesticpeace.org/sites/default/files/Dangers%20of%20Couples%20Counseling.pdf

To me, even if I knew nothing on this matter, the actions of people in trying to shut down the peaceful gathering and speech of women would tell me everything I needed to know.

I mean, would it work this way with any other historically and currently oppressed group?

Like others, I hear you @janeskettle but I'm also impressed at the care that the Norwich Quakers took. To us, they look very naive, but fair play to them for realising that there was an enquiry to be made, and listening to be done.

However I still get quite irritated angry really at the rhetoric "Transpeople are appallingly oppressed" - without an equally balancing statement of the utter oppression of women as a sex class globally: femicide, female foetuses deliberately aborted, FGM, sex pay gap ... we know the list.

There is the start of an acknowledgement of this in the Norwich Quakers' statement:
Transphobia is a real threat and injustice to trans people, but predatory and controlling men are a real threat to the safety of women.
but it also seems to me that the current oppressed position of women is massively understated here.

And they don't even get into the transactivist deliberate strategies to attempt to fundamentally undermine and change the definition of what it is to be a woman, and to be female. Without our consent. As WPUK say: "Nothing about us, without us."

Rowan

Yes. A hundred times yes.

i think its very useful and interesting that they wrote this all up. 95% of organisations attacked by TRA fold almost instantly and dont bother to look at the other side. Hopefully more organisations will take a look at themselves along these lines rather than capitulating instantly.

Someone close to me suffered workplace harassment by a late AGP transitioner, whose rages at work were explained away as 'hormonal' - this was more than a decade ago, and the workplace bent over backwards for him in a way we had never observed it doing for its female employees. Rages towards subordinants were also explained away as the junior employee having triggered the transitioner's dysphoria.
It took that person I was close to, and I, about 3.3 seconds to observe and name the abusive, misogynist dynamic and reject the demand to recognise male 'womanhood'.

Lundy Bancroft (& others) identify how damaging 'couples therapy' is when one party is abusive/controlling.
The model that couples therapists use is similar to the Quakers' 'listening without judgement' & even perhaps workplace dispute resolution?
If/when one party is angry/controlling/abusive they will use both the therapist & the therapeautic process to further control/abuse the other party.
Many women who disclose abuse by husbands in religious communities are abused again by their community who want to broker reconcilliation rather than recognise abuse & protect her & often her children.

People who are abusive/controlling are manipulative.
People naive to this fact risk being used as 'flying monkeys' to exert 'abuse by proxy' on the intended victim/s

medium.com/@OwnYourReality/flying-monkeys-the-narcissists-tool-for-the-smear-campaign-798daf7a59c0

thoughtcatalog.com/shahida-arabi/2017/11/50-shades-of-gaslighting-the-disturbing-signs-an-abuser-is-twisting-your-reality/

www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/3452784-Coercive-Control-a-need-for-better-awareness