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

“ Despite all the hostility, there is an area of clear general agreement between those in conflict, namely that the socially constructed boundaries around notions of male and female are far too rigid and prescriptive/proscriptive. These tight boundaries make it impossible for many individuals to fully express themselves; there is a need to loosen societal gender boundaries”

Except that transgender ideology relies completely on extremely rigid gender roles, or therr would be nothing to transition to/from.

Yes, fascinated. Common ground. That's a refreshing thought.

I thought the comments in the Quakers' report about how so many trans people felt hugely restricted by gender roles and rigid sex stereotypes was really interesting.

'Transitioning from male to female can provide the framework in which an individual can express who they are, eg, soft, gentle, peaceful; not weak, sick, perverted, illusory.'

Of course, most feminists and I think most people on this board would argue that anyone can and should be able to express themselves as they wish, whatever their sex.

Dr James Barrett is a Quaker
Article from ;The Friend'
‘It is soul-crushing and miserable for anyone to live pretending to be something they are not.’
11 Apr 2019

(extract)
"James Barrett runs Britain’s largest and oldest gender identity clinic. In the first of a Friend series on gender identity issues, he gives his reflections on thirty years of work. (continues)

Gender’, in fact, firms up a bit on closer examination and a bit of linguistic dissection. There is, for example, ‘gender’ used to describe the way anyone has a sense of themselves. Most people feel male or feel female (a few people feel neither or a bit of both). For most people that sense of themselves fits their body and the label that came on their birth certificate. For a few people, it does not. How anyone feels can’t be argued with; it’s their reality.

Then there is a social gender role. This is the way we are perceived by society and as a consequence are expected to behave, to dress, to work (this to a pleasingly diminishing extent) and even, perhaps, to think. It predicts how others expect us to behave, too. Others might expect us to be collaborative, communicative and nurturing if we are perceived as female, competitive, overbearing and maybe even violent if we are perceived as male.

It is soul-crushing and miserable for anyone to live their lives pretending to be something they are not, no matter how good the pretence they put up. As a society we don’t ask people to conceal their religious or political views; as Quakers we always took the opposite stance. Even if ethnicity could be concealed, as a society we wouldn’t suggest it and as Quakers we would be at the forefront of opposition to such a thing. History eloquently records the blighted lives of gay and lesbian people who tried to live as if they were straight, which is why it’s not required any more, and as Quakers we led the way in ending that requirement. It is equally soul-crushing to live in an inauthentic social gender role. Just as life-enhancing to, at last, be able to be one’s true self.

I think that when we are in Meeting for Worship or otherwise get closer to God, the spirit, the light or however we choose to describe it, we do so with our minds, or possibly our souls, but decidedly don’t do so with our bodies. It is not our spleens, lungs, gastrointestinal or reproductive tracts that matter. We are Quakers, we are deeply rooted in equality, so I don’t think it matters what gender we are, in either a personal identity sense or a social role sense." (continues)
thefriend.org/article/it-is-soul-crushing-and-miserable-for-anyone-to-live-pretending-to-be-somet

Ooh the chocolates

Interesting read - very well written.

My three favourite Quakers are John Cadbury, Joseph Rowntree and Elizabeth Fry :)

Cross posted with ahagwearsapointybonnet

"It quickly became clear, however, that those people who consider any discussion of the nature of female identity or of possible threats to women by natal men who say they are female, and make their objections in hostile or threatening ways, would not agree to meet with individuals with different perspectives."

I agree something seems to be missing from this sentence; maybe something like this:

"It quickly became clear; however, that those people who consider any discussion of the nature of female identity or of possible threats to women by natal men who say they are female to be transphobic, and make their objections in hostile or threatening ways, would not agree to meet with individuals with different perspectives."

It's a brilliant piece. I a) don't believe in God b) am an Anglican chorister, but, yes, I've got lots of respect for the Quakers.
@ahagwearsapointybonnet, @popehilarious - yes i think you are right.

Those are the facts: how can we compromise in relation to them? By believing them only half of the time? Compromise is trotted out nowadays as though it’s always (a) possible and (b) a good thing. But that’s not right.

I think what they mean is find solutions that mean people's needs are met, identify commonalities, that sort of thing. Political compromise, not splitting the difference, so finding a place from which you can find social and legal solutions, without asking for ideological capitulation.

Surely this is the only way to ever make progress? If the boxes weren’t there, there would be no need for anyone to transition. They could just be themselves as their natal sex.

Personally, I doubt that is possible. The boxes will exist to some extent always because they reflect that we experience life in a sexed body. Even if people fully recognise that the boxes aren't actually discrete, they will probably exist. being a woman will always have an association with motherhood, for example, and motherhood will have a wealth of personal, social and even artistic associations.

Or if we think about the idea of having mens and women's social groups outside of situations where it is necessary for some reason like safety, that will inevitably create a box of sorts, even if men have an equivalent group. Because it builds up a different set of social experiences and relationships.

I think the thing is to see that these boxes, or I would call them cultural patterns, can be enriching but they don't have to be terribly limiting (though in the end there probably will always be some limits.)

popehilarious I agree that sentence doesn't quite work, it reads to me as though a few words were missed out by accident and it was maybe meant to say something like this:

"It quickly became clear, however, that those people who consider any discussion of the nature of female identity or of possible threats to women by natal men who say they are female to be unacceptable/an attack on them, and [who] make their objections [to these discussions] in hostile or threatening ways, would not agree to meet with individuals with different perspectives."

In other words, it's talking about the TRAs - who are the people who don't want the nature of womanhood or the risks of self-ID to be discussed, and who object aggressively to this - and saying they obviously wouldn't agree to debate with women who disagree with them.

That was very interesting; lots of GC facts & TRA emotional manipulation

The thing that struck me most was it was EIGHT emails that got this response - it got me wondering just how few emails other venues have had to deal with before they told women to go elsewhere

I'm a Quaker ! We are really nice.. (and pretty sensible mostly)

although we don't really subscribe to heaven, angels and all that guff 😇...

This stuck out at me:

Transgender people should not have to face the humiliation of pleading for rights already promised to them.

Like how women are currently having to do?

Thank you for sharing that. Fascinating and seems to have been written by some fundamentally decent people.

I have some issues with the Quaker model of reaching consensus.

In theory, it should be a wonderful way to resolve conflict.
In practice, those who steamroller others (in this debate, think men, and TRA's) get to 'shape' consensus. Systemic discrimination doesn't politely sit outside the meeting room.

But hey, if it enabled them to decide that renting a room to witches was justifiable (I mean, how hard does one have to think to agree that women meeting to discuss women's rights is acceptable), then good.

In the late 70s/early 80s the Quaker meeting house was Just about the only people who would allow the Communist Party of GB to hire a meeting room. Where I live, the far right were very active and threatened any organisation that allowed CPGB to rent a room. So this does not surprise me. Good for them

I really admire them for facing this conflict so calmly and unflinchingly.

That is a beautiful read. I have always been intrigued by the Quakers and reading that careful writing has only increased my interest.

Excellent.

We need men to #bekind

We need men to accept non-masculine men as their own

(Of course, that still leaves the AGP types, and those who have true body dysphoria....)

Indeed Empress.

The earth is flat, the earth is round; compromise?

This is a very refreshing way to approach this issue, I really like this.

I have often wondered about the potential to ever resolve this whole issue — if it will ever be possible to do so. I think this is the nub of it:

“ Despite all the hostility, there is an area of clear general agreement between those in conflict, namely that the socially constructed boundaries around notions of male and female are far too rigid and prescriptive/proscriptive. These tight boundaries make it impossible for many individuals to fully express themselves; there is a need to loosen societal gender boundaries”

Surely this is the only way to ever make progress? If the boxes weren’t there, there would be no need for anyone to transition. They could just be themselves as their natal sex.

A very good read. And of course, hard as this is, we do have to look for solutions and compromises - somehow

Equal civil rights...and 'third spaces'.

I think that the only thing I would want to say to the Quakers (and to MNHQ) is that truthfulness is paramount. We need speak the truth.

It’s nice to be kind but this whole thing has made
me realise that I care more about truth.

I thought that sentence might relate to the GC women, as people who ' consider any discussion of the nature of female identity or of possible threats to women' . We consider such discussion a lot!