Quaker's release statement on EHRC guidance, don't mention women once

Yes of course your female friend should use the women's. Why on earth not?

And here, friends, is the 'transman gotcha' I described at 19.03 on this very thread.

Still doesn't work, but thank you for the live demo.

This is often used as some kind of "gotcha".

Like the occasional woman who has gone trans is more of a threat to us than the mostly intact males who would be entering under the alternative rule ie gender identity.

We have to fix on one of the two and we are going to have to take the hit on the trans men in order to keep the spaces single sex.

In fact, most trans men are still easily recognisable as women. They may look masculine in photos but in real life they are often slight, with a female gait and stance due to the shape of the pelvis, small hands and feet, no Adams apple, smooth skin......

If I remember correctly, Elizabeth Fry was a Quaker. She must be turning in her grave.

Interesting that they quote “fearfully and wonderfully made” as I would’ve thought that would justify them respecting that people are made in the image of God. And the rest of that psalm goes on to talk about God knowing us intimately - every hair on our head when we were ‘knitted in our mother’s womb’. The psalm makes it very clear that God’s creation is loved and perfect in His sight.

What a travesty that a group so mindful of theological rationale has decided to pander to a pantomime version of God’s creation. And all the care in the world to prop up gender dysphoria (and those that would exploit that for harm) and none whatsoever for girls and women.

What is wrong with these people?

"A world in which gender-policing becomes the norm will harm others too"
Is gender policing not essential for the safety of us all, there's an innocence about their article which really worries me.

The quakers have been disappointing women for a long time now.

Everyone deserves dignity and privacy in their day-to-day lives. From many years of inclusive provision on our sites, we know that concerns about inclusive toilet provision are overwhelmingly overstated.
Translation:
inclusive provision = trip over ourselves to bend to men's wishes
overwhelmingly overstated concerns = shut up hysterical women

Also they can fuck off with their "cis women"

Concern about “cis” women being “confronted” by trans”men” in the ladies loos. But no concern at all re how women feel if men use the ladies.
And so much word soup. Quotation marks used by me because I refuse to adhere to their nonsense bungling of language.
I used the ladies in a pub today. I had to go upstairs and then though four doors to reach them. If a man with nefarious plans had been there I would have had no chance of help. I’d have felt very much at risk if a TIM had been there, however apparently innocent his reasons.

I debated trying the Quakers once after my faith was shaken (still is). I was horrified by their safeguarding policies. Seems nothing has changed, they still have no idea:

How do Quakers organise safeguarding?
In local and area Quaker meetings, the area meeting trustees are responsible for safeguarding. Each area meeting has its own safeguarding policy and a safeguarding co-ordinator.

https://www.quaker.org.uk/our-organisation/safeguarding

Yes. Everyone knows what sex they are and should be capable of working out which changing room, dormitory and toilet they should use. There will be some difficult moments along the way for women who are living as men. In terms of risks to everyone, particularly women, however they are presenting, this is the least risky option.

Sure, that's fine.

It might involve some explaining on occasion but that's what happens when you make a decision to make yourself appear as if you are in fact the other sex.

Well it is true that if it is decided that everyone has to use facilities according to their sex at birth then Transmen would have to use female facilities. I know a transman who looks and sounds like a man in every respect. Has been using men's facilities for 16 years without any issues. Would you all prefer him to use women's facilities?

Missing from that is -
-a statement of what the law says and why
-any discussion of what ‘inclusion’ means in this context; including who, in what, for what?

There’s a long thread about the Friends and this issue on here not that long ago and I commented on that. It’s not a surprise that this saggy, theologically illiterate, badly written and non-argued piece of crap is supposed to represent the outcome of a modern process of discernment.

Sadly this is one reason I have left my Quaker meeting (not in the UK). It's all "be kind" and don't think beyond that.

Also, like they give a shit about actual women. This is the 'transman gotcha', employed when they realise that keeping Pete the Plumber out of the Ladies, however sad it makes him, is a no-brainer for 99% of the public.

Technically, it only says that 'cis' women will encounter transmen - but what about the majority of us who are neither 'cis' nor trans.

Unsurprising, but disappointing nonetheless. I always hope for better from the Quakers, but this is narrow-minded and massively missing the point.

I expected nothing more. They've been completely captured for years.

Really? Do you/ they think this is just about toilets?

I don't expect the quakers to have a better handle on anything than anyone else, tbh.

Well that is disappointing. Note also uses 'intersex' instead of DSD, I had thought better of the Quakers but hey ho.
Edited to add: doesn't tally up with their commitment to safeguarding as far as I can see.

Wow, I agree with all of that. Nice to see if written out formally. Way to go Quakers! 🌈