Quakers and Girl Guiding

[ElinorRigby]

Excellent article here by Helen Watts.

Inspired by the Guides? A response to The Friend. by Helen Watts link.medium.com/e3A7fpXTtW.

The Friend is a Quaker magazine and Quakers generally have gone very woke re Trans Women are Women etc...

If anyone reading this is a Quaker with children in the Guides, feel free to DM me, as I'd be happy to hear from you.

This is very good by Helen. Sums it all up

No such thing as a trans kid. Yes exactly

Not sure how far she'll get given that Quakers already believe in something that has no basis in science ...

I think it's very easy for secular people to just decide religion is bonkers so anyone who is part of a religious group deserves what they get. But I'd argue that feminism is about supporting women and girls in a variety of endeavours - not just the ones we personally approve of.

In fact Quakers while holding spiritual beliefs have also been very prominent in scientific endeavour. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quakers_in_science

And as they have never had (male) priesthood they have traditionally been at the forefront when it comes to female equality...

They've also had a good track record when it comes to gay rights. So very sad to see them (currently) making the wrong call on this one...

That is an impressive article by Helen. Wish I could write like that!

That is an impressive article by Helen. Wish I could write like that!

Seconded.

Wonderful article, well done Helen 😊

That's excellent.
I did find the love comments rather creepy

It's an excellent article.

Lots of Quakers belong to the Green Party, including Molly Scott Cato an MEP for the south west.

Lots of things have no basis in science. Mathematics. Metaphysics. Logic.

Even the philosophy of science isn't based in science - that would be a circular argument.

Quakers have a fine tradition of rational thought, but in the 20th century they have been overtaken, like many other groups, with some Bad Ideas that make clear thinking very difficult.

I would like to point out that Quakers are discerning the truth of gender identity within their meetings and that not all (many?) are in agreement as this letter published in the friend explains

thefriend.org/article/letters-22-march-2019

I have been a Quaker for over 30yrs, like many other quakers I am also a scientist. Like many other Quakers I am also gender critical.

Quakers, in my view, are suffering from the same influx of woke ideas as every other organisation. "Training" bought in from Stonewall and Mermaids leading to policies coming from the top down. Totally at odds with our traditions of discernment at a local level.

Most quakers are people who want to be kind and so there is no heated debate - but I assure you lots of us are very angry.

As for the Young Friends statement. They are young.

@Diane

Loved your letter about self i/d. It goes right to the heart of the choice for Quakers:

Asking us to believe a person must be whoever they say they are is a demand to abandon truth and discernment

(whispers) Love you on Twitter too. You rock!

they are young - so true.

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.

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

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

Sadly it feels as if this has been forgotten.

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.

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.

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!

Friendly wave at Agnes.

I also think I may have over-simplified the position(s) of Quakers in my original group. Churches and religious groups are always complicated organisations and when society generally is divided about an issue it is likely that members of a religious society will be as well.

A lot of Quakers - like people generally - are only starting to be aware of the debate. They're anxious to do/think 'the right thing' without really being aware of what the right things is. I don't think Quakers do tell each other what to think - there is a slow process of trying to determine collectively what the Society thinks on this issue. And that process is only starting to unfold. In the meantime some groups - younger Quakers, Quakers in particular special interest groups etc are putting forward their views. Not enough space is currently being offered to those of us who are gender critical, but determined Quakers are not easily silenced!

.. In my original post I should have said. Also 'thing' rather than 'things' at the end of the second sentence.

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.

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.

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)