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

[stumbledin]

WPUK posted a link to this article. Not sure everyone (anyone?) will find it interesting or that it solves the issue for people with room space to hire and are worried (intimidated) if gender critical feminists want to meet.

Quite a long read.

www.norwichquakers.org.uk/post/norwich-meeting-s-experience-of-conflict-around-transgender-issues-january-2019-january-2020

I have a lot of time for Quakers and admire them greatly for this.

Thank you, that was worth the time to read.

I found it a worthwhile read

calmly saying #yesdebate to the #nodebate crowd

Admirable. Interested, calm and fair.

Interesting read.

I think the conclusion is pretty spot on:

Transphobia is a real threat and injustice to trans people, but predatory and controlling men are a real threat to the safety of women. Both groups deserve justice and society’s protection. It is not acceptable for members of one vulnerable group and a section of their supporters to attack the other, portray them as hateful, or attempt to silence the expression of their concerns.
Nobody benefits from the perpetuation of conflict. There is much more work to be done to take the hostility out of this sensitive and contentious area, to enable common ground to be explored, and to promote understanding of all perspectives.

Excellent - thanks to the Quakers for their care and time and effort with this.

Thanks for the link, this is a good read.
I may be having a mindblip but I can't quite get a handle on this sentence - is something missing?
"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."

Yes I think that conclusion says just about all that needs to be said.

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

That was a fascinating read - I think the Quakers approach has a lot going for it. I admire them for managing to be so utterly reasonable!

Agree it’s v laboured syntax, @popehilarious, but technically I think it makes grammatical sense

This is a great piece. What fantastic, patient, intelligent people the Norwich Quakers are!

Yet again, though, the radical trans rights activists showed themselves to be reactionary, hateful, intolerant idiots. (See paragraph 20 ff.).

popehilarious it's a convoluted way of saying that the TRAs refused to sit and discuss the issues with GC women and were very hostile in their refusal.

I.e. the usual no debate burn the witches bullshit.

Very interesting. It's like the TRAs followed that "how to get your event approved" flowchart to the letter! And the persistent theme of them having a seriously distorted and paranoid interpretation of every attempt to communicate. There are some very disturbed people in that movement. Hats off to the Quakers for their patience and attempts to understand.

That sounds nice, but I can’t understand what compromise means in this context.

Women are women.
Men aren’t women, and never can be.
Biological sex is real.
We need to be honest about reality.

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. If two people disagree about whether or not to build a bridge over a river, it’s not possible to compromise by building a bridge half way. And compromising with misogyny means we allow it at least some of the time. That’s really not desirable.

Some beliefs are so vital that we can’t, and shouldn’t, compromise them. Suggesting we can is dangerous.

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!

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.

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'.

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.

Indeed Empress.

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

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....)

Excellent.

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

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