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

[thatonesnottaken]

Hi, yes the sentence is a bit clunky. If you go straight from "those people" to "would not agree..." it might help. There's too much stuff between "people" and "would". The writer has spent a huge amount of time trying to produce a neutral statement & I feel she has done very well.

[ChattyLion]

Thanks everyone for the discussion on the thread, very interesting and thought provoking.

[R0wantrees]

she told me about her views and showed me pictures of that beardy person in a skirt who advises Stomewall, etc. I’d literally had no idea and even then didn’t get why it was a big deal to start with. It’s only by reading more about it since then, on Twitter and on this fantastic forum here, that I’ve found out more and totally come on side. The issues do need explaining to people - even intelligent and fair-minded people - before they will necessarily get it.

Alex Drummond?
Alex is part of Stonewall's trans advisory board & speaks in schools, presumably about how Alex thinks Alex is 'widening the bandwidth of what it is to be a woman" & a lesbian?

Magdelen Berns discusses Drummond & Stonewall:
'What Kind Of Fools Do Transgender UK and Stonewall Take Us For?'

[GCGayDad]

@janeskettle
“Again, I think this points to great shallowness of solidarity in the first place. Because anyone who supports - truly supports and truly understands the need for - women's rights, or the rights of lesbians and gay men - would have been alert to the conflict much earlier.”
—
From my own recent experience, I don’t think this is necessarily true, unfortunately. I remember a conversation with a GC friend of mine about a year ago, when she told me about her views and showed me pictures of that beardy person in a skirt who advises Stomewall, etc. I’d literally had no idea and even then didn’t get why it was a big deal to start with. It’s only by reading more about it since then, on Twitter and on this fantastic forum here, that I’ve found out more and totally come on side. The issues do need explaining to people - even intelligent and fair-minded people - before they will necessarily get it.

[Al1Langdownthecleghole]

Standing by women is always conditional on making sure no men are bothered by it, and if they are, solving the men's problem first.

Ain’t it just.

[FloralBunting]

Goosefoot, as a determined gender abolitionist feminist, I wanted to address your argument, as you're straw manning a bit. I acknowledge that gender is a thing intertwined culturally everywhere, and that it's not going to disappear. But that's not the goal I seek anyway, and your argument only really holds weight if feminists were attempting to eradicate all expressions that are tied to gendered ideas and make everyone dress the same and have the same haircut, like some sort of North Korea style dystopia.

All I am seeking to do by abolishing the tyranny of gender is sever the tie between our sex and the cultural expectations that have accrued to it that have lead to unnecessary restrictions on people, or conversely lead to people being compelled to do things.

Essentially, I want everyone to be free to express themselves as they wish without censure when it comes to gender, and to encourage everyone to be mindful and reflective about why they make the choices they do, so that they don't feel the need to maintain any rigid enforcement of an arbitrary system of gender expectations. I accept that most people will still follow the gendered norms of their culture by and large. I just don't want people to face negative consequences for doing so, or not doing so, and I reject the idea that these cultural norms are innate and therefore authoritative.

All of which should be entirely separate to legal provisions connected to physical sex.

This is a really interesting thread, and I'd honestly like to thank all contributors, you've all made me think. janeskettle, I totally get where you're coming from.

Having said that, as bolshy as I can be, I still find myself reading the output of the TRAs looking for some glimmer of sense so that I can finally understand why they take the stand they do, primarily because I am a sap who finds it hard to acknowledge that sometimes, people are just shits and they don't need a rational reason.

[Kuponut]

I spent a few years working at one of the Quaker schools (was my first real dealing with the religion) and it's probably the only religion I have respect for - I don't think they do everything right, but I think they try a hell of a lot more than many other religions to do so.

It made me kind of giggle as (granted I don't know the ins and outs of internal disputes within the Friends - I've been to the odd Meeting and like I say worked at one of their schools) it was such a Quaker-esque way of not taking shit from the lobbying. Not folding to demands but sitting both sides down to try to figure out what the hell was going on!

[janeskettle]

Sorry you are dealing with that from central staff dianebrewster

Knowing that Norwich was dealing with deliberate misinformation softens my frustration.

[dianebrewster]

Yes we do have a network of GC quakers - but I'm with those saying it shouldn't be that difficult to support the rights of women, I personally feel totally betrayed by the central staff at Friends house, I think they have behaved abominably badly over this issue, in a profoundly unQuakerly fashion. They have manipulated the information and the discourse in a way that totally contradicts all of the quaker testimonies to truth and plain speaking.

They should be thoroughly ashamed of themselves.

If they'd done their job then Norwich quakers (who produced this document) would have had a very different starting point, as it is, they were having to start from scratch. I applaud them for taking on the work involved in trying to unravel what was going on, remember they are fighting the disinformation coming out of Friends house that this is all unicorns, mermaids and sparkles!

[janeskettle]

we may reach a tipping point soon

Do you really think so? It seems like for years women have been saying 'the tide is finally turning!' only it doesn't.

I feel deeply pessimistic. If even 'good people' like the Quakers are not even really at the starting blocks...where is everyone else? Nowhere near the finish line, I'll bet.

[Al1Langdownthecleghole]

But watching people become aware of the issue in real time is very frustrating. Partly because they are still manipulated by false statements but also, as others have said, that a feminist or even pro woman viewpoint never seems to be staring them in the face.

Agreed Datun. Those false statements are an adjunct to pronoun rohypnol, especially with frequent administration.

[ScrimpshawTheSecond]

I know. Hold tight, change is coming. Glacial speed, yes, but we may reach a tipping point soon.

[janeskettle]

Give em time...

How much time do people need to stand by women?

It makes me sad.

Standing by women is always conditional on making sure no men are bothered by it, and if they are, solving the men's problem first.

The longer TRA's are given social support and cover under the guise of 'most oppressed, feel sorry, dainty, be kind' the longer they have to continue to tell lies and untruths to our young people, also.

[ScrimpshawTheSecond]

Give em time...

[janeskettle]

Traditionally they would have been supportive of both women’s rights and lesbian and gay rights

Again, I think this points to great shallowness of solidarity in the first place. Because anyone who supports - truly supports and truly understands the need for - women's rights, or the rights of lesbians and gay men - would have been alert to the conflict much earlier.

I think the poor Quakers have copped a pasting from me, and I acknowledge it's not deserved - others do worse - I think the document is an insight into how many think, and is rife with false assumptions, which are nonetheless common.

The Quakers only fault is that they allowed me to see the false assumptions, the shallow allyship to women etc.

I won't lie - it's shocking. I think because I think well of Quakers, and assumed they would be much further on than 'some women are worried about natal men'.

[janeskettle]

The trouble with trying to find middle ground by talking is that it's kind of already occupied by the GC camp

This is so true. We already accept gender non-conformity. We're not the ones out there gay-bashing men who fail to perform masculinity.

We accept that people should not be discriminated against at work or in housing on the basis of being gender non-conforming (and this protects butch women as well as men who prefer to adopt feminine presentations).

We support the existence of third spaces for transpeople's comfort.

We don't mind if transpeople wish to sometimes gather in groups exclusive of all others.

This already IS the common ground...but it's utterly rejected because of an insane mantra, that TWAW. The desire of men to be validated as women at all times is what destroys common ground.

[Manderleyagain]

Diane, Is there any kind of network of gc Quakers trying to get people within Quakers to understand this? Meeting houses have been quite an important venue for gc meetings (not just wpuk) across the country, so there must be quite a few meetings who have come across the debate (and the # nodebate stance) that way.

[dianebrewster]

I've been a Quaker for 30yrs, so was pleased to see that this meeting had addressed the issues - but it should be noted that

A) this is one meeting who have done a thoughtful and informed exercise, its not a national document and
B) the central administrative staff have drunk the kool aid (and started brewing their own). There has been major institutional capture, the TRA narrative is the only one pushed out. Their treatment of GC quakers has been brutal and frankly toxic - I've been ashamed to have any association with the central admin at Friends House.

This document does give me hope that there will be push back as meetings realise they've been led down a dangerous path of "acceptance without exception" - but it's going to get messy.

[ThePurported]

We understood that transphobia is a real, constant and appalling threat to transgender people; but we also realised that there are genuine causes for concern among some natal women about the proposed change to the GRA.

I appreciate what the Quakers are trying to do, but that^ is not a balanced view of the situation. Trans people are under constant and appalling threat! vs Some women have concerns
If they want to frame it in these terms, they should acknowledge the fact that women's (and that's all 'natal' women) existing rights are under threat.

[R0wantrees]

How would reflective practise be applied in this instance? Would it be prior to the listening, or afterwards?

The starting point for Reflective Practise is to develop an awareness of why its so important.
Its a skill that anyone can choose to develop.

My understanding of Quakerism is that the reflection is as important as the listening.
Being alert to the need to recognise possible indicators of abuse/control is a matter of Safeguarding awareness & training

[AnyOldSpartabix]

I come from a Quaker family and it was obvious to me as soon as I realised there was a conflict, that Quakers would struggle with it. Traditionally they would have been supportive of both women’s rights and lesbian and gay rights. Trans rights would appear very much to be the next logical step. Quakerism certainly seems to attract more than its fair share of socially unusual people and obviously some trans supporters have already joined.

It’s unlikely that the Quakers will pick a side, and women’s groups don’t need them to. Women’s groups are not asking for Quaker mediation. All we need are spaces we can meet and it seems likely that this document might become relevant in the future when asking to use other Meeting Houses.

Of course, it would be lovely if more Quakers added their heft to the pulling. But we don’t need it. And without such discussion, I suspect the assumption that Trans Rights was simply the next logical rights barrier to be broken down would be the default as the conflict with women’s rights has been so successfully silenced.. Listening is better than most women’s groups have achieved and if that’s what’s currently on offer, it’s enough for now.

[thirdfiddle]

Nice try Quakers, but unless you define terms, it's meaningless. You write "transphobia" but do you mean for example acknowledging the existence of sex type "transphobia" or jeering at trans people in the street type, actual, transphobia? You can guarantee TRAs will read it the first way. Is that what the Quakers meant though? Or are they literally just reflecting back the undefined pronouncements they heard?

The trouble with trying to find middle ground by talking is that it's kind of already occupied by the GC camp. People are being painted as bigots for literally just saying "these are the issues, we need to talk". By drawing the fences so tight around no debate, GC camp now occupies basically all the territory, TRA camp a tiny little field on a rocky hill somewhere. Where they still keep shoving each other out the gates for wrong speak.
So no, compromise by sitting on their fence on their hill isn't any solution. Telling them to stop being so silly, come down to the campfire and talk, maybe.

[ChattyLion]

Not RTFT but that was a great article and I really respect the Quakers for their careful thought. I also appreciate their thoughts on a way forward which involves more talking as less ‘suck it up, women’.
The more I talk to people who aren’t previously familiar with these issues, the more they are absolutely shocked that people try to stop others from talking about it. Talking about problems, as everyone knows, is the first step to sorting them out.

[OldCrone]

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.

By patterns I assume you mean things like women not being allowed to participate in politics, or not being allowed to work outside the home or being seen as the property of their fathers and husbands? These have come about because of biology (women are physically weaker and able to bear children), but are not an inevitable result of that biology - women's biology doesn't prevent them from working or mean that they don't have the intellectual capacity to participate in public life. So women being seen as 'lesser' within a culture is gender, not sex. But you're right, this isn't arbitrary.

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.

I haven't suggested that we should "create a society where people have no sense of our sex differences that is expressed culturally". In fact I'm not even sure I understand what you mean by this.

What I am advocating for is less rigid boundaries around what is acceptable presentation - mainly for men, because women can wear what a couple of generations ago would have been seen as "men's clothes", but it is still largely unacceptable for a man to wear dresses, heels and makeup. We'd still know what sex everyone was though, because as has been noted on here time and again, it is impossible for most people to 'pass' as the opposite sex, even with the help of hormones and surgery.

It's not just plumbing which is different, it's our whole bodies, which is why we need sex segregation in some circumstances.

[TeiTetua]

Why on earth, having considered that WPUK did not cross any Quaker virtues, was engagement with anti-women misogynists invited in response?

Because this is what the Quakers do. Presented with a public controversy, they invited both sides to present themselves, and they listened. I can imagine that under some circumstances, they would tell one group that its side of the issue was so obviously evil that they couldn't get involved, such as slave-owners. But it's part of Quaker theology that there is "that of God" inside everyone, and when a person speaks sincerely, they express their own version of the divine. To tell someone that Quakers didn't want to hear them would be pretty much an intellectual and moral failure to Quakers. (Although the Norwich meeting might be at a quandary if you asked them about other meetings that had rejected the WPUK presence. Perhaps they'd say, "Well, those other meetings have their own viewpoints, and we can't presume to speak for them.")