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

[R0wantrees]

it's hard to watch it in real time while women and girls are being hurt, and their lives constrained, NOW. But it took every one of us in this thread a process and time to work out what we think of it all, and for many of us to completely reverse our long-held, instinctive responses.

The Quakers were approached to hold a meeting by a women's group.
They agreed to hold the meeting
They witnessed the meeting & were satisfied there were no serious issues with what happened there.

Mothers are fighting to protect their daughters from life-changing medical interventions.
There is a judicial review starting in July of the legality of the NHS Tavistock GIDS paediatric service.

Safeguarding decisions should be made based on aquiring the neccesary information speedily & accurately.
Failing to be able to do so is in itself an additional Safeguarding risk

[R0wantrees]

the process described by the Quakers' report doesn't really seem like mediation? More a listening exercise.

Mediation is initially a listening exercise.

The potential for resolution comes second to this.

[OldCrone]

That might be true if we were dogs, but we are people and so we have a culture. Culture reflects our experience, not just as individuals, but as a class. People here talk about getting mixed up about individual experience and class experience all the time and yet mix this up.

Goosefoot I was talking about gender, so I don't know what dogs have got to do with this, since they only have a sex. My whole point is that 'gender' is the socially and culturally constructed stereotypes around sex. Unpicking where 'sex' ends and 'gender' begins is important if we are going to be talking about the same thing. But 'culture' is not one thing - it varies from place to place and over time, which means 'gender' varies, but sex does not.

In terms of definitions, I am using 'sex' to mean anything which is connected to the sexed body either directly or indirectly. Anything which has been arbitrarily assigned to one sex or the other is 'gender'. By (my) definition, 'gender' doesn't include those things which can only be done by one sex or the other by virtue of what sort of body they have, or those things which are necessary for one sex or the other.

But I would point out first that you are not correct that gender only refers to arbitrary cultural ideas associated with sex anyway.

Is there an agreed definition of 'gender' which states this? Because the definition of gender as I am using it is that it is about arbitrary cultural ideas.

Look at something like customs and regulations around sex segregated spaces. Those are not identical to sex, they are constructed sets of customs and values we associate with sex, and they could be entirely different.

But sex segregated spaces are to do with differently sexed bodies, so in my categorisation, they are nothing to do with gender, they are there because of sex.

You could consider something arbitrary though, like clothing style or hair style.

This idea that somehow people will cease to care or notice if we get rid of these kinds of customary associations - does anyone really believe that? Or think that people would even go along with that? It would require as mush authoritarian discipline as the harshest and most prescriptive of gender norms.

Why do we have to 'get rid of' these associations? They can be less rigid, so that anyone can wear anything, without forcing anything on anyone. In the same way as only about 100 years ago it was unusual and unacceptable for a woman to wear trousers, and now they are a standard item of women's clothing. The meaning of 'gender' changes over time.

And we will associate certain things with the two sexes, like motherhood, and all its associations, probably the most primal association of womanhood even though not all women are mothers, because we all have a mother.

Pregnancy, giving birth and breastfeeding are the preserve of women because a requirement is to be of the female sex, but all the other functions involved in bringing up children can be carried out by anyone, it is only gender which suggests that child rearing is a woman's job.

This may be going a bit off topic for this thread - or maybe not, since the Quakers seem to be as confused as anyone about the difference between sex and gender.

[Datun]

If gender wasn't designed as a hierarchy, with women at the bottom, it wouldn't be such a problem. It may not even be a problem at all.

[Goosefoot]

I think maybe some people are taking the finished statement in a way that it may not be intended.

The write up of what was heard from each group is not, as I understand it, necessarily a matter of the Quakers agreeing with either group, or agreeing with their self-assessment. It's meant to be a reflection of what they heard from the speakers, without trying to gloss it or interpret it or anything like that.

But as far as assuming a position on women's rights, IDK. Women's rights could mean a lot of things, they aren't universally agreed on even by women. And not everyone even agrees with the structural framework of rights as a way to manage society.

But more than that, stripping back one's own assumptions to listen openly when their is any conflict, I think that shows a great humility and also strength. You have to be very aware of both your own limitations which mean you can always learn something or be wrong, and your own strength so that you can be true to your convictions and truth even if you have been open in this way, and also have a deep respect for the dignity of all people, even those who are wrong. I think this is quite a fascinating process including the fact that it was written up in some detail and circulated to other groups.

[FlockofGulls]

Slight diversion ...

Historically, there have been different social understandings of sex (as opposed to gender) - in Western European medieval christianity, for example, sex was conceived of as an hierarchy rather than a binary opposition - a hierarchy of God, then angels, then men, then women (Eve was made from Adam's rib, after all ). But that doesn't mean (a la Sally Hines) that biological sex as a material fact didn't exist.

Judith Butler argues this about sex: that the way we view sex is socially constructed, but she's not saying anything that historians - and indeed biologists - don't already know. But it doesn't mean biological sex doesn't exist - you'd have to be stupid to read Butler as saying this (and I've read Butler).

Anyway, what's also important is that we recognise the material effects and impacts of ideologies. And ideological constructions of gender roles (as well as gender ideology extremism) have real effects - as an historian, this is very clear to me everywhere I look for evidence.

In fact, what's often shocking is just how oppressed and constrained gendered roles for women have been throughout history.

[R0wantrees]

Its about the starting point for the person/s mediating or 'listening'.

Clearly there are many differences, however the risks inherent in the dynamic, which are considerable when one party is abusive, have clear parallels.

'Reflective practice' is/was taught as an important skill in Social Work specifically as an important antidote to confirmation biases & potential manipulation.
It is very challenging & essential.

[Goosefoot]

I was talking about gender, so I don't know what dogs have got to do with this, since they only have a sex. My whole point is that 'gender' is the socially and culturally constructed stereotypes around sex. Unpicking where 'sex' ends and 'gender' begins is important if we are going to be talking about the same thing. But 'culture' is not one thing - it varies from place to place and over time, which means 'gender' varies, but sex does not.

The point is that dogs only have sex because they do not have culture. And culture will always include elements attached to sex.

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. And the latter is sometimes very much the point, which isn't to say that they need to be disadvantageous to one group.

I'm not entirely sure where you are really disagreeing, as I said that gender customs that are not themselves problematic or too hardened is what we might be best off to strive for, and that seems to be what you are describing too. 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.

[Goosefoot]

Anyway, what's also important is that we recognise the material effects and impacts of ideologies. And ideological constructions of gender roles (as well as gender ideology extremism) have real effects - as an historian, this is very clear to me everywhere I look for evidence.

I agree with this totally. The mistake I think is to believe that we can remove gender constructs and be left with something pure and somehow that will be compatible with all the 21st century ideas about men and women's equality. As if that isn't also a gender construct. It creates a blindness about our own assumptions and the values we are embedding.

[TheWordWomanIsTaken]

There is no compromise to be had.
Women can’t accede half their rights??!!

[ScrimpshawTheSecond]

How would reflective practise be applied in this instance? Would it be prior to the listening, or afterwards? And who would - for want of a better word - referee or oversee the reflective bit?

[fascinated]

I take on board what Goosefoot is saying. But the only time I have ever felt I needed or benefitted from a female only setting was in relation to my biology - pregnancy/motherhood/recovering from the effects of a sexually motivated (luckily only attempted as I fought him off and ran away) assault. NEVER at any other time. That’s why I feel so strongly that gender is such a harmful notion. Only biological sex separates me from men. Literally nothing else does.

[fascinated]

I agree though that it is a pipe dream to think we can ever get rid of gender stereotypes, not least because so many people seem to actively enjoy performing them. Which leads me to think that all we can do is try to stop seeing the traditionally female role as “lesser”....

[tellmewhentheLangshiplandscoz]

Definitely worth a read, thanks for posting OP. Agree it's a very measured and balanced report** although like some of you I'm not comfortable with that the plea for compromise, bollocks to that. I was pleased however that they refused to be bullied and faced this head on, and were persistent even when stroppy teenagers were at first unwilling to engage.

I snorted at this bit - and a man who had transitioned to female and back to male twice, and is now married to a woman.

I swear that if I read "denying trans existence " again I will F'ing scream. It's got to be the most ridiculous statement of all time.

[Mockerswithnoknockers]

Dogs most certainly have culture. They are a pack animal recognising heirarchy and common interest. They are also highly perceptive in reading humans. They know that when we bear our teeth in a smile, this is not a threat, as it would be in their culture.

[Apollo440]

Does it mean WPUK can book Quaker meeting halls in future and attempts to silence them will be resisted?

[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.")

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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

[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.

[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.

[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.