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

[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.

[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'.

[ScrimpshawTheSecond]

Give em time...

[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]

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

[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.

[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.

[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]

Sorry you are dealing with that from central staff dianebrewster

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

[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!

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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?'

[ChattyLion]

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

[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.