Any Quakers on here? (Mainly about pronouns.)

[SelfPortraitWithEels]

This is pretty niche, but I'm a Quaker who's been pondering a lot recently about the way the use of preferred pronouns intersects with the truth testimony, and wondered if anyone else was working through similar questions? I'm curious about it, as my own conviction is that preferred pronouns (if they are at odds with biological sex) are either obfuscating (they) or a lie (he/she). The Quakers have a legacy of and a reputation for plain speech, and originally pissed a lot of people off by using thee and thou instead of you, because they felt it was more important to stick to the truth than make people feel comfortable or to be "kind". (In inverted commas, because they'd probably argue that true kindness couldn't ever be based on falsehood.) But it's clear that a lot of people in the Quaker community see it differently... It's a long shot, but is there anyone out there with thoughts on this?

Agree too.

With Potting shed........

Potteringshed
I'm a Quaker, though I guess only casually observant these days. My take has always been that language evolves and grows. Being a Quaker doesn't mean that we are stuck using only the words that were used 100 years ago to convey the experiences of that time - and many of those words would be seen as offensive now.

Pronouns are not a scientific term used to confirm the results of a DNA test. They are a form of address and I'm ok with that form of address reflecting the truth of someone's gender identity and the nature of the gendered relationship they wish to have with the world rather than anything specifically biological.

Agree too. There, I worked it out in the end!

I like the insight of the elder about not speaking the truth to hurt anyone - I suppose that's the same as speaking the truth in love -

I strongly agree.

but feel that dodging the truth to avoid conflict is not loving, although it may be easier.

I don't think it is possible to be absolutist about this. A physically and socially transitioned TW that I have known since they were 15, was a sweet and emotionally fragile boy and is now a sweet and emotionally fragile TW. I will not lie and call the person whom I perceive as a feminised man 'she' - but at the same time I will not cause either this fragile person, or their concerned parents, more distress by referring to them as 'he'. In this case dodging the truth with 'they' is certainly loving.

I am not a Quaker but my problem with the coerced pronouns does lie in my personal beliefs, too. I grew up in a communist country without freedom of speech, thought or association. And a whole load of other things people not behind the Iron Curtain took for granted.

And I read this quote by Theodore Dalrymple recently, which I think applies to coerced pronouning:

“Political correctness is communist propaganda writ small. In my study of Communist societies, I came to the conclusion that the purpose of Communist propaganda was not to persuade or convince, nor to inform, but to humiliate; and therefore, the less it corresponded to reality the better. When people are forced to remain silent when they are being told the most obvious lies, or even worse when they are forced to repeat the lies themselves, they lose once and for all their sense of probity. To assent to obvious lies is to co-operate with evil, and in some small way to become evil oneself. One’s standing to resist anything is thus eroded, and even destroyed. A society of emasculated liars is easy to control. I think if you examine political correctness, it has the same effect and is intended to.”

In my experience of living in a communist country, this was true. I got into trouble as a teen because I didn't want to assent to what I had come to realise were obvious lies and I naively thought that truth was necessary for our country to be better.

(As a communist state, mind, I was a true believer. I just thought we'd do communism better without the lies and lip service. What can I say, I was a teenager and had no idea what was really going on in my country.)

And I have educated myself about queer theory, the doctrine of gender identity and and the lives of transgender people, their struggles, their needs and their beliefs about themselves.

I have concluded that implementing the doctrine of gender identity is not necessary to help transgender people live safe and happy lives. Because the doctrine of gender identity is evil in my view and implementing it will harm not just society and female people in particular, but also children and transgender people themselves.

I believe that demanding that I use preferred pronouns or state my own is asking me to co-operate with evil and for me to become, in a small way, evil myself by endorsing the ideology and contributing to the social pressure on non-believers to participate in the lie.

Yes, Jelly - I definitely don't mean that it's loving to speak the truth indiscriminately, regardless of whether it's relevant or kind. But there is a difference between avoiding specifying either way, and lying. (I remember raising this a long time ago in another context - in fact I think it was about a cake, it was awful and I found myself lying about almost automatically - and the elder I asked looked awkward and said, maybe best to thank the cook and pick out something that is both kind and true...? 🙂)

And in general I would, I think, take Icefisher's and Prion's approach - but I'm interested in how and why that departs from the teaching of early Friends and their adherence to literal truth - Quakers often affirm in court rather than swear, on the basis that they are under the same standards of truth everywhere, not just under oath. And the arguments over pronouns seem to have a lot in common with the historical ones. People on the other side were saying, it's just a convention, it shows basic respect, you're just being awkward, it costs you nothing - and Friends were saying no, the truth matters, it's a lie and yes it does cost us more than you realise.

This is very interesting. If one was to ask a Quaker "is there a god?", the only truthful answer is "no", given the lack of evidence. How does that work?

That's fascinating, Charley.

If one was to ask a Quaker "is there a god?", the only truthful answer is "no", given the lack of evidence. How does that work?

You would probably find that the Quaker looked thoughtful and said, "It depends what you mean by God..." I think that's probably a question for a different board - although a relevant point is that Quakers do not require anyone to express any creed which they do not believe, or to bow to any authority which requires them to accept other people's convictions without using their own discernment.

The more I’m hearing about the Quakers, the more I’m interested in them...

I'm not a Quaker but I am strongly committed to telling the truth. As far as possible I try to avoid using pronouns about my transman niece, but happily use their new name.

I grew up in an abusive household and had abusive relationships. I had to lie to protect the family, to hide the truth, to convince myself that everything would be okay.

I won't be forced to lie. It costs me too much.

You'd be very welcome, Pam.

*I have concluded that implementing the doctrine of gender identity is not necessary to help transgender people live safe and happy lives. Because the doctrine of gender identity is evil in my view and implementing it will harm not just society and female people in particular, but also children and transgender people themselves.

I believe that demanding that I use preferred pronouns or state my own is asking me to co-operate with evil and for me to become, in a small way, evil myself by endorsing the ideology and contributing to the social pressure on non-believers to participate in the lie.*

I strongly agree.

If one was to ask a Quaker "is there a god?", the only truthful answer is "no", given the lack of evidence. How does that work?

The essence of Quakerism is that we don't believe that everything comes down to scientific proof. We are a faith movement. We believe that there is that of God in everyone and God is found in the Light Within that we connect with sometimes in silent prayer. And for me, spiritual truth is real and important - very important - and the human soul - the place where the Light and the Divine resides - is the most real thing imaginable.

Obvs I don't speak on behalf of all Quakers but is struggle to understand why someone was coming to Meeting if they didn't believe in anything that wasn't scientifically proven (but would love to hear their reasons and would try and understand).

The essence of Quakerism is that we don't believe that everything comes down to scientific proof

But would you hold to the idea that there are some objective truths and that it can be important to recognise them, even if the person in front of you is saying something that to you is demonstrably incorrect?

When I first came across this dispute, I wondered how Quakers, traditionally very strong on upholding women’s rights, would deal with a group of men earnestly stating they were women and must be treated as women in every way.

Excellent post @CharlieParley

I am coming to believe a huge factor in this whole mess is an unidentified blurring of language: verbs like to call and to address.

I generally address people as they would prefer. I wouldn't be willing to address someone without a doctorate or medical degree as a doctor once I'd found out they didn't have that qualification, but I otherwise use whatever title people want, e.g. Mr, Miss, Ms, Mrs. Or I use first names as people prefer. If I am speaking French, I use tu (informal form of you) or vous (formal form of you) to address people, as they prefer.

However, he and she are third-person pronouns and they are not for addressing people or calling people by. You call people by their names, acksherly. You're not even supposed to refer to people in their presence as he or she, because that is rude! That's what the retort "who's she? The cat's mother?^ was developed for.

How does one become a Quaker?

But would you hold to the idea that there are some objective truths and that it can be important to recognise them, even if the person in front of you is saying something that to you is demonstrably incorrect?

I mean, obviously so as I've got into this conversation which I'd not normally do.

I think though that for me a very important part of my faith is the acknowledgement of the massive diversity of the human experience. One of the core messages I was raised with is that everyone must find their own way to God, which is why we don't have a hierarchy or priesthood to guide us, and why (in my branch of Quakerism) we believe it's possible to be a Quaker and also to find truth in other faiths. To me it feels really against the spirit of Quakerism to assume that you have got it all right and someone else has got it all wrong.

So, yeah. There's stuff I personally will bear testament to, but I don't think the tradition of plain speaking is an excuse for spiritual arrogance. Of course, some Quakers are gender critical and that forms a part of their theology. But I certainly don't think that Quaker theology inevitably leads to GC beliefs or compels Quakers to pick fights in the name of "plain speaking".

@GettingUntrapped

How does one become a Quaker?

It varies from area to area. www.quaker.org.uk has a list of local Meetings so you'd start there as an attendee. Over time, you may feel it right to be a Member and your Meeting House will be able to guide you on that, but many people just stay attendees for years as it doesn't make a huge difference on a day to day basis.

But I certainly don't think that Quaker theology inevitably leads to GC beliefs

I would hope that Quakers would listen to both sides and acknowledge that each side has needs. I have been rather disappointed to see some Quakers dismissing women’s concerns and I was dismayed (though not exactly surprised) to see a Young Friends position advertising for “Non-men”.

Plenty of Quakers are feeling thoroughly pissed off. Not so much about pronouns. But about failures around safeguarding and lack of adherence to proper Quaker business methods by people trying to impose gender identity ideology.

I believe that demanding that I use preferred pronouns or state my own is asking me to co-operate with evil and for me to become, in a small way, evil myself by endorsing the ideology and contributing to the social pressure on non-believers to participate in the lie.

Well said, CharlieParley

Thank you for your comments Potteringshed. It's interesting to read your perspective and I appreciate the Quaker approach that Icefisher described in an earlier comment:

We should not seek to divide Friends on this issue but find a way to clarify how the community can coexist, learn from different ways, and continue to seek light together.

This is how I generally approach social issues (apart from the "seeking light together"). The desire to learn about other ways, to find out how to co-exist, that's what motivated me to attend my first ever women's rights meeting on the issue.

But from that very first encounter with aggressively angry young men in balaclavas screaming in my face, with the police refusing to help us leave in safety, I had to learn that the other side had no intention of learning about us or to find ways to co-exist. They didn't care to do either, despite being invited in on a freezing cold night. All they wanted was to scare (and shame) the women at that meeting into silence.

It had the opposite effect on me.

But it's hard to come back from a traumatising experience like that and to keep reminding yourself that those young male protesters cannot be representative of the whole community, when that is who you keep meeting time after time.

Just before Covid hit, I got an opportunity to talk to someone from the TWAW side (mediated) and it was an interesting experience. It was respectful, but I do wonder if that's because all of us were female. While I not only knew the arguments I would encounter, but also understood the facts and motivations behind it, I had not expected that my partner in this dialogue did not at all understand or even know what my arguments actually were or what motivated me. She knew only what social media had told her. I got the impression that she only half heard, let alone believed me. Most disconcerting was that this was an award-winning young feminist (that is she'd won an award for her feminist activities and was much lauded as a feminist in the media) but she had zero knowledge of the issues around male violence, support for female victims of male violence, women in prison, hospital wards, that some women are excluded when males are included in female-only provisions and so on. I would have thought that was impossible for a feminist activist.

I learned a lot from that encounter. I hope she did, too, but I fear she remained convinced that even if I was not hateful everyone else on my side must be motivated by hate. She dismissed much of what I said out of hand, despite professing her ignorance several times.

And that was a meeting under ideal circumstances with both participants clearly willing to engage respectfully and to listen to the other side. (That I believe she only half heard me is not because she wasn't listening but because what I was saying was too far removed from what she had expected to hear.)
--

I don't think that my truth is the only one there is, and I certainly respect that others have their own truth and wish to live it. But what I do know is that it is harmful to me to participate in the lie that humans can change sex. Especially when I'm required to do so in order to be kind to strangers.

And I have learned the hard way that there is one person in my life that I must not forget to be kind to: myself.