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?

That’s a very thoughtful post, Charley...

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".

Pottering, do you associate GC feminism with spiritual arrogance? or aggression? I’m wondering why. If you’ve been following this issue, you will have seen the raging abuse, threats and vilification thrown at feminists. What comparable response have you seen from feminists to their aggressors?

Pottering (or are you Shed? Do you have a preference?) - yes, we all find different ways, and I share your affection for the Quaker advice to think it possible we might be mistaken. (And I particularly love the double emphasis there - not think it possible you are, think it possible you might be, which seems to me to be an almost humorous recognition of how hard that actually is. But I digress.) And in some ways I think a religious context is the place where gender ideology can be most easily defended, because if you believe in souls it's not illogical to say that they might have male or female essence. Other Quakers have said that souls are neither male nor female - in a defence of equality, not in reference to gender ideology, I'm talking historically - and of course you can also not believe in souls in a traditional sense at all. So the theology is definitely open enough to admit either set of beliefs. As for spiritual arrogance, I agree, but the danger of eschewing certainty (broadly a good thing) is that we become so humble we don't have the courage of our convictions. That's why I think the contrast between modern Quakers and, oh, let's say the chap in Quaker Faith and Practice who gets beaten up by his dad for calling him "thou", is so stark. We're much gentler than we used to be, and that's not a bad thing - but if we are choosing to say that we shouldn't even aspire to be absolutely truthful [to our own beliefs, without imposing them on other people] something quite fundamental has changed.

(Btw thank you so much for engaging with this, to everyone, I've been struggling with it for a while without my local Friends really getting it at all, and I'm very grateful to think it through.)

Jennie, that's interesting. I was slightly shocked to see the preparation materials for discernment around gender diversity referring so lightly to puberty blockers ("routinely prescribed for precocious puberty' with no further detail) when the medical advice has shifted so dramatically recently and it's clearly at least worth raising the possibility that they cause harm. To me it seems that central Friends organisations have not been properly rigorous when opening this up to BYM. But I may be being harsh...

I remember one Elder saying (as a general point) that our commitment to the truth witness should be used thoughtfully, and not be used as an excuse to cause hurt. For me that would mean that I could in good conscience use pronouns as the person I am speaking to wishes - in any informal situation - but not something like a court of law where consistency in my own speech and speaking my own truth matters. However if anyone asked me to declare my own pronouns, I would refuse as I refuse to let myself be stereotyped. In the same way I would not say to someone believing in astrology that their belief was worthless, unless I had to. But I would not tell them my “star sign” as that would make me complicit in a belief system which I do not think brings clearness or light.

Thank you Icefisher — that’s summed up in a few short sentences what I feel about all this, despite having no religious faith myself.

Ooo this is really useful and helpful.

I have always had a thing about commitment to the truth (why i studied media).

My aunt and uncle are quakers.

My sibling is trans.

I've fallen out with my parents over it and as a consequence haven't seen my aunt and uncle for a couple of years.

Mybimpression of their beliefs has always been that they leaned towards being nice and avoiding conflict rather than addressing issues and in falling out with my parents i was the 'bad one' in the equation.

Maybe not so much...

... Things to ponder here for me on a personal level.

Thank you @SelfPortraitWithEels for starting this thread and thank you to all of the thoughtful and insightful posters on this thread who have given me some eloquent ways of framing my truth and beliefs.

I have a few places where I sit in circles with women and we use some of these approaches to help support each other.

I love the cake analogy... I will be using that in my head!

@SelfPortraitWithEels - I am ok with "Pottering" or "Shed". I can't even remember why I picked this name actually! I'm sure it was meant to be funny at the time.

I also want to thank you for some of the stuff you've said. You make some valid points about how we do struggle at times to find the right balance between humility and standing by our truths and I definitely don't think I have all the answers. It's a really complex and personal balance and ultimately I don't think we can (or should!) agree on it totally.

I also think this has been a really lovely and thoughtful discussion and I've really appreciated it.

@CharlieParley

Naomi Cunningham recently published two articles on "misgendering" in the workplace. In the second she analyses different "misgendering" scenarios in the work place in light of the Maya Forstater ruling.

Is "misgendering" always harassment?

More on "misgendering"

A Quaker being confronted with this issue is her first example. (I'm quoting it in full, but the whole article is worth consideration. As is the first.)

J is a male employee who announces a female gender identity at work, will wear feminine-coded clothing from now on and use a new name. L is a female co-worker.

Scenario 1
L is a Quaker. She says her commitment to the truth as she understands it is central to her belief, and although she is perfectly content to use J’s new name, she is not able in conscience to use grammatically inaccurate pronouns. She says she will do her best to accommodate J by rephrasing anything she says about him to avoid using pronouns at all where she reasonably can, but she warns that this will be easier in writing than in speech. J complains that by refusing to use his preferred pronouns, L is harassing him.

Comment
L is entitled not to suffer discrimination on grounds of her Quaker beliefs. J is entitled not to suffer conduct by colleagues that has the purpose or effect of violating his dignity or creating an intimidating, hostile, degrading, humiliating or offensive environment for him. When a tribunal considers whether conduct amounts to harassment of J, it must take into account both J’s perception and whether it is reasonable for the conduct in question to have the effect of violating his dignity (etc.). L’s entitlement not to suffer discrimination on grounds of her beliefs must be relevant to the analysis of whether it is reasonable for her conduct to have that effect.

My view is that J’s expectation – that his preference to be referred to using female pronouns should trump L’s right not to be forced to use language in a way she regards as untruthful – is unreasonable. He may, subjectively, feel harassed; but I think the extent of his proposed incursion into L’s rights means that the answer to the question whether it is reasonable for him to feel harassed is considered should be an unequivocal “no”. Note, though, that although this is my confident view of the correct interpretation of the EqA, it can’t be assumed that an employment tribunal would necessarily agree. On balance, I think on these facts L would probably prevail in the end, but it could well require an appeal.

I'd happily take on that case for J on a conditional fee.

As usual with a 'campaign based' analysis, its focus leads it to forget to analyse the position of the employer and the 'reasonable steps' defence. Could be expensive for L.

I'm not a Quaker but if someone went around calling themselves Dr something, and neither worked nor had trained as a doctor nor held any kind of doctorate, nor anything else that would conventionally enable them to call themselves Dr, I would consider that dishonest of them and potentially equivalent to a lie.

Sorry to bring the discussion back to this when it's moved on, but I haven't looked at the thread for a while and only just saw it. What I was trying to ask was whether our hypothetical Quaker should go along with the dishonest person out of politeness. So if I know that Dr X isn't really a doctor, should I address them/refer to them as Dr nonetheless because that's what they want? (Gillian McKeith would be an example.)

So if I know that Dr X isn't really a doctor, should I address them/refer to them as Dr nonetheless because that's what they want?

I would say that it is certainly not truthful. Whether and why you might choose to say it anyway is a different question, of course. But I guess that some people would argue that the analogy breaks down because it's unlikely that anyone could be expressing their inner doctoral essence, so it's more clear-cut to say it's a lie..?

As usual with a 'campaign based' analysis, its focus leads it to forget to analyse the position of the employer and the 'reasonable steps' defence.

I think it would certainly be an interesting case, and as the author says the result would be somewhat unpredictable. In terms of this discussion, I'd say that its relevance is mainly in respect of the Quakers' reputation for "plain speech", not in the actual legal outcome. Quakers are notoriously prepared to take a stand against the law if it conflicts with the dictates of their conscience, and a tribunal's decision wouldn't necessarily make any difference to our perception of what is right or truthful.

Thank you for this thread, I have really enjoyed reading the thoughtful, sensitive discussion. I’m not a Quaker myself, but I’m very interested in what happens when beliefs about gender and religious beliefs intersect.

I think that we have somehow in the last ten or fifteen years lost our interest in or ability to discern the intent behind the words we choose to use. If I’m addressing someone, directly, then the most moral position may well be to accommodate pronouns or avoid them altogether (weighing up the need to be truthful to oneself, against the need to be respectful that other people have different interpretation). But if I’m talking, for example about a position I hold in general like on male bodies in women’s sports, then I won’t use gender based pronouns or words. My need to be able to be clear and truthful there almost certainly outweighs any individual feelings someone might have.

Most transactivists will tell me that there is no difference between the first and the second (and probably that they are both acts of violence).

With regard to holding a “campaigning position”, while it might incline a person in a certain direction, it should be no impediment to a competent lawyer to represent and argue an opposing position to the one they actually hold, because that’s a foundational skill and requirement of the role. Particularly in this case, where there’s a clear conflict. Both L and J deserve good legal representation.

I haven't read the full thread in detail, but if you are not already aware of it already, OP, you might be interested in the initial statement from quaker life on gender diversity from a couple of years ago. It's interesting to note that this was not on the reading list for the pre-pandemic diversity weekend in Jan 2019 (the reading material list was very one-sided). I haven't dared to look at the preparatory materials for BYM. My feeling is that the narrative has been centrally controlled over the last few years in a way that is inappropriate and unquakerly. The quaker life statement sneaked through and is an example of what can happen when true discernment is enabled, but it then was not widely disseminated. GC Quakers and Quakers involved in women's rights have had to work very very hard to be heard at all. I think it's important to start by acknowledging that Quakers are divided and in conflict on this issue, like many other groups. If we don't start from the truth that a conflict exists, we will not be able to move towards unity. www.quaker.org.uk/our-organisation/our-structures/quaker-life-central-committee

@AnyOldPrion

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.

It's a bit on an aside, but the idea that the only true things are scientifically or even empirically provable, or even observable, isn't a particularly obvious, universal, or common perspective, including among philosophers or even scientists.

Usually that approach would be considered a kind of logical positivism, which is typically seen as a not very workable, maybe even self-refuting, logical framework. It's largely been abandoned in philosophy for those reasons.

Questions about the existence and nature of god usually come under the prevue of metaphysics, and sometmes even epistemology, which, like mathematics, operates with different boundaries than science does. Science itself is subject to epistemic understanding, which is why it can't really function as the basis of knowing by itself.

So there isn't some kind of lie required for a Quaker to answer a question about the existence of God.

I think Quakers like to see themselves as a) progressive and b) on the side of the oppressed.

So if people claim not just that those who seek gender reassignment are a group in need of protection, but that they are more oppressed - and more in need of protection than anyone else, some Quakers will feel 'Oh supporting trans rights must be the right thing to do.'

Quakers - who supported gay marriage at a relativeily early stage - are also very susceptible to arguments that say not supporting a transactivist position equates to being anti-gay.

Furthermore Quakers, like many churches have a fairly small, ageing membership.

If a lot of young people, who identify as queer, non-binary, genderfluid, trans etc come along to Quaker Meeting, the meeting naturally welcomes them - as it welcomes all enquirers. The theology of Quakerism also sees Truth as something that evolves - rather than being codified in any one text. So the idea becomes, 'Not only do we welcome our new Friends. We must learn from them.'

They think.

'Perhaps the 30 year old who has taken testosterone and had a double mastectomy is a fantastic role model and should lead an event for young people'.

'Dave', one Quaker guy I used to really like, made a great play of calling Eddie Izzard 'she' on Facebook. Because that was Eddie's truth and who cares if Eddie likes invading changing rooms and intimidating teenage girls. What seemed to be important to Dave - who, coincidentally, runs a men's group - was to affirm Eddie and to signal his own Dave-ish progressiveness.

Thank you, Lurking. I did see that and was heartened by it. I responded to them saying so, although I also raised the problem of pronouns intersecting with the truth testimony - but at that point they had got to the end of what they could discern before it went to BYM. They did invite Friends who'd responded to contribute to the BYM preparation materials, but unfortunately that was in the form of a video which they couldn't guarantee would stay within the Society, and I didn't have the courage to speak publicly because colleagues of mine have lost livelihoods and got death and rape threats, etc etc. I really respect the courage of the women who did speak up, but I worry that the climate of fear hasn't been acknowledged and so the loudest voices will drown out the quieter ones.

I have spoken up publically in a smaller, more tentative way, and drawn on the Quaker tradition for strength and courage - so it worries me that we might collectively distance ourselves from upholding all Friends' truth-telling, whether or not we personally welcome the truth that they (we) feel impelled to tell.

[quote Lurkingandthinking]I haven't read the full thread in detail, but if you are not already aware of it already, OP, you might be interested in the initial statement from quaker life on gender diversity from a couple of years ago. It's interesting to note that this was not on the reading list for the pre-pandemic diversity weekend in Jan 2019 (the reading material list was very one-sided). I haven't dared to look at the preparatory materials for BYM. My feeling is that the narrative has been centrally controlled over the last few years in a way that is inappropriate and unquakerly. The quaker life statement sneaked through and is an example of what can happen when true discernment is enabled, but it then was not widely disseminated. GC Quakers and Quakers involved in women's rights have had to work very very hard to be heard at all. I think it's important to start by acknowledging that Quakers are divided and in conflict on this issue, like many other groups. If we don't start from the truth that a conflict exists, we will not be able to move towards unity. www.quaker.org.uk/our-organisation/our-structures/quaker-life-central-committee[/quote]
I've been a Quaker for 30yrs, but this issue has pushed me to the point where I am on the point of resigning.

The safeguarding of children in the care of the religious society of friends is now seriously compromised. I have an adult dd, 30's, who, as a pre teen, declared she was a boy and from now on would be called "Joe". This lasted a year or so - her friends all called her Joe, none of the adults in her life did, we all called her the name she was given at birth. Home, school, local meeting - all the grown ups behaved like responsible adults and knew it would pass. It did.

If she was that child now she would be being affirmed as "Joe" by her school AND by the Religious Society of Friends. The wild child - who wanted to do all the things the boys did - would be supported by them to bind her breasts, to damage her body, to mutilate it. She wouldn't be given the space and time to simply enter puberty and grow up.

Ironically I was a "trans ally" in Quaker circles, I argued for the use of preferred pronouns, while watching this issue tear groups apart. I didn't understand why some people couldn't just "be kind" and call TW "she". I do now.

I feel betrayed and angry. Quakers centrally have been captured by this ideology, there is a top down movement of thought and practice which is profoundly unQuakerly. Our testimony to truthfulness is being buried under some bizarre notion of kindness - I think I'm done.

catsrus are you in a local meeting? What do they think?

If we don't start from the truth that a conflict exists, we will not be able to move towards unity.

There is no truth in 'No Debate'. That phrase shuts down truth.

I am not a Quaker, but I have had Quaker friends and colleagues, and what has struck me about every single one is their willingness to listen. Not just their willingness to listen but also their ability to listen. (One told me that listening was a taught skill at his Quaker school.) Even when we strongly disagreed they were able to listen and to discuss, and to withdraw with grace if we could not come to an agreement.

There is an interesting article in Quillette exploring what truth is (amongst other things) and this quote about pronouns strikes me as relevant to this thread:

Put another way, meaning and language is fundamentally public. What’s more, language and meaning (and indeed the collective knowledge passed between generations via language) is not merely public with respect to just present persons but is also constituted by the deep, rich, and networked storehouse of meanings passed on from one generation of language-users to the next. As Gottlob Frege noted in his essay “Sense and Reference,” “For it cannot well be denied that mankind possesses a common treasure of thoughts which is transmitted from generation to generation.”

And while proper names such as “Bruce” or “Caitlyn” do technically fall within the purview of private determination and personal prerogative, indexicals within a language, such as “he” or “she” indirectly connote and refer to fixed meanings deep within our overall shared network of public meanings and are not similarly revisable according to individual personal preference

The writer doesn't simply claim that pronouns referring to sex is an absolute, immutable truth, but a truth arrived at by all of us, our ancestors and our contemporaries. A relative handful of people are currently redefining words according to their own private meanings and expect the rest of us to abandon the public meaning we not only know but in most cases prefer (because mis-sexing exacts a constant cognitive toll). And they do so not by seeking consensus but by coercion.

Which makes the question SelfPortraitWithEels* asks in this thread particularly important when your faith requires a conscious commitment to and pursuit of the truth.

quillette.com/2021/08/04/the-incoherence-of-gender-ideology/

This article in 'The Friend' by Dr James Barrett of Charing Cross GIC may be of interest:

‘It is soul-crushing and miserable for anyone to live pretending to be something they are not.’
11 Apr 2019 | by James Barrett

James Barrett runs Britain’s largest and oldest gender identity clinic. In the first of a Friend series on gender identity issues, he gives his reflections on thirty years of work.
(extract)
In my working life I have spent over thirty years in a gender identity clinic, working with and trying to help people whose sense of themselves doesn’t fit the gender role they were assigned at birth. I’m a doctor – effectively a practitioner scientist – and in the course of what can sometimes be fairly high publicity work my being a Quaker doesn’t usually arise. It would be obvious only to those already sensitive to the occasional Quakerly turn of phrase or point of view. It’s a strangely reversed experience, therefore, to be in the company of Friends who mainly know me as a fellow Quaker and in this context talk about gender. It’s not something that I have previously done because it hasn’t generally arisen, but since it has, mine is a perspective unshared until now." (continues)
thefriend.org/article/it-is-soul-crushing-and-miserable-for-anyone-to-live-pretending-to-be-somet

Thank you, R0wantrees, I hadn't seen that, and frankly I find it chilling. I don't think any of his arguments hold water, except where he says gender should be irrelevant (yes! It should! so why reify it rather than ignoring it completely?) and it's all couched in such a reasonable, generous, measured tone. Argh.

"Generally speaking, I’ve noticed, this amounts to a fear that men will use this means to inveigle their way into places that would otherwise not admit them and, once inside, behave reprehensibly.

That door, surely, has already been opened. As a society we let men teach primary school children, become midwives, work in nurseries, become nurses and gynaecologists. Any of those men might also behave in just such a way but nonetheless they continue. I suppose we do so because we accept that while this is a possibility it’s just not reasonable to exclude all men because some might do so. It just wouldn’t be fair or proportionate."

Except that this is spectacularly missing the point, because there are places where we do exclude all men because it is fair and proportionate, and those are the places we are trying to maintain. (Unless he thinks that all male midwives have so far had to conceal their sex to be allowed to practise...?)

And this: "As Quakers I think we are, or certainly should be, all about open doors, not closed ones. About assuming sincerity and good intentions on the part of those who walk through those open doors, seeking to discern that of God in them, rather than being constantly concerned about the possibility of the evil that is, in truth, present in all of us bursting forth from every new person who walks through our doors."

He has clearly no understanding of safeguarding. This is the most perfect example of good intentions and woolly "religious" thinking that I have ever seen. Would he, I wonder, be against all risk assessment? Against even considering the worst that might happen when someone gets access to vulnerable people or gets into a space they shouldn't be in? Imagine someone saying this while discussing who should be running your Children's Meeting.

It is perfectly possible to believe in "that of God in everyone" while recognising (indeed!) the "evil that is present in all of us". (That is, in fact, I'd humbly suggest, exactly the point.) But to argue that that means we should not seek to foresee and prevent the harm that evil might do, is the most egregious, pernicious twisting of that belief I have encountered.

Forgive the overuse of italics, but I can't help myself.

It is soul-crushing for me as a woman to pretend others are something they are not. Particularly when they claim to be women.

He has clearly no understanding of safeguarding. This is the most perfect example of good intentions and woolly "religious" thinking that I have ever seen. Would he, I wonder, be against all risk assessment? Against even considering the worst that might happen when someone gets access to vulnerable people or gets into a space they shouldn't be in? Imagine someone saying this while discussing who should be running your Children's Meeting.

Successful appeal of pre-operative transgender male prisoner transfer to Women's Estate, this overturned the Home Office's previous refusal. (2009)

There is no apparent dicussion or assessment of impact on female prisoners during the hearing except the following supportive evidence from the same Dr James Barrett of the Gender Identity Clinic, Charing Cross Hospital, who had also known the claimant for many years:

(extract)
"it will become clear that she is so widely accepted as female in that unit that location in the main prison will follow. I think that such acceptance will pretty generally apply in the main prison, also, although there will probably always be a small number of prisoners who will choose to make an issue of the matter because they are the sort of women who enjoy conflict. If this patient is able to cope with protracted close proximity women of that sort I would judge her able to cope with the less prolonged, more avoidable, travails of the civilian world."

www.bailii.org/cgi-bin/format.cgi?doc=/ew/cases/EWHC/Admin/2009/2220.html

That door, surely, has already been opened. As a society we let men teach primary school children, become midwives, work in nurseries, become nurses and gynaecologists. Any of those men might also behave in just such a way but nonetheless they continue. I suppose we do so because we accept that while this is a possibility it’s just not reasonable to exclude all men because some might do so. It just wouldn’t be fair or proportionate."

Primary school teachers, gynaecologists and nurses all work within professional, ethical and Safeguarding frameworks. Frameworks that have been undermined by men such as Dr Barrett. The appropriate reponse to that is to re-establish the protective frameworks not to shrug and determine them redundant.

I agree with SelfPortraitWithEels,

"He has clearly no understanding of safeguarding. This is the most perfect example of good intentions and woolly "religious" thinking that I have ever seen."

(Also, on a lighter note, R0wantrees, you are an absolute phenomenon. Can you produce relevant articles on everything? I am imagining you like Rachel Weisz st the beginning of The Mummy only without the domino-effect bookshelves.)