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?

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 interesting you are thinking this way @SelfPortraitWithEels because it's the first time I've heard this argument from Quakers.

I had a long conversation with a Quaker about some of these matters. I had to pull away from the discussion, as it was making me very angry (I'm not a Quaker, but I realised how unQuakerlike I was feeling!)

The Quaker I was talking to was all about kindness and their inoffensive transwoman friend. And that that transwoman should be accepted fully as a woman. All about peace and kindness, based on one person ...

My point was that in the face of the ideological battle attacking women, no kindness was being shown to women, who are 51% of the population, and that we can't make laws which affect that 51% based on one or two "inoffensive" transwomen.

But as I say, the naivete was making me so annoyed, I had to (literally) walk away.

'Kindness' is a concept that I think has come to hold more sway in Quakerism in recent times - but to me it is more akin to sentimentality in the (well-liked in Quaker circles) phrase 'Love without truth is sentimentality. Truth without love is aggression.' The actual quote is more complicated, but this is the gist of it. To me, part of the point of Quakerism is to hold the balance and tension between love and truth (like holding the balance between the community and the individual). I'm not sure Quakers are doing well at this at the moment.

@SelfPortraitWithEels

(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.)

SelfPortrait I am very comfortable around bookshelves and also rather clumsy! (I may now have to watch the rest of The Mummy)

I share your frustration, ShortBack. I've only tried to have one conversation with Friends in real life. One of them - a generally very sensible gay Friend in his fifties - said, "Well, of course trans women are women. But I do see that women need their own spaces..." and the other, woke and in her twenties, told me how shocked and hurt she'd been by a rape survivor ministering at a Meeting saying she needed spaces apart from men - because that was just so manipulative and unkind to the trans people in the Meeting. But it was partly, I think, my fault for trying to squeeze in the conversation after Meeting when we were getting ready to go and no one was in a very thoughtful mood.

Love without truth is sentimentality. Truth without love is aggression. I haven't encountered that and it's interesting! In fact there are quite a lot of good quotes about the absolute necessity of truth - one of my favourites is someone saying, "But how can I speak the truth in love if there is no love?" I wailed. To which the Elder replied, "Without the truth there is no love." That is actually featured in the materials for discernment around gender diversity (they sprinkled in quotes from Quaker Faith and Practice) - but there hasn't been, as far as I know, any actual recognition of how that might intersect with this specific problem...

The Meeting session around this is this morning and I can't attend because I'm scattering someone's ashes - can everyone who believes in this sort of thing hold it in the Light?

I'm going to a Quaker meeting next week thanks to this thread. Sounds like quiet sanity.

I'm not there either self but will be holding everyone there in the light. I am not hoping for unity out of this meeting, because I don't think we could be led into true unity in such a short space of time. I feel that anything that looks like unity might at this stage be closer to silencing. I am hoping however that the conflict can be acknowledged in a nuanced manner and the pain that is felt by those on all sides, not just one, can be acknowledged as well.

What always strikes me when people say that "it is soul-crushing to live as something you are not" is that if people really believed that, trying to live as the other sex would seem like quite a bad idea.

It presupposes a strong argument for innate gender identity, what it is, and that it is related to gender dysphoria. So far, there isn't one though, even in medicine its a pretty mushy subject. I'm willing to say there is something related to identity and sex, but it doesn't seem to be discrete from other elements of identity, and it's not at all clear that it operates the way people like this doctor seem to think in trans patients.

My thoughts exactly, Lurking. My ideal minute (well, apart from "Quakers respect women's single-sex spaces and call for the repealing of the GRA" ) would acknowledge that our discernment will call for rigour and discipline as well as reconciliation, and that what does unite us is not any one creed or ideology but the belief that it is through truth that we will deepen our love and acceptance of all Friends. And most of all that any Friend who lives or speaks their truth should be upheld for their courage, whether that truth is welcome or not. But we have to accept that whatever comes out of the Meeting is the leading of God for us right now even if my opinion is the right one... Is it Quakerly to cross my fingers?

That deletion absolutely proved your point about what we're not allowed to mention, didn't it, Wine?

And most of all that any Friend who lives or speaks their truth should be upheld for their courage, whether that truth is welcome or not.

This principle should stop the #nodebate totalitarianism. One would hope.

That a woman’s truth about her experience of womanhood is as valid as a transwoman’s truth about their identity.

I was there this morning. We were reminded that this was the very start of Friends' formal process of discernment on gender diversity. The opening prepared ministry had no recognition of GC concerns and this set the tone for the ministry following. It had the feel that at this stage this was about just recognising and acknowledging that there are people who identify as trans and non binary who are welcome in the Quaker community. There was ministry about recognising that of God in everyone and we are all children of God. If this is where many Quakers are at there is a long way to go in further discernment and this was recognised that this was the start of a process.

I know that there is a group of gender concerned Quakers. Does anyone know how to get in contact?

@SelfPortraitWithEels

That deletion absolutely proved your point about what we're not allowed to mention, didn't it, Wine?

Indeed. @MNHQ haven't even bothered to contact me about it, either.

this was about just recognising and acknowledging that there are people who identify as trans and non binary who are welcome in the Quaker community.

That’s pretty straightforward and not controversial. It’s how you approach conflicts of rights and how you value experiences, where it might get difficult.

I’m speaking here as a non-Quaker, so my points might be irrelevant but I find the statement that “transwomen are women” undermines my experience at a very fundamental level.

It leads the way to redefining what it is to be a woman forced upon me by someone who is not biologically a woman, in order to accommodate the feelings of people who traditionally and statistically,have oppressed me/my biological category.

That doesn’t feel to me like “truth to power”.

Thanks to all for this thread. I have been out of things for 18 months now so it is helpful to hear how BYM is (not) moving along. I also found CharlieParley’s witness of growing up under communism very thought-provoking. I agree with the PP who said Quakers are not doing well on this yet, although the work is sincere and well-meant.

Someone asked how my “sometimes this, sometimes that” approach agrees with the “one standard of truth”. I see a lot of difference between young people exploring their identity - and perhaps I feel a sort of guilt that society has so failed them that being acknowledged as a woman or as a man seems so hedged about with toxicity that they feel compelled to escape. I might not share what they see, but I see that that is their truth. I see a lot of crossover between gender dysphoria and anxiety about the shape of society (I might be wrong). I am willing then to use preferred pronouns etc. But if for example a man used his male strength to assault or threaten, and sought to identify as a woman, then no, I would describe what I saw. I don’t know if this is my final position on the topic. The account of the PP who had the child called “Joe” for a while, and the damage that would have been done by thoughtless affirming, is very important to think about.

On the question of puberty blockers and medical intervention on children, the principle of “evolving capacities”, the lack of much of an evidence base, and the serious side effects shape my thinking more than any Quaker principle. But I think the testimony of Simplicity is worth exploring in this light. Simplicity does not only mean resisting consumerism, but sometimes sitting with difficulty in stillness and with love, and looking for what is essential. But then - I do not believe gender identity is essential but I know others do.

I hope BYM finds a way through. I think welcoming gender diverse people is the right way to start but there are practical issues which are as important as the philosophy, and they can’t be waved away with the words Peace or Equality (or even Truth ).

Icefisher It seems to me that at least part of the distinction you are making revolves around what is sometimes called pastoral response.

So the fact is there are certain things that are true, materially, or philosophically, or ethically. But because we are imperfect, and the world is imperfect, the response to individuals will sometimes have to account for that, for their position in relation to all those things. You could say that is just the practical reality, but it's also grounded in the theology of self - our subjectivity isn't unreal, it's ultimately part of the larger reality as well, individuals in their particularity are real, too.

A good example might be in spiritual counselling of people with addictions. Objectively we know that it would be better for most people with addictions to stop taking the substance in question - healthier. It also might be ethically questionable to be involved in a market that is illegal and often exploitative. And yet, we know that individuals may not be able to pull themselves out of addiction, that they won't be physically or psychologically or spiritually healed, just because we know those things. That doesn't mean we push out the person still living as an addict. It doesn't mean that sometimes harm reduction strategies might be the best outcome they can manage, at least for now.

The waters have been very muddied with gender ideology though. Things like social transition for teens have been promoted as harm reduction, among other things, with very little evidence. And the more research that comes out the less it seems supported. That information has to be important to the discussion.

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,

Which is why I would never suggest such a thing. However there are scientific and biological concepts that are so well established as to be generally regarded by everyone as being facts. Sex is one of them and was specifically what I was asking about in the context of this thread.

As a scientist in a very down to earth and practical job, I sometimes read what philosophers opine regarding nature and think that if only they could get outside their heads and into the world, they would perhaps change their opinions very quickly.

Similarly feminists of the past, who ignored the obvious fact that some sex-based behavioural differences are related to hormones and size and strength and not simply to nurture have done harm to their own campaign.

Moving away from the land and into cities has certainly driven a lot of ignorance about nature.

[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]
Thank you so much for posting this, Lurking. It’s a great pity if this was not widely disseminated.

I love the fact that it gives unequivocal mirror statements for those on either side of the debate. It is very difficult to argue that a statement so obviously carefully balanced is proffering an unreasonable approach. This is the statement regarding women’s groups:

We affirm the right of women’s organisations to critique and explore the nature of gender identification and respect their right to freedom of speech. We recognise that some Friends will find such organisations supportive and of comfort and respect their right to make their case. We do not accept that the critique of transgender identities in the political sphere is necessarily transphobic. We affirm our welcome to such organisations to meet publicly or privately on Quaker premises. We will work with all such organisations to address any potential uses of hurtful language.

This, as we know, is a huge concession and one that is fought against every time women try to meet. On the occasion when one such meeting did go ahead on Quaker premises, I think the eyes of the attending Quakers were very much opened.

I am saddened, though unsurprised, that some Quakers are considering leaving. I’m not sure how to find the light in anyone who would threaten me with violence for talking, and being told I must do so, by a society that had once supported my rights unequivocally, would be very difficult to live with. I hope that the society as a whole does not become wholly derailed.

regarded by almost everyone… from my first post

Yes - I was thinking more of the post your post was a response to, AnyOld - I should have made that more clear. Which asked how a Quaker could respond truthfully to someone who asked about the existence of God, since there is no evidence for it. The idea that belief in God in some way flies in the face of reason and evidences supposes a kind of positivist empiricism that isn't just obviously true or accepted across the board. It's probably the standard approach that western secular state education pre-supposes though, as a kind of baseline, so often people think it's just the natural and obvious rational viewpoint.

Thanks for the explanation, SmokedDuck, and for jumping in quickly to say it. I have a lot going on at the moment and too little mental space for this discussion, but was tempted into this thread as the discussion is of particular interest to me.

I have swithered for a long time between a belief in God and agnosticism as I don’t feel there is sufficient evidence of absence to conclude there is no God in every possible sense of the word. I would attend Quakers if there was a meeting near me. Perhaps I should attend an online meeting instead, given that’s an option now. It’d forgotten about it because it has been so long since attendance was a possibility.

Smokedduck I think you are exactly right with the pastoral response comparison, and the question about harm reduction. What is a social and philosophical exploration and what is harm, in this area, is a line that can be crossed in the blink of an eye.

I used to have a routine I had to follow leaving the house, otherwise I would be convinced the house was catching fire or flooding. My friends found it very frustrating. Then one day I changed my clothes to go out, and when I came back to the living room, my friend said with a smile “I touched all the knobs in your kitchen so that you don’t have to.” It was such a precious gift - I never felt that he was affirming that my fears were real, but he was affirming me and saying my peace of mind mattered to him. And actually it was the start of opening my eyes to different ways to deal with my problem. So although I know a lot of trans people resent comparisons to mental health, and locate the problem in the physical body, rather than to do with the mind’s map of the embodied self in society (my own take on it), that is the feeling I am drawing on.

It seems to me that at least part of the distinction you are making revolves around what is sometimes called pastoral response.

@SmokedDuck thank you so much for putting a proper name to a way of working that I recognise as a teacher of adults. I was one of the earlier cases of an academic doxxed & threatened because of feminist views expressed on social media (back in 2016 ...).

One of the reasons the complainants to my employer said they couldn't go through informal discussion first before launching a formal complaint to get me sacked, was that - given my expressed views - they felt no trans person would be safe on my presence.

What I needed was a succinct way to explain that there is a difference between my personal views, and the way I treat the person in front of me as a teacher & pastoral tutor. I'd call it professionalism: you deal with the person in front of you, and it's not a personal interaction, as such, it's a professional interaction.

Your examples and the phrase 'pastoral response' perfectly explain what I spent 3 months trying to explain to my employer!

It's also what one might like to say to those trans activists who say that any discussion of transactivism, the transgender trend, and the issues around conflicting rights, is "denting the existence of trans people."

It's not. It's not personal -it's an appropriate discussion to have at the level of the law, ethics, and principles by which we organise society so we can all hope to live reasonable lives.

Although a lot of the time, when I hear that any discussion of the broad issues around trans rights (especially vs women's sex-based rights) I want to answer that my sex (and my own experience) has been debated, discussed, denied for millennia. The "position of women" - of our rights, our characters, our 'natural' abilities etc etc ad infinitum have been the subject of male discourse since, ooooh, at least as early as the Book of Genesis ...

Petition @UKParliament to record bio-SEX of all #Rapists &sexual/violent offenders approaching 10,000 necessary to trigger @Govuk response and well on the way to 100,000 to trigger a debate on the floor of @HouseofCommons thanks to @MBMpolicy petition in @ScotParl petition.parliament.uk/petitions/590123