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?

I'm a Quaker, and take very seriously the Quaker testimonies of equality and truth.

I have been very disturbed to witness Quaker HQ, in Euston, run a coach and horses through those testimonies, and ignore Quaker process, in their efforts to push gender ideology onto the rest of us. They don't appear to be concerned about homophobia, or the rights of women, and they have tried very hard to suppress dissent.

But one thing that Quakers do very well is dissent. Ours is fundamentally a radical religion, whose practitioners naturally resist a would-be priest class dictating to them what they must believe. Thou must think for thyself.

I just googled a trans activist, Abigail Maxwell, whose name popped up in another context, to discover that they are a Quaker, which led to quite a lot about Quakers and the current gender debate.

I don't know much about Quakers, but liked the listening approach described here:

www.norwichquakers.org.uk/post/norwich-meeting-s-experience-of-conflict-around-transgender-issues-january-2019-january-2020

There's a very woolly bit of "aren't we nice" about trans issues in the epistle that is the final statement that comes out of Yearly Meeting, which has just finished, but nothing is settled about how we as a Society approach things like single sex spaces, prisons, etc.

I don't think it's a coincidence that this is being discussed at the same time that Quakers are also attempting, in our clumsy and well-meaning way, to get to grips with real injustices, like racism, classism, abelism, not to mention the demands to take action on climate change seriously. Movement on trans issues has been pushed forward by a coterie of largely upper-middle-class, privately educated young Quakers, embarrassed about their own extreme privilege and desperate to distance themselves from it. This is the perfect way for them to do so, at no cost to themselves.

Interesting. I'm waiting to see the actual minutes, but I see that the Epistle "lovingly acknowledges and affirms" trans and non-binary Friends. I'm totally happy with the first, wary of the second. What does "affirming" mean in that context? Do we also affirm, for example, women or feminists? (Rhetorical question, of course.)

But one thing that Quakers do very well is dissent. Ours is fundamentally a radical religion, whose practitioners naturally resist a would-be priest class dictating to them what they must believe. Thou must think for thyself.

I'm heartened by that. And more generally I feel more able, having had this discussion, to go back to my Meeting prepared to talk about this as a matter of conscience.

I am also heartened by BenjaminGay’s comment regarding dissent. Thank you to all who continue to push for discussion as a means to find resolution. I have generally seen Quakers as a force for good in a world that is sometimes very messy. For Quakers to push transactivism unequivocally in its current aggressive form would be a sad day for me.

Movement on trans issues has been pushed forward by a coterie of largely upper-middle-class, privately educated young Quakers, embarrassed about their own extreme privilege and desperate to distance themselves from it. This is the perfect way for them to do so, at no cost to themselves.

This partly sums up "woke" for me - I was saying to some younger relatives on the weekend that I find it interesting at the moment that people find it easier to change language than change society.

I think some social change can come from language change, but that it only goes so far ...

I think some social change can come from language change, but that it only goes so far.

I'm definitely not against changing our language where it contributes to prejudice and injustice. For example, Caroline Criado Perez has made me think about male default in language, and there are obvious examples regarding racial biases ("skin-coloured" tights, anyone?). Of course we should think more about how we speak and how we reinforce ideas and social tendencies. My sticking point is that language is vitally important and should be used to make reality clearer, and injustices more visible. Otherwise it is papering over the cracks, and worse than useless.

(Not aimed at you, Short, I know that wasn't what you were arguing for.)

What you've said (Ben as well as Short) also makes me think about gratitude and shame. One of the things I have cherished about Quakerism is its relationship with humanity and its perception of our essential goodness, even though we often get it wrong. I also feel on a personal level that shame is never a useful emotion - it drives us to defensiveness and isolation, and drives the narrative that we are bad people, rather than mistaken but good people who can make amends. We must recognise our own privilege, but is gratitude and a desire to extend our opportunities and good fortune to everyone less appropriate than feeling ashamed and complicit in the injustice? (That isn't rhetorical, it's something I'm genuinely considering.)

I'm in danger of derailing my own thread here, aren't I? Sorry, I don't have a proper Quaker sounding-board in real life, as you can possibly tell.

I - like a couple of others here - was really heartened at the Norwich Quakers' process, which seemed to be that most Quakerly of things, a listening process which affirmed at every point the humanity of everyone involved, even when it was difficult, and even when it came to conclusions neither side was entirely comfortable with.

Quakers - a religious organisation, the Religious Society of Friends - can cope with accepting that plenty of it's own members don't even believe in God. Which, frankly, baffles me - why bother joining a faith body if you are an atheist? - but which in practice is absolutely fine. If we can do this without schism, you'd think we should be able to work out a way through the current impasse, even if it takes us 50 years.

The Yearly Gathering epistle is just the first step in a long journey to explore this issue, not the final word. I have also been heartened by Quakers at a local level (very unlike the Euston HQ) being keen, to ensure that gender-critical Quakers are heard, even on the occasions that they personally are not of the same opinion.

Bumping this thread to add a link to this new article on Lesbian and Gay News, as I thought it was relevant.

lesbianandgaynews.com/2021/08/trans-substantiation-a-quest-for-truth-in-the-quakers-by-deborah-evans/

That's a great article, thank you, Wine!

How would a Quaker respond to a trans person who said that the truth is they had always felt trapped in the wrong body, since childhood, and the truth is that they feel complete and right in their new identity as someone of the opposite sex?

Does the trans person's psychological inner truth have less value than the Quaker's biological outer truth? If so, how does the spiritual, inner not-biologically-visible component of faith (the soul, the presence of God and the Devil) get handled in Quakerism? Must it always have a clear physical manifestation?

How would a Quaker respond to a trans person who said that the truth is they had always felt trapped in the wrong body, since childhood, and the truth is that they feel complete and right in their new identity as someone of the opposite sex?

I liked the quote from Helen Joyce's book in this review:

Whether a religion makes its believers happy is irrelevant to the question of whether god exists, or whether everyone else should be compelled to pay it lip service.

It seems to me that the Quakers understand that very well, normally. But can they resist the genderologists demands for belief and acquiescence? That LGN article wasn't hugely encouraging...

I am in membership and attend MfW semi regularly but I don't "identify" as a Quaker.

I am drawn to Quakerism because as a community it seeks for and sees the universal in all people.

But I don't "identify" as a Quaker because identity is of the ego, of the self. Seperate and often tribal. Selfish. Ultimately the cause of all conflict. That is "My Truth"

Sharing of individual spiritual truth and experience is encouraged, though I rarely feel moved in MfW. There is beauty in other people's truth and I learn from it, even if it is not "My truth". The main thing and where Quakerism differs from other faiths, is that nothing was ever seen as "THE TRUTH". Until recently.

Any sensible person would run a mile at anyone or any group professing to have moral or spiritual exclusivism over others. Gender ideology, like most religions and secuar ideologies makes truth claims, which it is so certain of it seeks to impose them.

"Think it possible that you may be mistaken".

There are however material, physical, rational and scientific truths that are universal. Language does evolve, but not unanchored. Scientific truths do change but slowly, with logic, consensus, rationale and the scientific method.

There is very little dogma in Quakerism. It has always resisted dogma. It is practical and seeks social justice.

However I feel the secular dogma of the "Social Justice Movement" is creeping in by stealth, cloaked in a veneer of kindness and pretty words that resonate on a superficial level with Quaker values and it concerns me.

Bottom up liberal principles of faith in humanity and practical pacifist activism are being seduced and replaced by top this top down ideology that sees everything in terms of hierachies of oppression and the "cult of the self", as in every other walk of life.

I don't have to agree with everything you say and believe about yourself to value and respect you, nor would I force anything on you, but I won't say, do or believe (or pretend I believe) anything that is forced upon me and I have a moral imperitive to resist that which I see as harmful.

Though in answer to the original post @SelfPortraitWithEelsI I do not and never have thought that using someones preferred opposite sex pronouns is particularly harmful, (if sex and gender are not conflated on a societal level) I find it easy to speak to a persons inherrent femininity or masculinity or your gender presentation or even just your stated truth, with no conflict, if it is asked of me.
I do object to stating "my" pronouns , since that is forcing me to "identify" with something that is just a fact about me and has no more bearing on who I am as a person than the colour of my hair, or the size of my nose. I am female, I do not identify with being female, I would like it to be irrelevant.

@NecessaryScene

How would a Quaker respond to a trans person who said that the truth is they had always felt trapped in the wrong body, since childhood, and the truth is that they feel complete and right in their new identity as someone of the opposite sex?

I liked the quote from Helen Joyce's book in this review:

Whether a religion makes its believers happy is irrelevant to the question of whether god exists, or whether everyone else should be compelled to pay it lip service.

It seems to me that the Quakers understand that very well, normally. But can they resist the genderologists demands for belief and acquiescence? That LGN article wasn't hugely encouraging...

Thank you. I don't think the quote helps answer my question but it's very interesting in itself!

How would a Quaker respond to a trans person who said that the truth is they had always felt trapped in the wrong body, since childhood, and the truth is that they feel complete and right in their new identity as someone of the opposite sex?

Well, I can't speak for all Quakers, but I would give no less credence to that than I would to anyone's expression of a profound inner truth - that is, I could believe that it did (or could) express an inner truth about their experience, without it necessarily "speaking to my condition". In the same way, a Quaker who said they have personally met with the resurrected Christ might well be saying something that didn't resonate with my experience of life (or death, or religion), but which might be of enormous meaning and importance to them and others. It's not my place to silence anyone's ministry, whether that is spoken or lived - but neither would it be appropriate for them to demand I refer to them as the-Quaker-who-encountered-the-resurrected-Jesus. And in the context of a public debate where there are enormous implications for society, I reserve the right to discuss both that ministry and what might be the consequences if it were adopted as absolute truth by, say, law-makers.

Being open to others' expressions of truth and experience, and treating those expressions with both respect and discernment, is one of the fundamental aspects of Quakerism for me. It is not a contradiction to say that we must listen with the utmost care and love and then, once we have considered something carefully, we may decide that it is not our truth, and that it would be wrong for us to live by it - it is the great strength of Quakerism. It is the silencing of other perspectives that bothers me, not the expression of views that aren't universally shared.

Does the trans person's psychological inner truth have less value than the Quaker's biological outer truth? If so, how does the spiritual, inner not-biologically-visible component of faith (the soul, the presence of God and the Devil) get handled in Quakerism? Must it always have a clear physical manifestation?

I'm not sure it divides this clearly into 'inner' and 'outer', to be honest. The problem lies not in "whose truth wins" overall, but in the freedom of every individual Quaker to obey their conscience in speaking what they believe to be the truth. The inequality comes when one side of the debate is asking the other side to lie.

Thank you OP. That's a really considered answer.

I think @NecessaryScene answered your question about how a Quaker would respond to a Trans person describing their truth, very eloquently with that quote.

A person's belief about a thing (be that religion or gender identity), is subjective, it isn't "THE TRUTH". Quakers know that subjective belief is not Objective, not true for everyone. I would say that a Quaker asking not or understanding and empathy but for their truth to be taken as THE truth, has not understood the guiding principles.

Just to make clear - I'm not a Quaker. I'm a mathematician (or a Helen Joycer!)

But I do very much like what I understand to be the Quakers' outlook, and I did think that fitted with it.

The problem lies not in "whose truth wins" overall, but in the freedom of every individual Quaker to obey their conscience in speaking whattheybelieve to be the truth

This is crucial and appears to be missing from some of the dialogue in Quakers currently.

The answer to the question at BYM (do we welcome and affirm transpeople) is yes. But do we also welcome and affirm gender- critical feminists? And women who need single sex spaces? Etc. I hope the answer is also yes. If it is, we need to find a way to hold both these different perspectives in the community and accept the current conflict between them, allowing it to exist openly, with neither side assuming the other's perspective comes from a place of bigotry or ignorance.

As other posters have said, Quakers encompass a wide range of positions on the existence of God. In the first world war, a third of young male British Quakers joined up to fight. Others were jailed for their refusal to fight or contribute to the war effort in any way. Quakers held together and accepted that, in this imperfect world, individuals following their consciences are led to different answers.

Perhaps it is always difficult to do this, and each time, the Society and Quaker process hangs by a thread. I hope that we manage it again.