Quakers in Britain think this is radical

[princessleah1]

https://www.quaker.org.uk/documents/statement-of-policy-on-provision-of-trans-inclusive-facilities-bym

This is the Quaker response to the Supreme Court judgement. It's the usual flim flam about respecting people's rights...unless those people happen to be women

Not sure if it’s the same as faking, but as with vegans, there are some performative atheists that believe they are very much superior to everyone else.

Bit like the so-called sceptic movement, who put themselves forward as superior and evidence based, then attracted in men who thought they were very clever and out there, who fell hook line and sinker for gender ideology.

Some atheists are so obsessed, it’s almost like a neo-religion. I think it would be very attractive to bad faith actors and progressive oddballs.

Okay, but they are unlikely to win jobs or power within atheist institutions. Ego trips are not quite the same thing.

It's interesting to me that what's now Humanists UK ended up being taken over by gay activists, to the point where it's now largely a TQ+ group with an occasional sideline in bashing religion. I don't think it was conscious entryism, more that they couldn't all get jobs at Stonewall.

That's at the national level. At the local level there's an obvious need for humanist celebrants, and that seems to carry on with little reference to the national office.

Not that this is the main point of the thread, but there have been 'non-theist' Quakers and Attenders (Attenders being those who attend Meeting because they like it, are getting to know Quakerism, have sympathies with Quakerism but might not want to commit the whole hog, etc) for decades. It was one of the things that attracted me towards attending Meeting, and I still do from time to time. I don't believe in a god. I have though, enjoyed the indefinable quality of a meeting (sometimes called 'Corporate Worship', meaning that it's a joint affair) which seems to amount to more than the sum total of its parts. It's probably been the only area of my life that's a bit woo.

I would, in my limited understanding of British quakers in 2025, agree with other more informed posters that this stance will not be universally agreed upon by all UK Quakers, and that there are lots of grassroots feminist Quakers who will be pushing back hard. I hope they prevail. Quakerism is, like others have pointed out, an absolutely ideal vehicle to capture and must be very prone to entryism. But at the core is a deep desire to ponder and think fairly critically, and not to be put off by others not agreeing. I hope that comes true in this case, eventually.

They've been very helpful to us GC feminists in recent years, accommodating GC meetings in their premises when other orgs were scared off.

So, in this national yearly gathering that happened this weekend past, despite the fact that Quakers do not use - or indeed generally allow - flags or symbols of any sort in their Meeting Houses, trans activists were allowed to bring a trans flag, and wear really aggressive slogan t-shirts, right into to the large Meeting Room where worship and discernment takes place. This, as Quakers might say, is not in Right Ordering - and certainly underlines the "one rule for us, a different rule for them" that seems to be in operation, and which is in direct opposition to the Testimony of Equality. This does nothing to help create the unity which such a gathering seeks.

In my experience, "LGBTQIA+" people who push the TQ+ thing aren't gay, but mostly heterosexual (in the sense of "primarily having desire towards and relationships with people of the opposite sex"), and are just appropriating the trappings of gayness, often to position themselves - subconsciously or otherwise - as more interesting (and more oppressed) than they actually are.

Yes. Andrew Copson is gay, but he finds himself in the position of being a gay man who doesn't believe same-sex attraction exists, and the head of an atheist organisation who believes in gendered souls.

I suspect he's trained himself not to think very hard about this.

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/gift/1d3b30e546222aa6

There's an article in today's Telegraph about the Quakers and their reputation-destroying policy. I hope the article gift link works.

Like Stonewall, Mr Parker said the Supreme Court judgement did not have “the force of law”.

“Whilst the EHRC has recently issued guidance, this is currently only interim guidance. It is non-statutory and therefore does not have the force of law,” the document states. “We see the Equality Act itself as our primary legal guide when making decisions.

I'm not being funny, but what part of "the Supreme Court has ruled on what the Equality Act means" does he not understand?

The Society of Friends has been trying for years to escape the death-grip of transphobia that constantly takes over meetings and attempts to embed deeply harmful rhetoric into a culture of kindness, open-mindedness and tolerance.

Thankyou for kindly granting your local chapter a reprieve.

There is an officially recognised Quaker group for atheist Quakers (?) but we were not allowed one for sex realist Quakers 🤨

I don’t really get the quakers. Lol

This post has exactly the tone of vicious, pernicious attack thinly cloaked under the garb of fake self-aggrandising kindness that I have come to expect from transactivists.

People who genuinely value open-mindedness and tolerance do not speak like this.

It’s butters! He can never hide is male socialisation

if memory serves didnt the quakers try a few years ago to host a ‘let’s talk & try and find a compromise” meeting? That went well then!

I see they have thrown intersex people in the mix (people with DSDs dislike this description) as if they had anything to do with trans.

It's interesting you say that, since that comment was written by a (non-trans female) Quaker friend of mine who sent it to me to post. Is she male socialised as well?

I of course totally believe you because you haven’t in anyway got a reputation for being economical with the truth and moving the goalposts on the very regular basis you’re getting your arse handed too you on here

still if it keeps you amused

I can only surmise they don't actually know what the SC does?

Really? Your Quaker friends are so incapable of being on the internet that they send you cruel posts that sound exactly like your posts to post on Mumsnet?

🤣

Quakers have really gone downhill then in every single way.

You know, @DaughterOfSqualor I can fully understand there being atheist attenders. Everyone has always been made welcome. In order to be a member though, it makes sense that you should believe in God and anyone conscientious who lost their faith while being a member would leave. Sounds to me like being conscientious is something Quakers have now lost, amongst other things.

And that’s desperately sad @ArcheryAnnie . I know sexism is everywhere, but Quakers were generally better than most.

Great article in the Telegraph @AuntMunca . Thanks for sharing it. I may try to send it to my female Quaker family member who I think might be interested.

Actually, I think it’s more projection.

“takes over meetings and attempts to embed deeply harmful rhetoric into a culture of kindness, open-mindedness and tolerance” is spot on as a description of the current wave of men’s rights activism that has taken over Quakers.

While most of my friends wouldn't dream of posting on MN, a few especially robust souls occasionally do. None of the Quakers (to my knowledge!) though. A couple are happy to occasionally comment on things I send them, however.

PriOn1, I've tried again to PM you. I have the article ready to email to you if you PM back with your email address.

This is where the phrase "chinny reckon" is very useful.

What is really telling, of course, is that sex-realist Quakers do recognise "that of god" in trans activists, and don't seek to drive them out of Quakerism. Everyone is welcome. All sex-realist Quakers ask is that they are not forced to lie about that in which they don't believe, that they are afforded the protections under the Equality Act that they are entitled to, that safeguarding in regard to children and young people is rigorous, and that the contributions of sex-realist Quakers to discernment and Quaker life are given the same respect as everyone else.

Trans activists in Quakerism, on the other hand, seek to drive anyone who doesn't think exactly the way they do out of the Society. Which gives the lie to being "inclusive" and "welcoming".

It’s very sad to see people traducing everything they stand for in this way.

Me too.

I have a friend who is a Quaker, and I thought it sounded very fair, and enlightened.

This ideology definitely makes people think they're being progressive, when in reality, it's the absolute opposite.

It's a shame.

Re Statement of policy on provision of trans-inclusive facilities on BYM’s estate at
https://www.quaker.org.uk/documents/statement-of-policy-on-provision-of-trans-inclusive-facilities-bym
to state ‘We will not label something as a single-sex space if we cannot truthfully guarantee that it will be single-sex’ is typical Quaker nonsense. It sounds high-minded but is really a smokescreen. It is a bit like saying ‘We will not label any product in our bookshop or café with a price if we cannot truthfully guarantee that it will be paid for at the till – after all, a shoplifter might steal it’.