Quaker's release statement on EHRC guidance, don't mention women once

[SingleSexSpacesInSchools]

other than to say women will encounter trans men (women) now...

https://www.quaker.org.uk/news-and-events/news/quaker-response-to-draft-guidance-around-definition-of-sex

Wow, I agree with all of that. Nice to see if written out formally. Way to go Quakers! 🌈

Well that is disappointing. Note also uses 'intersex' instead of DSD, I had thought better of the Quakers but hey ho.
Edited to add: doesn't tally up with their commitment to safeguarding as far as I can see.

I don't expect the quakers to have a better handle on anything than anyone else, tbh.

Really? Do you/ they think this is just about toilets?

I expected nothing more. They've been completely captured for years.

Technically, it only says that 'cis' women will encounter transmen - but what about the majority of us who are neither 'cis' nor trans.

Unsurprising, but disappointing nonetheless. I always hope for better from the Quakers, but this is narrow-minded and massively missing the point.

Also, like they give a shit about actual women. This is the 'transman gotcha', employed when they realise that keeping Pete the Plumber out of the Ladies, however sad it makes him, is a no-brainer for 99% of the public.

Sadly this is one reason I have left my Quaker meeting (not in the UK). It's all "be kind" and don't think beyond that.

Missing from that is -
-a statement of what the law says and why
-any discussion of what ‘inclusion’ means in this context; including who, in what, for what?

There’s a long thread about the Friends and this issue on here not that long ago and I commented on that. It’s not a surprise that this saggy, theologically illiterate, badly written and non-argued piece of crap is supposed to represent the outcome of a modern process of discernment.

Well it is true that if it is decided that everyone has to use facilities according to their sex at birth then Transmen would have to use female facilities. I know a transman who looks and sounds like a man in every respect. Has been using men's facilities for 16 years without any issues. Would you all prefer him to use women's facilities?

Sure, that's fine.

It might involve some explaining on occasion but that's what happens when you make a decision to make yourself appear as if you are in fact the other sex.

Yes. Everyone knows what sex they are and should be capable of working out which changing room, dormitory and toilet they should use. There will be some difficult moments along the way for women who are living as men. In terms of risks to everyone, particularly women, however they are presenting, this is the least risky option.

I debated trying the Quakers once after my faith was shaken (still is). I was horrified by their safeguarding policies. Seems nothing has changed, they still have no idea:

How do Quakers organise safeguarding?
In local and area Quaker meetings, the area meeting trustees are responsible for safeguarding. Each area meeting has its own safeguarding policy and a safeguarding co-ordinator.

https://www.quaker.org.uk/our-organisation/safeguarding

Concern about “cis” women being “confronted” by trans”men” in the ladies loos. But no concern at all re how women feel if men use the ladies.
And so much word soup. Quotation marks used by me because I refuse to adhere to their nonsense bungling of language.
I used the ladies in a pub today. I had to go upstairs and then though four doors to reach them. If a man with nefarious plans had been there I would have had no chance of help. I’d have felt very much at risk if a TIM had been there, however apparently innocent his reasons.

The quakers have been disappointing women for a long time now.

Everyone deserves dignity and privacy in their day-to-day lives. From many years of inclusive provision on our sites, we know that concerns about inclusive toilet provision are overwhelmingly overstated.
Translation:
inclusive provision = trip over ourselves to bend to men's wishes
overwhelmingly overstated concerns = shut up hysterical women

Also they can fuck off with their "cis women"

"A world in which gender-policing becomes the norm will harm others too"
Is gender policing not essential for the safety of us all, there's an innocence about their article which really worries me.

Interesting that they quote “fearfully and wonderfully made” as I would’ve thought that would justify them respecting that people are made in the image of God. And the rest of that psalm goes on to talk about God knowing us intimately - every hair on our head when we were ‘knitted in our mother’s womb’. The psalm makes it very clear that God’s creation is loved and perfect in His sight.

What a travesty that a group so mindful of theological rationale has decided to pander to a pantomime version of God’s creation. And all the care in the world to prop up gender dysphoria (and those that would exploit that for harm) and none whatsoever for girls and women.

What is wrong with these people?

If I remember correctly, Elizabeth Fry was a Quaker. She must be turning in her grave.

This is often used as some kind of "gotcha".

Like the occasional woman who has gone trans is more of a threat to us than the mostly intact males who would be entering under the alternative rule ie gender identity.

We have to fix on one of the two and we are going to have to take the hit on the trans men in order to keep the spaces single sex.

In fact, most trans men are still easily recognisable as women. They may look masculine in photos but in real life they are often slight, with a female gait and stance due to the shape of the pelvis, small hands and feet, no Adams apple, smooth skin......

And here, friends, is the 'transman gotcha' I described at 19.03 on this very thread.

Still doesn't work, but thank you for the live demo.

Yes of course your female friend should use the women's. Why on earth not?

Fits perfectly with the gnostic view of spirituality held by Friends, i.e. that there is an inner reality that cannot be verified but that exists. Inner reality not externals is very important for Friends. The term 'Quakers' comes from the fact that many Friends will shake when possessed by the Spirit. Once you understand the non-corporeal view of inner life being more real than externals then support of trans et al is entirely predictable.
The CofE is walking into the same trap - and it's a heresy: gnosticism is a heresy which sees the material world and human body as unworthy and only the spiritual realm and inner feelings, thoughts etc as real and worthy to be in the presence of God; it's why the Cathars were persecuted because they were preaching a world view that was unassailable and unreachable by human authority or law. St John's gospel is gnostic but accepted into the canon (unlike the gospels of Mary Magdalen,Thomas etc) because it is grounded in the ministry of Jesus and does not promulgate the idea that the body is unworthy and lesser, suggest that Jesus was pure spirit and not incarnate, which doctrines undermine the sacrifice of Jesus in dying in the body and the entire point of his being resurrected in the body.
So trans ideology from a Christian point of view is heresy - and Christians are huge on the be kind business, apparently not realising what they are letting in to their belief system.

Neither the guidance nor the law require trans identifying females to be allowed access to women’s spaces.

Perhaps she will perhaps she won’t. If she does she can tell anyone questioning her she is a woman. She is rare in looking so like a man that no one would know. Usually people would.

If she continues to use the men’s , no one will know anyway according to what you say.

That one person you are acquainted with though does not change the whole principle that goes across so many aspects when sex means sex.

She can get maternity leave if she gets pregnant for example.

She would be doing something horribly wrong if she were to trick a gay man as another.

She cannot lie and say she is her child’s father should she have a child.

I admire those women in Romania ( Look up Last Virgins) who lived as men and looked like men but never pretended they actually were.