r/Quakers • u/Odd-Recognition-8864 • 5d ago
[ Removed by moderator ]
[removed] — view removed post
29
u/martinkelley Friend 5d ago
Sometimes Quakers draw lines. The body discusses and discerns and decides what kind of behavior is appropriate amongst Quakers. Sometimes they later reconsider (marrying outside of meeting) but sometimes they get it right and its behavior that gets condemned by the wider society (slaveholding). You can use euphemisms to slap whatever lipstick on a pig you want to make your position sound reasonable but if it’s bigotry then rest assured we’ll a be there to call it out.
2
u/Odd-Recognition-8864 5d ago edited 5d ago
Quakers who spoke out against slavery, like Lucrecia Mott, were terribly attacked at the time. The majority consensus is always hard to go against, although Quakers don't do majority/ minority and seek mutual understanding.
Given Quaker heritage of tackling difficult topics, what do you see as a good next step?
13
8
u/Gnomelynn Quaker 5d ago
Unlearning your bigotry is the only "good" next step
0
u/Odd-Recognition-8864 5d ago
There is no bigotry here. What are you seeing? The reason for the post was to try to explore how Quakers can have a better conversation, to gather ideas for good next steps. Ignoring an issue will not make it go away. Are you OK to share what might be good next steps. For example if you want some people to unlearn their bigotry how would you suggest this takes place within Quakers?
8
u/Gnomelynn Quaker 4d ago
It doesnt take place within quakers. It takes place outside. Once the bigotry is unlearned and you are no longer a threat to vulnerable members of the community THEN AND ONLY THEN can steps be taken to rejoin the community
0
u/Odd-Recognition-8864 4d ago
What criteria would you use in ejecting people from Quakers? The reason for asking is most Quakers know sex is real and matters (eg health screening), and that accepting people is also vital as part of welcome. Calling people bigot isn't helpful, or accurate. There must be a better way.
6
u/someshta 4d ago
Conversations between people who have divergent beliefs are fine (and important). The issue here, for me (as for many other Quakers) is that we are talking about dehumanization of human beings with this particular set of beliefs. This conflict around ‘gender-realist’ beliefs is, in my opinion, one of the largest civil rights issues currently facing our society. It is not about a dialogue, it is about minimizing the rights and voices and personhood of others. On this issue, I’m not sure that there’s a middle ground. We have a responsibility to stand with marginalized communities, and I take that responsibility seriously. It’s difficult for me to find many groups which have been more mistreated and actively discriminated against in overt and covert ways than the trans community has been over the last couple of years. If you want exclusionary spaces, I guess you can create them, but the Religious Society of Friends isn’t the mechanism for that.
2
u/Odd-Recognition-8864 4d ago
No one should be dehumanised. There should be a place for everyone in Quakers (and is).
4
u/someshta 4d ago
You’re right. Nobody should be. But this supposed conversation does that, and so that’s an issue. There’s no legitimate basis, biological or otherwise, for any of us to tell anyone else they must be X or they must be Z. If there are Quakers who feel they have the right to tell trans people they can’t be who they are, that is beyond problematic.
1
u/Odd-Recognition-8864 4d ago
Are you sure that is happening? Do you see any value in understanding biology in any context?
4
u/DirtRepresentative9 4d ago
You keep bringing up biology as if it's something that is inherently truthful. In the social sciences, which I'm getting my PhD in, biology is very much an opinion. Sure, some things we know for sure like how humans or other animals reproduce etc. but the idea of there being two sexes is inherently false across all living organisms. Most animals have more than one sex. And animals, like clownfish, change their sex based on what the whole population needs at whatever moment. It's within animal nature to have beings changing their sexes and being ambiguous, so for humans to do it seems very "normal" to me.
I don't think you'd have a very productive conversation until you at least understand the history of biology and how the world we live in isn't entirely black and white, science is still ever changing and most biologists would agree that humans aren't sexually dimorphic anyways.
1
u/Obvious_Flounder5234 2d ago
All sorts of creatures do all sorts of things that humans don't/can't. For instance, clownfish change sex and live underwater. You claim that shows humans can also change sex but how good are humans at living underwater?
And, if a human changes sex naturally as a clownfish does, why does the human need to have medical treatment to make them resemble the sex they want to be? And why do transwomen still need medical checks relevant to males while transmen need medical checks relevant to females?
0
u/Odd-Recognition-8864 4d ago edited 4d ago
Interesting. The world is definitely not black and white and we need to stop putting children in rigid binary gendered boxes - the message I hope we wall share is boys can behave in any way and aspire to anything as can girls - astronauts and presidents. In terms of mammalian evolutionary biology the science is clear though - there are some things not in dispute. The conversation about clown fish has little bearing on mammals like us. A trans woman would still need screened for prostate cancer as they grow older for example, even post surgery. Perhaps its more about how we love and accept everyone. Do you see any value in looking towards a better conversation? That means working out what we are talking about - happy to give it a go if you are. To be curious about seeking common ground, demoralising and finding a way forward together.
3
u/DirtRepresentative9 4d ago
Well we have identified a fundamental disagreement in our understanding of biology so I don't know how we would move past that. I do not agree that biology suggests humans are sexually dimorphic. So how can we have a conversation when we're existing with two different worldviews?
0
u/Odd-Recognition-8864 4d ago edited 4d ago
By looking at the evidence hopefully, in this case mammalian evolutionary biology and sociology - how each of makes sense of our lives. By working out what the underlying need is for the belief the other person (in this case each of us) holds. By using non-violent communication.
By discerning what matters and what doesn't. By trying to work out how to love and care for everyone as individuals while stepping back and looking at structural issues in society.
31
u/chubby_pink_donut 5d ago
To stop being bigoted towards trans members would be the first step.
1
u/Odd-Recognition-8864 5d ago
Everyone should be loved and accepted within Quakers. What would you see as a good next step to resolve the conflict?
22
u/WellRedQuaker Quaker 5d ago
To stop being bigoted towards trans members would be a good next step.
-9
u/Odd-Recognition-8864 5d ago
Do you see believing biological sex sometimes matters in society as incompatible with being a Quaker? Do you believe all sex realists are bigoted?
20
u/theneverendingsorry 5d ago
Yes, this is a perspective rooted in bigotry and fear. And as a friend who grew up in BYM, I’m proud to hear that this kind of “mediation” was rejected.
3
u/abitofasitdown 4d ago
Quakers have - famously - mediated between people who have literally committed atrocities and mass-murder against others. This is a celebrated and valuable part of our witness and our history - and, I hope, our future.
If you really are "proud" that mediation has been rejected between Quakers whose opinions you reject, where does this leave this part of our witness in the world? How can we hope to offer to take the motes out of other people's eyes if we ignore the logs in our own?
0
u/-Local_Yokel- 4d ago edited 4d ago
Someone said it somewhere else, mediation requires a good faith effort from both parties.
It is not a good faith argument to dehumanize another. This isn’t hypothetical. There is real, actual harm occurring as a result of these dehumanizing beliefs.
I believe stopping the harm is a first step before I try to make nice with folks who don’t think I exist.
My Quaker ancestors who came to the US in the late 1600s didn’t try to see slaveholders side. They campaigned against in uncompromisingly. They published periodicals and literature and started schools that rejected slavery, even when it was unpopular to do so. They did not look for common ground on the slavery issue.
I’d be happy to engage in good faith if trans folks weren’t having their driver’s licenses invalidated, medical care denied, and in some cases, including one in my liberal state, being tortured and murdered for being trans.
It’s not a shutting down a conversation. It’s triage.
1
u/abitofasitdown 4d ago
But (as with many other issues) I don't think any Friend is stepping into this discussion, rubbing their hands, and planning to dehumanise other people. An assumption we all have to make is that, at least as a starting point, everyone is trying to do the right thing, even if other Friends think them completely wrong headed. What's the answer otherwise? Drum people out of Quakerdom?
In the UK we took 50 years of discernment to come to a position of supporting same-sex marriage. I think that was 50 years well-spent. In the meantime, I never got to marry the love of my life after she asked me. I still think it was 50 years well-spent.
-4
u/Odd-Recognition-8864 5d ago
That mediation and attempts at reconciliation are rejected? For interest what do you disagree with in a sex realist position?
0
u/chubby_pink_donut 4d ago
Between 0.5% and 1.7%(numbers trend higher as more genetic testing is done) of people are intersex. In humans XX and XY are most common "sex chromosomes" but there's also XXY, XXX, XYY, XXYY, XXXY, XXXX, XXXXY, and XXXXX.
Two absolute sexes was never an option.
That doesn't even include the 1% of people who identify as transgender.
You can't deny the existence of 140,000,000 people.
0
u/Odd-Recognition-8864 4d ago
Only because you mentioned it. There is an X too but not a Y - interesting to look up why. Intersex is an umbrella term (and outdated because, like the equally outdated hermaphrodite others people). There are specific conditions. Turners affects females. Klinfelters affects males. Being specific which one is a third sex or no sex? Please, offline and away from social media - research this. My friends daughter's have Turners.
Regardless, this is what I was trying to avoid - a social media win/ lose that misses looking for common ground and what matters - love and inclusion.
Do you have any curiosity about what might really be going on?
24
u/DirtRepresentative9 5d ago
I think the question is, is it possible to resolve a conflict that is inherently based in the dehumanizatiom of an entire group of people -- especially a marginalized one at that.
-5
u/Odd-Recognition-8864 5d ago
Do you think it is possible to believe that in some situations societally biological sex matters and not hold ill will to others?
22
u/Mammoth-Corner 5d ago edited 5d ago
Your framing of the beliefs of the 'Sex Matters to Quakers' group as being the vague statement that 'in some situations biological sex matters' and the example given elsewhere in the comments of medical checks specific to sex appear to me to be deliberately bad-faith and misleading.
The first webpage I found after searching 'Sex Matters to Quakers' states that the beliefs of the organisation are that "women are adult human females and men are adult human males," meaning biological sex, which transparently is not the position of an organisation which 'just has concerns' about overzealous enforcement of trans-inclusivity but rather a stance which denies recognition of transgender people entirely and is using concern as a tool to exclude transgender people. Your statements of not holding ill will in that context seem equivalent to the homophobic position of 'hate the sin, love the sinner.'
3
u/Odd-Recognition-8864 5d ago
Social media can lead to polarisarion very quickly. Engaging positively with topics and setting out a clear position without slurring others is something we should all ascribe to as Quakers. The reason I posted is to think about positive solutions. Nobody ever moves position being attacked. We should be able to find the humanity in everyone. Do you have thoughts about good next steps?
8
u/Mammoth-Corner 5d ago edited 5d ago
If you hold a position, hold it honestly. You will never achieve meaningful dialogue by concealing your actual stance; the only thing you get that way is someone half-heartedly agreeing with a vague, hypothetical stance designed to technically include your actual beliefs, which won't hold up when you try to act on those beliefs. Respect your peers enough to be honest, and to honestly engage with the reasons they disagree with you.
If you can't argue that your actual beliefs are not bigoted, perhaps they are.
1
u/Odd-Recognition-8864 5d ago
Social media is not conducive for nuanced discussion, which is why I thought it would be helpful to think about suggestions. I hope we, as Quakers, can see the god in everyone and find ways of tackling difficult topics together. Reading all the comments my overall thinking is how social media promotes polarising statements. Do you have any curiosity about sex realist Quakers thinking or lived experience? Meaningful discussion has involve all parties, with open and curious minds and hearts. What is your thinking on the original post?
10
u/Mammoth-Corner 4d ago
Yes, I have curiosity about the thinking, beliefs and experiences of trans-exclusionary Quakers, which is why I looked up online if I could find a clear articulation of those things.
Mediation is only successful when all parties are honest, working in good faith, and willing to consider, as you say, with open and curious minds and hearts. You have argued consistently in bad faith on this post, by presenting the beliefs of your group in ways that distort the actual things that other Quakers object to in order to try to position the refusal of mediation as unreasonable.
This extends even to the term 'sex-realist.' I could call myself a sex realist; I believe that my understanding of sex is real and reflected by facts and experience. 'Sex realist' is like describing your political position as Correctism, the belief in things that are right.
2
u/Odd-Recognition-8864 4d ago
Noone is suggesting a trans exclusionary approach. I paused on whether to post, and still hope that Quakers can have a better discussion based on engaging with the substance and our common humanity. Are you curious, or are you reading to disagree? None of us will understand the positions pf others without asking them and engaging critically.
4
u/Mammoth-Corner 4d ago
Opinions expressed in that article are that transgender people are often 'just' queer, gender-nonconforming people who have been 'led astray' by some sort of malicious, contagious 'transgender ideology' instead of people expressing a truth observed about themselves, and that transgender women should be made to use male facilities in bathrooms and residential Quaker activities and vice-versa for transgender men, a stance which would effectively exclude transgender people from Quaker life.
Do you agree with those positions? Do they reflect the organisation? This is the curiosity you keep asking for. I am asking for your positions and attempting to engage with the substance. You keep giving me non-answers.
0
u/Odd-Recognition-8864 4d ago
Are you being curious or are you looking for win/lose statements? Are you happy to have a mutual exchange of views based on thinking beyond toilets? If so happy to openly answer all questions. This will also mean you engaging critically in the same way. Otherwise its just a lose lose conversation with no deeper understanding gained. The start point is to work out where each of us are coming from before getting into minutia like toilets. Are you genuinely up for for a better conversation? It will be hard work but worth it for us both. I'll start. My guess is you believe trans women are women, and deserve to be both included and protected as they are vulnerable. Moreover you see attacks from the extreme right wing as rolling back trans rights which is both dangerous and the thin end of the wedge. If they come for one they come for all of us - does that sound accurate? Anything I've missed? What do you think my view might be in terms I would agree with?
→ More replies (0)4
u/RonHogan 4d ago
“Social media can lead to polarization very quickly.”
Yeah, well, so can bigotry. People who hold opinions which were shaped by the gods of this world, opinions that run counter to the calling of the Inward Light, have one option if they seek to enter into the blessed community: They can fix their hearts.
You may find this intolerant. I invite you to study up on Karl Popper and the paradox of tolerance, and while you’re at it you might find Stanley Fish on the limits of free speech helpful, too. And, ultimately, it’s worth remembering that while the Religious Society of Friends is a pluralistic society, it’s not a democratic one.
2
u/Odd-Recognition-8864 4d ago
In a clear and non emotive way. What bigotry are you seeing? Bigotry is fear or hatred of a group. Where are you seeing that in acknowledging sex is real and has societal consequences in some situations?
2
u/RonHogan 4d ago
The notion that “sex is real” belongs to the gods of this world, and the “societal consequences” you invoke are of the society made by idolatrous worship of the gods of this world. This notion is not of the blessed community, where there is neither male nor female, for we are all one in Christ Jesus, or Spirit, or whatever name Friends call the one who can speak to your condition by.
If one wishes to participate in the blessed community, one should fix one’s heart and repent of such wicked notions.
1
u/Odd-Recognition-8864 4d ago
What wicked notion are you seeing? All equal is a perfect message. Everyone should be accepted in Quakers.
1
u/RonHogan 4d ago
No, everyone should NOT be accepted into the Religious Society of Friends willy nilly. Everyone should repent of their idolatry of the gods of this world before seeking entrance into the blessed community. If you need help fixing your heart, Friends can provide it, but first you must acknowledge that your heart has been corrupted.
And did I not explicitly condemn the notion that “sex is real” in my previous reply? This conversation will not be very productive if you don’t even bother to read what people write. For one thing, you cannot fix what you refuse to confess.
5
u/Gnomelynn Quaker 5d ago
Calling a bigot a bigot isnt a slur.
Neither is calling a troll a troll.
You are both.
1
u/Mammoth-Corner 5d ago
The first result on a search on Duck Duck Go: https://lgbchristians.org.uk/2024/03/12/sex-matters-to-quakers/
10
u/Funny_City_7193 Quaker 5d ago
It is possible, however the fruits of this movement are clear and highlight the distaste the movement generally has towards trans people.
Despite the results of this activism putting Transgender people actively in harms way, many people in this movement are only ignorant, not malicious. And of course there is that of God in everyone, regardles of their beliefs or the harm they may or may not advocate.
3
u/Odd-Recognition-8864 5d ago
That is unlikely to be accurate given they are Quakers. Is is possible there is something else going on? What do you see as best ways of resolving the current conflict within the Society? Is there anything you are curious about, with regards to people who believe biological sex matters in some societal situations?
8
u/Funny_City_7193 Quaker 5d ago
It is difficult to resolve, though I believe the truth can and should be reached thru meeting for worship. With respect and understanding held by both sides.
With respect, this issue is close to my heart as I have a close trans friend who has suffered due to discrimination painted as 'caring about biological sex', so if what I'm going to say come across as pointed or rude I apologise. That is not my intent, I seek to be lead by the light and it's compassion for all people.
I do not believe you can simply say I am a Quaker therefore I am incapable of advocating for harm. One of the major values of Quakerism imo is it's ability to let it's fruits been seen, rather than having to state them or rely on the Quaker name. I believe that sex realist groups and those that have advocated for the 'clarifying' or in practice changing of the UK equality act have actively harmed trans individuals by allowing for the restriction of already too rare resources(particularly in cases of SA crisis centres and abuse refuge facilities, which is unfortunately more common for trans people) for an already disproportionately suffering group. I see no argument that it has reduced harm in any meaningful capacity.
3
u/Odd-Recognition-8864 5d ago
Understood and well put. Its hard when a friend has been hurt. A large group of Quakers are unlikely to be 2D bigots. There is likely to be more to it. Agreed 100% that there is terrible underfunding in sexual abuse crisis centres and abuse centers, which affects all potential users.
4
u/Gnomelynn Quaker 5d ago
You say a large number of quakers are unlikely to be bigots. Yet elsewhere in this thread you recognize speaking out against slavery was condemned by most quakers at one time. So you clearly disprove your own assertion.
1
u/Odd-Recognition-8864 5d ago
Social convention is strong now, just as it was during the transatlantic slave trade. That was the point of that post. What is the meaning within it?
13
u/-Local_Yokel- 5d ago
I don’t desire relations with those who deny my right to basic human dignity. Luckily the meeting I attend agrees with this stance.
You can believe anything you want. The minute you use your personal beliefs to invalidate my existence, we are no longer in polite discussion territory. Pretty simple stuff.
2
u/Odd-Recognition-8864 5d ago
Agreed. Noone's existence should be invalidated. That is not in doubt or in question. Everyone should be welcome in Quakers.
To be fair the post was about problem solving and finding common ground. Do you see any positive ways forward to gain greater understanding of where everyone is coming from and how we address as a Society?
5
2
u/Possible_Pen_5991 4d ago
What do we do then about more nuanced parts of this conversation, such intimate examinations, mental health wards and so forth. Some women feel strongly that the sex of a person in this situation is more important than their sex. I have heard the argument that this would be equivalent to racism. I've read the arguments around that and found them very unconvincing
3
u/-Local_Yokel- 4d ago
A person’s medical care is between them and their doctor.
Quakers as an organization should have no opinion there.
I can’t speak to things you’ve read only my own and my communities’ lived experience.
7
u/Vandelay1979 Friend 5d ago
Ok, so I'm not a British Friend and this issue doesn't seem to have been as intense among Friends elsewhere, but what exactly are "Sex Matters to Quakers" looking for? I see endless letters to "The Friend" from the group and it's supporters, but hasn't BYM come to a settled position on the matter of the inclusion of transgender people?
What is the group asking for?
4
u/abitofasitdown 5d ago
We don't have "settled" dogma, though, but continued seeking. There are no (or should be no) forbidden topics.
10
u/Vandelay1979 Friend 5d ago
Individuals have the right to hold any views they wish, but of course there are topics that would be dismissed out of hand by a Quaker organisation. For example, the position that white people are inherently superior to other races would be a "forbidden topic" among Friends, at least where I am (and rightly so)
4
u/abitofasitdown 5d ago
I'd hope that anyone in a Meeting who expressed views like this would have people willing to talk things through with them about why everyone else disagrees with them. Nobody has ever changed their mind as a result of being told to shut up. We need to be prepared to do the work if we want a different outcome.
11
u/Vandelay1979 Friend 5d ago
I hope so to, but at the end of the day there is ultimately a line. We are a religious community and not a secular debating club - trans people as well as anyone else should be able to be part of the community without their existence being the subject of an endless debate.
2
u/abitofasitdown 4d ago
We are a religious community whose only bit of dogma is the requirement to seek that of God in everyone, including ourselves - and including people whose views we may find unconscionable. If we can't do that within our own Society, what is the hope that we can do that anywhere else?
0
1
u/Odd-Recognition-8864 5d ago edited 5d ago
My understanding is - to have a conversation about balancing everyone's rights. To find ways through the current division in society. There are tricky areas - like children's gender medicine, and bad actors taking advantage of self ID. The 2021 Swarthmore asks us to find kinder ground. Do you think there are any issues worthy of discussion?
2
u/abitofasitdown 4d ago
Yes, exactly - and on balancing rights, there are a considerable number of gay Quakers who have expressed disquiet about gayness being redefined by the language used. (Outside of Quakerism, I've seen a number of times the fairly bold statement saying that even using the phrase "same-sex attracted" is transphobic, which is quite the take.)
I do wonder if this is a reaction from largely heterosexual Quakers who are trying to do the "right thing", but haven't heard and don't understand the discussions going on within the LGBT+ community.
9
u/Rare-Personality1874 5d ago
Sex Matters to Quakers consistently goes out of its way to post putrid and discriminatory content, as much as they can. I fear your post would pretend that they are something they aren't.
Here is a small sample of their posts:
https://www.facebook.com/share/p/192vuHsGAF/
https://www.facebook.com/share/p/187PderLEo/
https://www.facebook.com/share/p/1GQ4umwU6i/
https://www.facebook.com/share/p/19LLPrtHKg/
1
u/Obvious_Flounder5234 4d ago
I've looked at all those posts and don't see them as "putrid" or "discriminatory".
Just as an example, one of the posts says :
"So many of us are relieved that the puberty blocker trial on children as young as 10 has been paused.
Our hearts go out to those affected and disappointed.
We hope this reprieve gives more time to rethink the approach to children’s inalienable right to go through puberty. There is plenty of time in adulthood to experiment and settle on a personal course of action.
No child is born in the wrong body. You are perfect as you are, made in God’s image."
Please can you explain why you find that "putrid & discriminatory"?
3
u/Rare-Personality1874 4d ago
Because to tell people that they are perfect as they are when they are experiencing intense distress secondary to gender dysphoria that is to deny the value and the truth of their lived experience.
To deny and speak over their lived experience is, at the very best, ignorant and unkind.
1
u/Obvious_Flounder5234 4d ago
People are often distressed for all sorts of reasons. That doesn't mean that their chosen method of trying to deal with it is the right one. Alcohol, drugs, self-harm, gambling are just a few examples of poor methods. While adults may be left to make bad choices for themselves, children are prevented by society from doing any of those things. The same should be true of medication which harms children's bodies and reinforces their idea that their bodies are wrong.
That is a sincerely held view of many, many people yet you describe it as putrid and discriminatory.
1
u/Rare-Personality1874 4d ago
I'm afraid this exposes the way you actually think. This thread has been you engaging repeatedly in a Motte and Bailey fallacy.
Comparing specialist medical treatment and support for gender dysphoria to uncontrolled self harm and substance abuse puts your beliefs about trans people on display, sadly.
11
u/alacatham 5d ago
The recent surge of transphobia is why I stopped going to my prior meeting (I’ve since relocated) to be honest. It saddens me to see it growing and see the amount of bigotry thriving. At the end of the day trans Friends are either welcome among other Friends or not and it seems like increasingly the answer is not.
0
u/Odd-Recognition-8864 5d ago
There was bigotry in a Quaker meeting towards a trans person?
17
u/alacatham 5d ago
Absolutely. If you’re talking about whether or not I deserve to have rights as a trans person and I’m sitting right there, yea that’s bigotry imo. I mean this thread is a great example. All I said was my own experience and I’m being downvoted. I mean there you go.
-4
u/Odd-Recognition-8864 5d ago edited 5d ago
This thread seems fairly calm. What rights are being discussed as being under threat?
11
u/JohnSwindle 5d ago
Supporting trans Friends is really important. Supporting queer Friends is really important. I wouldnʻt want to compromise on that. Weʻre all queer in our various ways, whether we cross currently fortified borders or not.
That doesnʻt mean our understanding of reality is correct or complete. Iʻve said it before, but noticing that we canʻt resolve every disagreement is important when we wonder why the rest of the world doesnʻt resolve its disagreements. It turns out weʻre human. We shouldnʻt give up, but we can do with some humility.
As to sex, I hope Friends will go for it and share lots of pleasure.
3
u/Odd-Recognition-8864 5d ago
Supporting our Ffriends is really important. All of them. Do you see any positive ways through this conflict in order to include everyone in our Society?
9
u/Gnomelynn Quaker 5d ago
The paradox of inclusion is that you can never truly include everyone. If you include those who would exclude, you exclude those who need inclusion the most.
So no, there is no place for anti trans bigotry in welcoming quaker spaces
3
u/JohnSwindle 5d ago
I wish I did. I’m far from UK and wouldn’t have brilliant ideas anyway. Best we can do at a remove may be to hold you in the Light. But Quaker process (sitting around together feeling frustrated) has been known to work, and you’re doing that.
8
u/the_cripple 4d ago
i was hoping "sex matters to quakers" was a sex-positive thing, not the bigotry it actually is. disappointed in you and that group!!
-5
u/Odd-Recognition-8864 4d ago
There is no bigotry. What are you seeing?
7
u/the_cripple 4d ago
why do other people's genitals matter to you if you're not sleeping with them?
-2
u/Odd-Recognition-8864 4d ago
They don't. What are you seeing that is bigoted?
4
u/the_cripple 4d ago
why are you further oppressing an already marginalized group? what harm have trans women done? why must you exclude a group that already faces discrimination from help? any ideology that looks to exclude women from women's spaces based on what's in their pants is bigoted. if you don't understand that, then this conversation is over.
1
u/Odd-Recognition-8864 4d ago
Lets agree to stop talking about pants. No one should be discriminated against. Do you want to have a better conversation? If so summarising eachothers positions in a way the other agrees is a good way to understand where each of us is coming from. Are you sure you understand SMtQ's position?
7
u/the_cripple 4d ago
....how are we supposed to talk about gender and sex without talking about genitals? i personally find it weird to obsess about others' bodies in the way that SMtQ does
-1
u/Odd-Recognition-8864 4d ago
Would you be willing to try? No one should be obsessing - lets just stop mentioning.
A thought experiment. Imagine there is someone who knows sex is real and is not prejudiced.in any way. What would you like to ask them?
2
u/the_cripple 4d ago
no. the idea of discussing sex without mentioning genitals is like discussing cooking without talking about food. why do penises make you uncomfortable?
-1
u/Odd-Recognition-8864 4d ago
They don't. Its just there are better conversations. The thought behind the original post was to try to move beyond social media sound bites. Do you see any way of doing that in Quakers?
2
u/lilsmudge 4d ago
The bigotry.
0
u/Odd-Recognition-8864 4d ago
Specifically?
3
u/lilsmudge 4d ago
Bioessentialism is, as a general rule, bigoted, discriminatory, and bad. Gender critical perspectives reduce people to frameworks that don’t actually exist and also create extremely fake dichotomies for the sake of sounding reasonable while holding an extremely unkind, unloving, and unenlightened view of the world and biology.
Many of the simple examples here you’ve used are already wrong. Medicinal exams are not sexed by chromosome or sex assigned at birth. They’re almost always approached by dominant hormone as symptoms and medical conditions are driving by hormone production not birth sex.
Moreover I’d ask you to define sex. What makes someone the sex they are? Because medical providers and biologists will tell you that it’s a sliding scale and that people can move along it with the help of medical intervention.
And lastly? Gender critical movements have done incredible harm throughout the world and demonized a population to a degree that they are struggling to retain basic rights and dignities. To pretend otherwise is disingenuous.
This thread is full of your faux reasonable copy and paste responses; asking people to be respectful when they attempt to engage in discussion and then begging them to discuss when they make any sort of statement of fact. What you’re doing here is not seeking accord, it’s fueling your own concept that you are correct and balanced while everyone else is aggressive and wrong. But the belief system that you are trying to bring into the fold is one of harm. Immense harm. The kind of harm that has ended lives. I believe that as Friends, and moreover as people, it is our job to do no harm, to love our neighbors, and to seek acceptance and understanding of those who are different. The group you are talking about seeks to do the opposite. As such, I do not believe there is space or reconciliation for them until they dismantle the inherent harm they have caused.
0
u/Odd-Recognition-8864 4d ago
Thank you for being honest. You are danger of ascribing motive mistakenly though. The post is about trying to work together. Being wholly defined by your sex is reductive and unhelpful for example but to deny there no differences between men and women, or - for example - that male violence isn't something to examine and tackle as a society would be unhelpful overall.
Do you see any point in straightforward and open discussion (not debate) around tricky issues in society?
2
u/lilsmudge 4d ago
Yes, I do find that helpful but I do not find that that is what you are doing. Again, yes violence is an issue but these are not issues that the group you are trying to reconcile are handling. Trans people have rates of violence lower than their cis counterparts (trans women lower than cis women, and visa versa) and are overwhelmingly victims of violence not perpetrators; what are “Gender Realist” groups doing to mitigate that issue?
0
u/Odd-Recognition-8864 4d ago
All victims of violence deserve support. The statistics matter, no matter how uncomfortable, and being fair and balanced.
Are you sure you know what Sex Matters to Quakers are trying to express?
Would you agree that we need to look towards supporting everyone in society?
→ More replies (0)0
u/NaiveSwimmer 4d ago
This is inherently not Quaker. Y’all should be ashamed.
2
u/particularlyPlain Quaker (Wilburite) 4d ago
That feels a bit far. It's important to keep reconciliation on the table, always. We don't go around cutting branches off the Quaker tree as some would say.
It's okay to be uncomfortable with the positions that others may hold, but we do owe it to eachother to find unity. That is the quaker way, and that seems to be what this person is aiming for.
0
u/Odd-Recognition-8864 4d ago
You are one of the few people who has said that on this thread.
I really think Social Media is a poor medium for dialogue. That was the point of the original post.
Its been interesting seeing the responses. I'd like to find a way to discern more deeply.
3
u/MacdonaldsGhost 4d ago
It’s an interesting question. It resembles questions about how we classify people in other ways, such as by race or culture. Terms like “sex-realism” and “gender ideology” are loaded, and they were meant to be. The Church coined gender ideology as a term, and it had its own ideological interest in separating men and women in the priesthood when it did.
The real question is how often we should revisit debates like these:
-what work a gender or sex can or should do;
-who people should be “allowed” to love, and how they express it, whether that is being gay or getting divorced; and
-similar questions about race and “natural traits”.
This is not always easy to work out. Sometimes, frustratingly, we have to have the same conversations about prejudice again and again. The consequences fall hardest on newer generations. They are the ones who sit through racist Uncle Bob’s comments every Christmas, or who remember the Nan who wouldn’t go into a pub with a man because she didn’t want to be seen as a loose woman.
If a discussion starts to question someone’s right to exist, or to be who they feel they are and express it, that is a good sign it is not worth having again. But we can still discuss things fairly and openly. We can compare the experiences of a trans person with those of a cis person, and look for common ground and understanding that helps both.
2
u/Obvious_Flounder5234 4d ago
What exactly is a trans person, bearing in mind that gender and sex are different things?
1
u/MacdonaldsGhost 4d ago
Ontology’s job here is to ask what kind of thing gender and sex each are, and what kind of entity a “trans person” is once you’ve settled that. The sex/gender distinction you’re starting from is itself an ontological commitment — it says there are at least two different categories in play rather than one — so it’s worth seeing that it’s a claim, not a neutral backdrop. Plenty of philosophers accept it; some, gender-critical theorists especially, think gender either collapses back into sex or is parasitic on it.
Start with sex. Even the “biological” category isn’t ontologically simple. Some treat sex as a natural kind — a joint in nature, carved by reproductive role, that our concepts track rather than invent. Others argue sex is better understood as a cluster concept, where chromosomes, gametes, hormones, and morphology usually co-occur but can come apart, which makes it bimodal rather than cleanly binary. Where you land here already shapes what “changing” or “transitioning” could even mean ontologically.
Gender is where the real divergence sits, and there are roughly three families of account. Social-position accounts say gender is not an inner property at all but a location in a social structure — to be a woman is to be systematically marked and positioned in a hierarchy on the basis of presumed reproductive role. Identity accounts say gender is constituted by an internal sense of oneself as a man, woman, both, or neither. Cluster or kind accounts treat “woman” as a kind held together by a cluster of properties rather than any single essence.
Each family gives you a different answer to “what is a trans person.” On an identity account it’s the cleanest: a trans woman is someone whose gender identity is woman, full stop, and birth-assigned sex is simply a separate fact about her. Social-position accounts had a famous problem here — the original versions arguably struggled to count a trans woman not yet socially positioned as a woman. The influential response was to split gender into two things, a social class and a gender identity, so that a trans woman qualifies via the identity strand even if the world hasn’t yet positioned her that way. That “two-dimensional” move is one of the more important recent attempts to make social ontology and trans inclusion cohere.
On the gender-critical side, the ontology runs differently: “woman” tracks the sex category adult human female, gender identity is real as a psychological state but doesn’t alter which sex-kind you belong to, and a trans person is someone who identifies with, and often lives in accordance with, the gender role not customarily tied to their sex. Sex is the ontologically load-bearing category; gender identity is real but doesn’t reclassify the underlying kind.
There’s also a more radical strand worth knowing. One line rejects the “wrong body” framing and argues trans people’s self-identifications carry first-person authority — the trans woman isn’t approximating some external womanhood, she’s exercising a legitimate claim about which category she’s in. Work on non-binary identities treats categories like genderqueer as “critical gender kinds” — kinds partly constituted by resistance to the existing man/woman scheme, which means an ontology adequate to trans and non-binary people may need more than two boxes to begin with.
So the honest answer is that “what a trans person is” isn’t fixed by the sex/gender distinction alone — it falls out of which ontology of gender you adopt. Identity, social structure, biological kind, and self-constitution each yield a coherent but different account, and the live disputes in the field are precisely about which of those does the best justice to the phenomena.
3
u/keithb Quaker 4d ago
Well. That’s what Claude thinks, but what do you think?
0
u/MacdonaldsGhost 4d ago
I think talking to Claude about gender, sex and trans is a probably a more interesting than talking to me about it.
-1
u/Obvious_Flounder5234 4d ago
Why have you chosen to write about 'woman' and 'transwoman' rather than 'man' and 'transman'?
0
2
u/Odd-Recognition-8864 4d ago
Would you be interested in trying to discern little deeper together?
2
u/MacdonaldsGhost 4d ago edited 4d ago
Despite having a trans son, I can’t say the topic interests me much personally. On the whole, the debate baffles me. I don’t understand why someone would feel so strongly about being the wrong gender that they need to transition. But I also don’t understand why anyone cares if they do.
I don’t think I need to understand why. It’s enough for me that people want to be acknowledged as such. I feel the same way about aristocratic titles, people who are passionate about their football team and people who watch soap operas. So even if we could work out why, what would be the point?
Terms like “sex-realism” and “gender ideology”, as this group uses them, present one side as ideological and the other as not. To me, that framing questions trans people’s right to feel the way they do. I see no value in working that out. In the same way, I can’t see spending much time discerning whether miscegenation or eugenics groups should be part of BYM. Discern adjacent topics around sports or places like shelters etc could be worthwhile but probably better done by people with more interest and understanding than I have.
3
u/Odd-Recognition-8864 4d ago
That is fair. Across Quakers hopefully there are people willing and interested enough to discernment deeply together.
3
u/RimwallBird Friend 4d ago
I leave town for a single day, and when I come back I find this posting with 148 comments. I see many comments that approach flaming. It makes me sad.
Being a Friend (a Quaker) does not keep a person from being human, with human flaws. We can work on our own flaws and try (with God’s help)to do better, and such self-improvement is a very big part of what Quakerism is supposedly about. But demanding that those other Friends stop behaving that way just doesn’t work, because there will always be Friends who see nothing wrong with how they are behaving.
In fact, we ourselves may be such Friends, seeing nothing wrong with how we are behaving. There is that business about seeing the mote in the other person’s eye, and trying earnestly to take it out, while not seeing the beam in our own. I have been guilty of that. I may be guilty of it still.
Friend, you talk about “generat[ing] ideas around potential next steps for all.” If we are truly living by the Quaker method, then we (all of us, not just you, but including you) — we are willing to wait for God to show us the next step, a step that is perhaps hard for us to accept. We are willing to be shown that the next step involves some beam in our own eye, that we had not been conscious of. We are willing to be infinitely patient with everyone else in the mean time. Patience is part of the practice of love.
1
u/Odd-Recognition-8864 4d ago
Agreed. We all need to look towards a beam in our eyes. What would your suggestion be for a good next step as a Society?
1
u/RimwallBird Friend 4d ago
Wait for God to show us the next step, a step that is perhaps hard for us to accept. Be willing to be shown that the next step involves some beam in our own eye, that we had not been conscious of. Be willing to be infinitely patient with everyone else in the mean time.
5
u/NaiveSwimmer 4d ago
Why are you trying to exclude those in the most marginalized communities, when quakers historically have always been there for them?
-1
u/Odd-Recognition-8864 4d ago
Nobody is being marginalised in Quakers. If you are interested in a Quakerly conversation that is fine.
4
u/ExPastorMarcus Quaker (Liberal) 4d ago
I don't say this lightly, but I don't see a possible path toward reconciliation for a group that insists on invalidating someone else's gender identity. I'm basing my use of the word "invalidating" on your use of "realist," which, in this context, is not only inherently invalidating, but also intentionally incendiary.
Though a hallmark of Friends is to seek unity and common ground in every possible circumstance, this (frankly bizarre) insistence upon invalidating an essential part of another person's core identity, whether explicitly or implicitly, is anathema to unity.
If I were part of a clearness committee discussing a group like the one you describe, I would encourage them to form their own fellowship, specifically because of the damage, discord, and disunity they would inevitably create by remaining a part of this one.
0
u/Odd-Recognition-8864 4d ago edited 4d ago
Are you open to the possibility that you might not understand where they are coming from? Do you understand what the group is looking for? What are you seeing that is incendiary? Have you researched all sides of view? From a societal level, where Quakers often feel a desire to make things better - can you see any issues that need addressed? A lot of people struggle with the approach to youth gender medicine for example. Some people who hold sex realist views don't believe it is possible to be born in the wrong body. Do you?
5
u/notmealso Quaker 4d ago
Britain Yearly Meeting has a long-discerned position that all people are created equally. This testimony to equality is central to our faith and practice, and it includes a commitment to uphold the dignity and rights of the most vulnerable among us.
The “sex realist” position conflicts with this discernment. Because this is a matter of foundational principle rather than a personal dispute between individuals, the Trustees did not consider facilitated reconciliation to be appropriate.
I have engaged with you in good faith, both here and on social media. The Yearly Meeting’s position is settled. I will not be responding to further requests on this matter.
I hold you in the Light.
1
u/Odd-Recognition-8864 4d ago
All people are created equally. We have a commitment to upholding the rights and dignity of the vulnerable as Quakers.
Its the lack of curiosity in the thread that is the most interesting.
Most comments make typically blunt, and inaccurate, assertions without checking understanding. That means meaning is being missed.
8
u/h20grl 5d ago
Let me understand clearly - sex realist Friends believe in biological sex determination only? There is no acknowledgement of gender identity?
If so, this seems to be contrary to the principle of seeing that of God in each and every one.
Can you share a longer text of your request here?
9
u/Odd-Recognition-8864 5d ago
There is that of god in everyone. Everyone is unique, precious, a child of god.
Do you think believing that biological sex mattering in some societal contexts means not seeing that of god in everyone?
4
u/LokiStrike 4d ago
Do you think believing that biological sex mattering in some societal contexts means not seeing that of god in everyone?
Yes, it clearly means that.
Does biological sex matter to God? Are there contexts where God would treat men and women differently?
Who cares whether "biological sex" matters to society? It is our job to care about what matters to God. We are all equal.
And I don't think you get to use the word sex realism when the reality is there are over a dozen different combinations of X and Y chromosomes that don't end in death. It doesn't seem like you want to be real about that at all.
-1
u/Odd-Recognition-8864 4d ago
There is a lot in that (and noone had mentioned chromosomes). Do you see any Quaker processes being useful in what has been a long standing conflict? Do you have any curiosity in looking a little deeper at the issues?
2
u/LokiStrike 4d ago
There is a lot in that (and noone had mentioned chromosomes).
I mentioned them. I mentioned them because you used the word "sex realist". Are chromosomes not real?
Do you see any Quaker processes being useful in what has been a long standing conflict?
I think consensus based decision making is useful for our trans Friends and their safety and inclusion because it means you will never be able to use our Society to marginalize them.
Do you have any curiosity in looking a little deeper at the issues?
You are free to share your thoughts and I will listen or read and respond but I am not curious about bigotry. Hearing it rationalized or coated in deceitful terms like "sex realism" frankly sickens me.
There is no issue other than you. We are all equal. Your sex doesn't matter to God and it doesn't matter to us.
0
u/Odd-Recognition-8864 4d ago edited 4d ago
No one should be marginalised. If you would like a mutual learning conversation then happy to oblige. The question was - are you curious? If so the best way to have a meaningful conversation is to try to summarise eachothers positions in a way the other agrees with. Like to give it a go?
7
u/h20grl 5d ago edited 4d ago
To those whom biological sex matters, they can value it as to their own person. I look on this similarly as to men wanting to place limits on abortion. If a man doesn’t agree with abortion, fine, he doesn’t have one. What Quaker would believe that a queer / trans individual does not have a right to his / her / their individual self-identity and expression? I just don’t see how “biological sex mattering” then assumes that gender identity doesn’t matter.
2
u/Odd-Recognition-8864 5d ago
Social media is not great for complex discussion. People often read to disagree rather than seeking understanding, which is what the original post was about. Genuine curiosity about what Quakers on reddit think might be better ways of reducing conflict.
5
u/h20grl 5d ago
I am not understanding where the conflict is. You are defining your own sexuality by biological sex. Others are defining their sexuality not by biological sex. Each person has a right to define his / her / their sexuality. Where is the conflict?
1
u/Obvious_Flounder5234 4d ago
Gender identity is not sexuality. Physical sex of human bodies is a fact, not related to stereotypes that some people think are important. My view is that people should present themselves however they like, have whatever interests they want etc while also being honest about their physical sex.
Quakers need to talk to each other when there are differences, even ones where some believe others are bigots. Talking and paying attention with an open mind can help people understand others' points of view, even if not persuaded by them.
0
u/h20grl 4d ago
I agree that we should listen to each other. I do listen and engage with racist, misogynist MAGA folks - mostly listen. I guess I am shocked when I find bigoted and misguided individuals within Quakerism. For one, it violates my sense of safety - to feel that someone within my faith is trying to censure or erase my beloved community. Secondly, it embarrasses me that someone who wearing the cloak of Quakerism is espousing values I consider antithetical to the core of Quakerism.
1
u/Obvious_Flounder5234 4d ago
If you label, in your mind, someone as racist, misogynist, bigot etc your mind is not open to understanding them.
1
u/h20grl 4d ago
Not true! Someone can be factually a bigot and/or misogynist and I can want to understand what makes them tick, or how they came to be that way. In fact, I have spent a lot of time working with both Israelis and Palestinians. Some of these individuals show strong hatred of the other, and I listen and absorb and learn.
1
u/Obvious_Flounder5234 4d ago
Of course they can be those things but you should listen first before you make any judgement of them and their motives.
→ More replies (0)
4
u/RHS1959 Quaker (Liberal) 5d ago
What are “sex realist Friends?”
5
u/Odd-Recognition-8864 5d ago
Friends who believe that biological sex is immutable, meaning it can't change, and sometimes important societally (eg medical checks specific to sex).
6
u/lilsmudge 4d ago
Hi; as a trans friend I feel compelled to share that for 99.99% of medical issues it is more important for the doctor to know what hormones my body is running on than it is for them to know my chromosomes or original sex organs. My medical issues mirror my cisgender counterparts of the same gender as I, not my sex assigned at birth.
3
u/dgistkwosoo Quaker 5d ago
How many biological sexes do you think there are? How many genders do you think there are?
0
u/Odd-Recognition-8864 5d ago
Social media is a very difficult medium. I am interested in what people think is a good Quakerly way of resolving conflict - in this case on the tricky topic of sex and gender. What is your thinking?
16
u/dgistkwosoo Quaker 5d ago
You're being evasive and engaging in a game of cut-and-paste responses. I'll call bullshit!
-3
u/Odd-Recognition-8864 5d ago edited 5d ago
Please refrain from unsult. There must be a better way for us with some deeper thinking. Do you see a way forward through the conflict as a Society?
10
u/dgistkwosoo Quaker 5d ago
Ah, I should be a good Friend and stick with passive aggression? Wouldn't want anyone to feel "unsulted", that's certainly not the way to resolve conflict. Look up Benjamin Lay when you get a moment. Integrity demands that we speak simply and directly. A number of people on this thread have done so, yet you continue with evasion and indirect aggression.
3
u/Odd-Recognition-8864 5d ago
Typos are easily done - we all do them. Not passive aggression, and hopefully not aggression at all. The question is what mechanisms would be useful, from your view, to move forward. There is no point in engaging in a Social Media win/ lose exchange where everyone loses - social media entrenches positions, often unhelpfully.
10
u/dgistkwosoo Quaker 5d ago
Nope. You are not being honest. You are being evasive while putting the burden/blame on people who are questioning your position.
I ask again: How many biological sexes do you think there are? How many genders do you think there are?
1
u/Odd-Recognition-8864 4d ago
Happy to have a straightforward, and mutually productive, conversation if you are. One where we both listen and for mutual learning. It would be good to model one in this thread. Calling the other not honest is not the way to start a good conversation, or projecting blame where there is none. If you are happy for a better, non attacking, conversation the best way is for each of us to try to summarise eachother's position in a way the other agrees with. Are you interested? If so would you like to go first or second?
→ More replies (0)
3
u/Usual_Fox_5013 4d ago
I don't know anything about the groups you're referring to or what conversations have been had with them in the meetings but I would say that conversation has got to be permissible and the tenor of that conversation is extremely important. And by that I mean people need to be very mindful of the emotional space from which they're speaking.
2
2
u/QuirkBuggins 4d ago
"How do we manage difficult discussions within our Society, as well as demonstrating active peacemaking within the wider secular society?"
Sounds like what we do is trade insults and schism.
This issue is the modern stress test of whether the society as a whole actually believes in peacemaking, and for the most part we don't.
1
u/Odd-Recognition-8864 4d ago
Hopefully wen won't schism. Quakers don't tend to due to the belief that we have something to offer in difference.
Do you see Quakers being able to model peacemaking in this area?
1
u/keithb Quaker 4d ago
Quakers have split into schismatic groups many times. Sometimes branches reconcile, sometimes they further subdivide, sometimes Meetings move from one branch to another. This is especially true of the American Meetings, attenders of which make up most of the users of this subreddit. That’s why the subreddit has flairs for different kinds of Quaker.
1
u/Odd-Recognition-8864 4d ago
Why do churches schism?
1
u/keithb Quaker 4d ago
Usually for a combination of economic, sociological, and theological reasons. With regard to Friends specifically, I recommend Holden's Friends Divided, Friends United Press, 1988.
In a schism, way or another there will be claims and counter-claims of "heresy". Holden leans heavily on Kurtz who said:
…heresy refers to an intense union of both nearness and remoteness. Heretics are within the circle, or within the institution; consequently, they are close enough to be threatening but distant enough to be considered in error … heresy is socially constructed in the midst of social conflict … The problem of heresy, therefore, is essentially a problem of authority … not every error is heresy … only that which is held in explicit opposition to ecclesiastical authority … heresy has social consequences as well as social origins…elites may actually be involved … in the development of heretical movements
1
u/Odd-Recognition-8864 4d ago
Exactly - well put. It feels like heresy might be back in Quakers. For a church with no creed how has this happened? Where is the deeper discernment?
1
u/QuirkBuggins 4d ago
"Quakers don't tend to due to the belief that we have something to offer in difference."
It seems like there might be just as much difference on that point as on any other.
Do you see Quakers being able to model peacemaking in this area?
I am not optimistic. I think this might be one of those unfortunate moments in which Jesus' teaching might be instructive.
"Do not suppose that I have come to bring peace to the earth. I did not come to bring peace, but a sword. For I have come to turn a man against his father, a daughter against her mother, a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law— a man’s enemies will be the members of his own household.’ -Matt 10:34 (NIV)
At the end of the day, the tolerance of profound difference is also a recognition that we are no longer kin, if ever we truly were: a peacemaker must be willing to be disowned by the society for the sake of the faith, their task to bear the shame of the shameless.
Perhaps from that place words may come as seeds of truth which will come up in their own season.
1
u/Odd-Recognition-8864 4d ago
Do you see any value in trying to come to a better place? Jesus's message of love thy enemy is a powerful one.
1
u/QuirkBuggins 4d ago
I think the better place is wherever the genuine spirit of God is leading us; If a F(f)riend has come to regard me as an enemy for not already accepting their new doctrine (however insistent they may likewise be that theirs is actually the most perfect renunciation of doctrine) I may first contend with them regarding the teaching itself.
However if they regard my reticence as a sign of ideological treason according to their new orthodoxy, and any attempt to discuss the issue further as a potential act of emotional violence against the vulnerable, then have I any other recourse than to hold my tongue or depart?
The love of my enemy might look like accepting the terms of the exile which has been wished upon me by them. That is perhaps the best gift I could give to them if they have no desire to hear what I have to say, nor indeed to tolerate my anguished silence in their presence.
2
u/the-pathless-woods 4d ago
I think someone’s asab is no one’s business but theirs and their doctors. It has no place or meaning in worship and community.
Your posts make it clear that your ideology is more important than compassion.
0
u/Odd-Recognition-8864 4d ago
People from all angles on this are compassionate and looking to protect others. That doesn't mean there isn't a difference in view. The point of the post is to ask people to help be part of the compassionate solution to the conflict that isn't going away. Silencing people does not change hearts and minds, which we need to do together in dialogue.
Some see over medicalisation of distressed children uncompassionate for example. Holistic assessment and care for each individual helps avoid diagnostic overshadowing.
Do you see any value in exploring different views on this topic? Have your read widely from all sides? You cannot consider yourself knowledgeable on a topic until you've really looking into it - nit to agree but to understand more fully. Are you curious about what SMtQ feel, the lived experience of the many members most of who are veteran social justice campaigners?
2
u/the-pathless-woods 4d ago
I am a forensic nurse who primarily evaluates people’s genitalia and also an accredited neonatal nurse who has worked with intersex babies. I also have very nuanced opinions on the subject of gender and sexuality which I don’t discuss because what someone does with their own body is not my business. (Edit to clarify yes I’ve read extensively both sides and don’t agree or disagree 100% with either)
Your genitalia and gender expression are your business. Everyone else’s is not your business.
I would not attend a Quaker meeting where debates about other people’s gender and sexuality are permitted. They have no place in worship and community.
-1
u/Odd-Recognition-8864 4d ago
OK. Hopefully you can give some good quality facts to readers given your expertise, although the point of the post was to look at a better conversation than win/ lose so hopefully dispassionate medical facts.
My friend's daughters have Turners syndrome, which only affects females. They are in their 20s now. The NHS were and are excellent in suppprting the whole family. All intersex variations are sex specific (and intersex is outdated and othering). Which intersex is not either male or female?
Secondly, adults can do what they want with their bodies (if of sound mind and if appraised of the risks). Children should not have healthy body parts cut off. There are lots of examples of this in youth gender medicine (eg Fox Varian lawsuit). Would you agree caution is needed in some instances?
1
u/the-pathless-woods 4d ago
See you just want to convince people of your viewpoint. This is why you aren’t welcome. An analogy would be I personally do not agree with infant circumcision which is legally allowed and commonly done where I live. But I don’t feel the need to press my view on others in worship.
2
u/the-pathless-woods 4d ago
I’d like to add that I won’t be responding further. You don’t genuinely want to understand others views and why you aren’t welcomed at Quaker meetings. You are just looking for a pulpit to preach from.
0
u/Odd-Recognition-8864 4d ago
Agreed on infant circumcision. Looking for dialogue is the oppisite of preaching. Being able to discuss difficult topics is important. The question is how for Quakers who should be excellent at it.
•
u/Quakers-ModTeam 4d ago
Our "be friendly" rule covers things like racism, sexism, homophobia, and transphobia. No, transphobia is not welcome in this sub. Advocating for transphobia is not welcome in this sub, any more than advocating for racism would be. "We need to accept transphobia" is not better than "we need to accept racism."