Two people arguing. Photo: By Afif Ramdhasuma on Unsplash.
Agree to differ? Robin Waterston’s Thought for the Week
‘How well do we handle conflict among ourselves?’
It was the day of the ceasefire in Israel and Gaza. The world was holding its breath. I was moved during worship to read from Quaker faith & practice 24.55, by Mary Lou Leavitt. She speaks of the need to practise using the weapons of the spirit instead of ever more destructive bombs.
But how well do we handle conflict among ourselves? Another piece of writing by Mary Lou Leavitt (Qfp 20.71) lists three elements in handling conflict creatively. They are: naming (being honest about the problem); listening (not just to the words, but also the feelings behind them); and letting go (of our own ego, looking together for God’s solution). These skills are needed more than ever. Can we practise them?
For one example, Friends do not seem to have a shared understanding of the relationship between sex, gender and trans identity. It is a common argument on the comments page of the Friend’s new website, and not always conducted well.
As background, we do have a clear position of welcoming trans people in our Meetings. But the Minute recording this from 2021 does not establish a position on the many issues where there are controversies (for example on responding to young people unhappy with their bodies, or where women’s groups ask for protected spaces, or where participation in women’s sports becomes a contested right). At Yearly Meeting (YM) last July, one session combined trans identity with racism, reparations and climate change – a confusing mix, it seemed to me. I felt as if there was an apprehension about having an open discussion, perhaps a fear of the emotions that the topic can stir up.
There have been efforts to promote reflection. In 2018, Quaker Life produced a thoughtful paper on Quakers and gender diversity, intended for discussion in Meetings. It said ‘There is much more to be done and more discussion to be had’. But there has been no visible follow-up. In spring 2024 a group of Friends in London concluded a lengthy series of discussions called ‘To Thine Own Self be True’ on this theme, and agreed an epistle to Yearly Meeting. It was the focus of an interest group at YM 2024, and showed that strong feelings and significant disagreements can be held in love, using the principles outlined by Mary Lou Leavitt. The epistle can be found at https://londonquakers.org.uk/t....
Friends are not in unity on many questions. We do not need to be. And we do not need to pretend that we are. Minute 30 of YM 2024 included the statement that ‘It can be tempting to avoid conflict in expressing our opinions, but we need to find kinder ground for disagreement among Quakers and in the wider world. Everything we do should come out of love for ourselves, and for others including those we disagree with.’
I hope that in 2025 we will find the strength to resist the tides of extremism sweeping towards us across the Atlantic, retain our centre of balance, and practise the creative handling of differences among us.
Comments
Trans rights aren’t a subject for debate so I am unsure why they have been focused on in this article. Trans people are our friends and family. They are valued members of our society. They deserve the same access to sports and healthcare as everyone else. Additionally, women’s rights are strengthened by the inclusion of trans women as it allows for a more in-depth understanding of the harm of misogyny. The rights of minority groups should never be the source of disagreement.
By Wren Argent on 20th February 2025 - 13:06
The epistle Robin refers to attempts to make a powerful argument for excluding trans women from women’s services. I believe it fails, and explain why here: https://clareflourish.wordpress.com/2025/02/20/twenty-four-quakers-opposing-trans-rights/
By Abigail Maxwell on 20th February 2025 - 15:35
Thank you, Robin, for a thoughtful piece about the need for Quakers to discuss difficult topics within the spirit of our testimony to peace. Many groups and journals have tried, but the London Quakers TTOSBT, ‘To Thine Own Self be True’ group was the only ongoing group I found that maintained a civil discourse on the subject. The epistle is well worth reading, though not the last word. We have held a couple of discussion groups at our meeting, in the same spirit, with the help of TTOSBT members, and they might be able to facilitate similar groups in other meetings.
Anne Wade, .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address)
By Anne & Rob Wade on 20th February 2025 - 17:05
Great to see the London Quakers’ ‘To Thine Own Self be True’ (TTOSBT) Epistle getting a positive mention in The Friend. I was invited to take part at the end of the process and I agree with Anne Wade that the group maintained a civil discourse on the subject. I believe Abigail Maxwell (Clare Flourish) took part at the start of the process and it would be interesting to know why they did not see it through to the end.
The link by Maxwell to their blog, twenty-four-quakers-opposing-trans-rights, allows me to make a comment here that, based on my past experience, would be deleted if I posted it there.
In their opening paragraph, Maxwell criticises the TTOSBT Epistle for saying, “para 6, that non-binary people are not recognised in law” and quotes Rose Taylor v Jaguar Landrover as proof of the Epistle’s error. This is nonsense on several levels. Firstly, the Equality Act 2010 recognises nine protected characteristics and the characteristic of being non-binary is not one of them. Secondly, I searched the case report for the term ‘non-binary’ and it was not there: the case was about gender reassignment, which is a protected characteristic. Thirdly, as Maxwell admits, thereby contradicting their own argument, the case was a low-level Employment Tribunal (ET) case and the ET does not have the power to make law.
I have laboured this point to illustrate how badly informed Maxwell / Clare Flourish is. The rest of the blog is little better but I don’t have time to go through it in detail.
By Robbie Spence on 20th February 2025 - 20:40
Robbie Spence has commented pungently on my blog, for example here: https://clareflourish.wordpress.com/2021/02/27/womans-place-uk-transphobia/comment-page-1/#comment-48950
I have deleted some of his comments. My patience is not infinite.
Rose Taylor is nonbinary. The case decided that she/they was nevertheless protected under the characteristic “gender reassignment”. As I say on my blog, the case is not binding precedent, but contains a persuasive argument.
The case is available here: there are five downloadable documents. https://www.gov.uk/employment-tribunal-decisions/ms-r-taylor-v-jaguar-land-rover-ltd-1304471-2018
In the document headed “Reasons”, the term non-binary appears five times, and paragraph 178 explains why the tribunal consider non-binary people are protected.
I do not contradict my own argument. I say that the case is not precedent, but it contains a persuasive argument. That is, the judgment makes clear why the Equality Act, even though it does not explicitly mention non-binary people, should be understood to protect non-binary or gender-fluid people.
Here, we are debating what the truth is. I hope Friends will see that I can justify every statement that I make. I hope Friends will see that Robbie’s allegation that I write nonsense is incorrect.
By Abigail Maxwell on 21st February 2025 - 20:24
Robbie, I have now added to my blog post (in a comment) why I ceased to attend that small group. You can comment there if you wish. Please do not be too rude, or spread misinformation.
By Abigail Maxwell on 22nd February 2025 - 12:19
What does ‘non-binary’ mean? Is it a physical state or a mental state?
By ERIC WALKER on 22nd February 2025 - 17:01
I read the Claire Flourish blog post referred to above.
In criticism of the To Thine own self be True: “It says, para 6, that non-binary people are not recognised in law. The case of Rose Taylor v Jaguar Landrover, recognising a nonbinary person’s rights not to suffer discrimination, is not binding precedent but contains a persuasive argument”.
Co - joined this implies that the judgement in the Landrover case means that non binary identity is “recognised in law”.
Thankfully people who identify as non binary are protected by all the same laws as the rest of us, and (following the Landrover case) included in PC of gender reassignment as Abigail rightly says.
However, please see the following, if interested:
https://ukhumanrightsblog.com/2024/02/05/either-not-neither-further-consideration-of-non-binary-identity-by-the-high-court/
https://westgate-chambers.co.uk/blog/can-those-identifying-as-non-binary-marry/
https://researchbriefings.files.parliament.uk/documents/CBP-9515/CBP-9515.pdf
In answer to Eric’s question. For some people it means they don’t identify with either a male or a female gender (internal sense of gender rather than external gender), other people that they don’t identify with either male or female as a sex. Some people use it as a way to define themselves as intersex, which they’re not.
I worked with a young woman who wanted a double mastectomy, not because she wanted to physically transition “female to male” but because she was non binary and didn’t identity with her breasts. A colleague’s daughter had a double mastectomy for the same reason, she used an inheritance to pay for it. Very sad for these young people.
By RebeccaVaughan on 22nd February 2025 - 17:45
Thank you Rebecca. From what you say ‘Non Binary’ sounds to me to be a mental condition. I have known people who consider themselves to hold the opposite gender. I published a film on this topic over 40 years ago. But non binary is a new concept to me. How much it is a general mental disorder caused by genuine mental worries is something I know nothing about. One thing I do believe is that the ‘rights’ of one group should not be allowed to over-ride the ‘rights of another group. The furore over transwomen in women’s sports is a good example of the clash between two groups’ ‘rights’
By ERIC WALKER on 22nd February 2025 - 18:01
“Very sad for these young people”, says Rebecca Vaughan, a member of my meeting, who desires the complete exclusion of all trans women from women’s services. She means she is very sad for nonbinary people who have had top surgery, which she calls double mastectomy, but is more formally chest masculinisation surgery.
If you speak to people who have had this surgery, you will experience their profound sense of rightness with it. A few detransition and regret, but research shows it is a tiny number. I respect the inner light of nonbinary people who choose this surgery.
To answer Eric Walker, of course nonbinary is not a “general mental disorder”. The psychiatrists who recommend such surgery check for psychoses. Our experience of ourselves and desire for physical change is not a psychosis or a mental disorder. It is a manifestation of our true selves, our inner light.
I agree one group’s rights should not override another’s. Rights can co-exist. One example was the 2015 Olympic rules allowing trans women to compete as women. There was only one trans woman competitor in 2021, Laurel Hubbard, and she did not win a medal. It was reasonable inclusion of a vulnerable group of people, not an overtaking where male athletes won women’s medals.
By Abigail Maxwell on 23rd February 2025 - 9:42
I would like Rebecca Vaughan to imagine the horror a person might feel growing breasts that they just don’t want at all and have no power to stop growing. Then the discovery that running now feels awkward, cartwheels are out of the question and men leer.
Do recall that such people have very very likely had the experience of a lot of years of not having breasts. They know what they are getting into when they go for chest masculinization.
I am guessing that you would feel very sad if you needed to have a double mastectomy e.g. for cancer. But this is not the experience of everyone.
By katemackrell on 24th February 2025 - 12:51
I don’t wish to exclude trans women from all women’s services. The difficulty of “no debate” was that misconceptions were reinforced rather than lessened which is a shame.
I’m glad things have moved on and conversation is more open. People seem more alive to the need to think carefully about how we all live together, regardless of religion, political views, identity needs etc. It isn’t easy especially as society moves at such a fast pace, powered by the internet.
I don’t need to imagine the horror of someone growing breasts they don’t want, it is a very common experience, coupled with the horror of shedding blood every month and learning to manage this. I think its even harder for young women now, so much pressure to be perfect, having breasts that stick out, wobble around and also leaking menstrual blood don’t look good on Insta. And men leer, learning to deal with it can be frightening.
I never mastered cartwheels (a big regret) but am a runner. A sports bra that holds ones breasts in a way that suits is like finding gold dust!
By RebeccaVaughan on 24th February 2025 - 18:28
Please login to add a comment
