Trans welcome
Quakers, at our best, observe a longstanding tradition of speaking up about, and standing up to, injustice. So I am troubled by an increasing trend, wherein some Quakers invoke our practices of stillness and silence in worship when Friends decide to speak up about transphobia in Quaker communities. Friends are cautioned to temper their language at the mention of the word ‘transphobia’, lest they raise the emotional tone of the situation and risk offending ‘concerned’ others.
This dismissive and patronising practice drowns out the voices of trans Friends who are expressing real hurt at feeling marginalised and unsafe in our community. The insinuation is that we should remain silent, while older and ‘wiser’ Friends happily challenge their right to safely exist, drawing on false dichotomies between the rights of trans people and women/children/and other groups.
Silence in our Meetings is a tool that allows us to better discern the voice of God, and should not be used to ensure that only some people can speak. Friends, I hope we continue to speak up, loudly and clearly, in support of our trans community. In the tradition of plain speaking, I hope we call out transphobia when we see it. Our communities will be safer, more diverse, and vibrant when we do.
Craig Wilson
I was saddened to read in ‘Thought for the Week’ (21 February) the suggestion that Quakers should entertain differences of opinion on trans-related ‘controversies.’
In my experience this ‘debate’ always boils down to, at best, a belief that trans people are not really who they say they are. At worst, it portrays trans women as an inherent threat to the safety of cis women and girls, and trans men as vulnerable, self-hating women.
In such a climate, a tolerance of ‘debate’ undermines the 2021 Yearly Meeting’s affirmation of trans Friends (Minute 31).
Either we welcome and support trans people, which includes at a minimum believing they are who they say they are, or we don’t. ‘Dialogue’ and ‘balance’ are not always virtues. Feminist author Sara Ahmed writes, ‘When you have “dialogue or debate” with those who wish to eliminate you from the conversation (because they do not recognize what is necessary for your survival, or because they don’t even think your existence is possible), then “dialogue and debate” becomes a technique of elimination.’ Friends who continue to tolerate this ‘debate’ set themselves against the wellbeing of trans people and against the leadings of the Holy Spirit as discerned by the Yearly Meeting. Compromise cannot be made with the spirit of fear that drives the anti-trans moral panic.
Mark Russ
