Our daily worship
I was sad to read Mavis and Roger Iredale’s letter in the Friend (9 February) telling us of a Friend considering absence from Sunday worship because they were so disturbed by all that is happening in the world at the moment.
In troubled times I have discovered that is when I need our silent worship most. When John and I lived in Northern Ireland, during the years of violence, I don’t know how we would have coped without our daily worship, which helped us face it all and respond as led.
Diana Lampen
Worship in terrifying times
I was sad to read, in a letter published on 9 February, that some Friends are ‘considering absence from Sunday worship for the foreseeable future because the present state of affairs makes calm and collected reflection impossible’.
I often find worship difficult myself, but we sometimes receive help which enables us to continue both lovingly and effectively. The Sunday after the ‘coalition’ started bombing Iraq, I was sitting in Meeting feeling distressed and very angry, when someone ministered, on a quite unconnected topic, about balance. It spoke to me, both then and since.
We do indeed live in terrifying times, but surely it is at such times that we most need our religion. We need help from God (however you conceive that) and from each other. I hope Friends will re-read Advices & queries 10 and some of the other writings about Meeting for Worship.
Dilys Cluer
Peace
I have been greatly troubled as of late with wars, rearmament, talks of conscription and the use of the 1930s as a historical precedent. The term ‘pre-war generation’ frightens me as does the reactions of the countries being identified as our enemy.
I am finding some solace and inspiration from earlier Friends who faced the evil of war.
The blue book Christian faith and practice in the experience of the Society of Friends although using some old language less used by Friends today is well worth seeking out in your library.
Number 627 issued by Meeting for Sufferings 1945 includes the lines ‘The training of men to kill each other is a violation of the sacredness of personality for it is a crime against God in every man’.
As the spirit calls us to public witness again against the evil of wars, we need inspiration.
David Simpson
Forgiveness
Friends, a discussion at Meeting has led me to some thoughts on forgiveness.
In the Lord’s Prayer we find the teaching ‘as we forgive those who have trespassed against us’. As we go through life, we come to see that people are not perfect; we have all acted wrongly, or at least with mistaken judgment, on occasion over the years, especially when we were young and inexperienced. But slowly we gain insight.
How unreasonable then never to forgive others for their mistakes, for their faults of character, or for the cultural mindset which shaped them in an earlier generation.
How can we presume to approach God asking forgiveness for our own faults, if we have not first forgiven others? Although God is a loving and merciful Father, who will no doubt forgive us what we have repented of, yet we displease Him if we ourselves do not forgive others.
That is what I understand to be Christ’s meaning when he teaches us not to bring our offering until we have made peace with those around us. None have an unlimited time left in life; it is now high time to perform the act of forgiveness. The persons involved may have died, but let us forgive them in our hearts.
Clive Gordon
Nontheist gathering
George Penaluna (9 February) asks how nontheist Friends can go along with Geoffrey Hubbard’s words describing a genuine religious experience.
I think the answer lies in the distinction between nontheism and religious faith. It is perfectly possible to be religious or hold spiritual views while not feeling comfortable with the concept of God.
All the great faiths recognise that the great mystery enfolding us all is ultimately nameless and indeed beyond our conception.
I remember speaking to the Nontheist Friends Network conference in 2015. This was a fascinating experience, as I realised that about half of those there could be regarded as confirmed materialists, regarding religion and indeed faith as a human creation, while the others were unable or unwilling to use the term ‘God’ but otherwise shared that intangible sense of something greater than ourselves so familiar from Meeting for Worship. The difference came down to one of ‘no God’ and ‘beyond God’.
Jan Arriens
Listen better?
Thank you for publishing the initial exchange between two Friends (5 January) seeking greater mutual understanding on transgender questions. This exemplified the Quaker values of respectful listening. It is possible to feel something strongly and still be open to the possibility that one might be mistaken or have incomplete understanding. New light can always emerge if nurtured tenderly.
But in this respect the article stood out as unusual among some of the other contributions on the subject. Friends, in our writings and our conversations, can we try to aim higher? The language we use is crucial. Can I suggest some starting points on which we might seek some common ground?
• For some people, sex and gender are not aligned
• Everyone should be free to express their gender however they wish
• Like sexual orientation, gender is a feeling
• But unlike sexual orientation, gender identification can change with time
• Medical interventions have life-changing and irreversible consequences
• There is a serious lack of evidence about the long-term outcomes of alternative psychological approaches to children experiencing gender dysphoria
• In some situations – for example sport, medical treatment, care of victims of sexual trauma – biological sex continues to be critical
• Changing one’s gender expression does not change one’s sex
• There are real issues of public policy around all this which require sensitivity, empathy and acknowledgement of complexity.
We should be able to discuss these questions using our Quaker principles of honesty and truthfulness, ‘with a tender hand’.
Can we listen more deeply to each other?
Robin Waterston
Ecocide and related matters
If humanity is to survive at all, two evolutionary changes to its thinking are required. First the concept of Mother Nature needs to be accepted as the source of all the creation of which we are a part.
The article by Marian Liebmann and Mike Nellis (2 February) on the creation of a legal definition of ecocide, with all the appropriate sanctions, penalties and reparations by the international legal enforcers, sets out an essential step.
The second is related, in that it restores balance between the female and male elements of our nature, in favour of the female elements of creation, nurturing and co-operation as against the male instincts to explore, control, take possession, and dominate.
These activities were, perhaps, justifiable at a time when the tribes of humanity needed to establish and defend territorial security, but are now out of date and dangerous to our existence as a species.
Alexander, too often known as ‘the Great’, and all his modern followers should be recognised as the bullies they were and are, and the concept of ‘the human family’, accepting our minor differences and co-operating to our mutual good, must take precedence.
Our various identities, histories and cultures give us each identity, but are minor in comparison to our similarities, needs, and survival!
Howard W Hilton
Comments
Robin Waterston’s letter is in bad faith, and should not have been printed. I would value a list of points where we could find common ground, and here is my start:
gender stereotypes are oppressive
male privilege oppresses women
there is chronic and pervasive male violence against women in British society.
However, I do not agree with Robin’s, and he should not have posted them as “common ground”. Indeed, had he respect for the testimony of truth he would not have written them at all.
For example, there is a great deal of research evidence on the tiny number of children prescribed puberty blockers because they, their parents and doctors all agree it is a medically necessary intervention. About 263 in 2019 in England, out of 11 million school children. Children have had PBs for gender dysphoria since the 1980s.
Going through Robin’s list would be tedious. I would be happy to work on common ground- I ache for an approach seeking to meet my needs, and the needs of the gender critical campaigners- but this is not it. Instead, it is a list of doubtful or false anti-trans talking points.
By Abigail Maxwell on 2024 02 22
I think it would be good if we listened to each other, and responded respectfully to views we disagreed with, rather than saying they were “in bad faith”. I do not think it helpful to say, “Going through Robin’s list would be tedious,” and labelling sincerely held views as “false anti-trans talking points.”
Elizabeth Coleman
By ElizabethC on 2024 02 22
I find it really unfortunate that Robin has suggested “common ground” using statements that many trans people will immediately find offensive and factually incorrect. Such statements may sound innocuous to people who have no knowledge of the matter and hence they may not “get” why people like Abigail react so strongly. I myself would not have noticed anything particularly offensive about such statements before I began to investigate trans issues in more depth.
Trans people exist and their space to be themselves within society is being threatened. Who are we to call for polite intellectual debate? This is about people’s lives.
Benjamin Lay comes to mind - we now celebrate the strength of his convictions around slavery. He valued truth above politeness.
By katemackrell on 2024 02 22
It would help me if katemackrell would quote one of Robin’s statements which she finds offensive and incorrect.I find her final sentence a slur on Robin’s good name. Not Quakerly at all Friend Kate. From Eric Walker. Ipswich Meeting.
By ERIC WALKER on 2024 02 23
Robin Waterston claims, in his first paragraph, to want to nurture new light, and in his second to “seek some common ground”. I felt a moment of hope. However, the points he makes instead put forward anti-trans talking points.
Elizabeth Coleman objected to my term “bad faith”, and me saying going through Robin’s list would be tedious. She did not answer my substantive point, or engage with my suggestions of common ground. This is a shame. There is common ground possible, but she does not help find it, any more than he does .
To go through Robin’s points:
-• For some people, sex and gender are not aligned
Could Robin not simply have said, some people are trans? We have an experience of ourselves which is as inexplicable as same sex attraction. It simply exists. People simply are this way. You can see the wonder and beauty of human diversity, or not.
• Everyone should be free to express their gender however they wish
Of course, but butch lesbians get challenged in women’s loos, because of the anger whipped up against trans people. That is, part of the backlash preventing people expressing gender how they wish- not just trans and nonbinary people- is the attack on trans rights in Britain.
• Like sexual orientation, gender is a feeling
What does this mean? Like sexual orientation trans is a deep sense of onesself, which results in pain when denied, delight when expressed, over an extended period of time.
• But unlike sexual orientation, gender identification can change with time
Transphobia is pervasive in British society. Of a survey of 2000 detransitioners, most said that societal or family pressure significantly contributed to their detransition. Ky Schevers has written about the lovebombing by anti-trans campaigners when they detransitioned, and how they were used, and about how moving away from anti-trans campaigners led to truthful self-expression.
• Medical interventions have life-changing and irreversible consequences
Well, so what? Will Robin campaign for the acceptance of trans women who are not medicalised ? He would then be against the anti-trans campaigners who scaremonger about “penises” in women’s services.
• There is a serious lack of evidence about the long-term outcomes of alternative psychological approaches to children experiencing gender dysphoria
“alternative” to what? There is a great deal of evidence about puberty blockers, which have been given to trans children since the 1980s. Is his “alternative” an exploratory therapy looking at all a child’s mental health issues and possible explanations for their gender issues? That is normal therapy for trans children. Only therapy which denies the possibility that children are trans, or that transition will benefit them, is unethical according to professional bodies.
• In some situations – for example sport, medical treatment, care of victims of sexual trauma – biological sex continues to be critical
“Critical”- so what? From his previous letters and statements, Robin is for trans exclusion. The Olympic rules about trans women in women’s sport did not result in trans women taking all the medals, but instead grew societal acceptance of trans people, which has been rolled back in Britain and America since 2017.
• Changing one’s gender expression does not change one’s sex
Well , I won’t ever bear a child, but the whole point of trans inclusion is that it recognises the diversity of humanity and modifies the rigid binary of sex to include us. So, everyone becomes more free to be themselves.
• There are real issues of public policy around all this which require sensitivity, empathy and acknowledgement of complexity.
There is a clear answer in the Equality Act: trans women are treated as women and included in women’s services unless it is a “proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim” to exclude one of us. See my simple guide to the EHRC authoritative code of practice.
https://clareflourish.wordpress.com/2021/10/29/the-equality-act-code-of-practice/
See also Robin Moira White’s comment on Sinnott’s case in the High Court:
https://oldsquare.co.uk/hard-cases-make-useful-law-can-trans-people-lawfully-be-excluded-from-single-and-separate-sex-services-robin-white/
I passionately desire common ground. It seems to me possible: for example, most Quakers could agree gender stereotyping is harmful. But I don’t see how Robin’s, Eric’s, and Lydia’s hostility to trans inclusion, shown in their previous letters and comments, can be assuaged, or is compatible with welcoming trans people in our meetings. This is a long comment, and I am sure Eric and Elizabeth will find ample scope to quibble about individual words in it, if they wish. I would far rather they engaged with the substantive issues.
By Abigail Maxwell on 2024 02 24
I have used the word “unfortunate” in my description of Robin’s statements. I have not assumed there is any deliberate attempt to provoke anyone in these statements. My own meeting allowed a challenging phrase to come into our diversity policy – because no-one at the business meeting at which this was agreed understood the way that this phrase is being used to imply trans exclusion.
I find Robin’s statements vague – what is meant by gender? by sex? by feeling? – and emotionally loaded “life-changing and irreversible” “serious lack of evidence” “real issues”. I am uncomfortable – this does not feel like plain speech to me – but you would need to look at Abigail’s comment to see how a trans woman, affected at a deep personal level, might find some of these statements offensive and incorrect. I wish to gain more sensitivity to the experience of trans people: some of this journey involves understanding the way that language can cause offense as much by being obtuse as by being openly “rude”.
I wrote my final sentence thinking about Abigail, not Robin. Insofar as it might apply to Robin, would Robin be willing to state what he experiences as truth in plainer language?
By katemackrell on 2024 02 24
There is deception in this part of Abigail’s last posting. .” But I don’t see how Robin’s, Eric’s, and Lydia’s hostility to trans inclusion, shown in their previous letters and comments, can be assuaged, or is compatible with welcoming trans people in our meetings.” She may feel it is like that, but that is her own perception and is not the truth. I defy her to produce a transphobic statement by either of us. As I have said before but Abigail just does not get it, I probably do more for the cause of trans people in the wider world by distributing films made by them than she does with her frequent statements. I hope to not take part further in this sterile discussion. This issue relates to less than 1% of the population and we are spending so much time on it. There are things happening to millions of people in the world, terrible things. I appeal to people to respond no further. That only gives oxygen to Abigail’s fixation. ( ooh, that’s going to produce a strong reaction!) Oh and by the way, we have a transman in my Meeting and we get along well together. He would be shocked at your image of me. Eric.
By ERIC WALKER on 2024 02 24
Hi, Eric. Where did I accuse you of transphobia? But, if you had claimed that you get on with a Black woman, everyone would have seen that is a cliched claim racists use, along with “I’m not racist but”.
I don’t like the word “transphobia” as the sole word for prejudice against trans people. It enables people like you to deny phobia, if you believe you can talk to a trans person without fear.
But prejudice?
Lydia Vulliamy: “The more we improve things for trans people, often the worse it is for the rest of us.” 15 September.
Moyra Carlyle: “If that ‘simple choice’ results in everyone around the child treating them as if they are not their real sex, the child is, in effect, being coached to believe it, and to believe that their natural puberty must be prevented.” Trans children go through hell in order to be able to transition. Moyra’s characterisation is divorced from reality. 29 September
Robin Waterston: “we need to exercise empathy with transgender people and with those who have suffered sexual trauma”, 1 September. This alleges a conflict of interest or rights where none exist. And, of course, all his claimed “common ground”.
Eric, 20 January, in a comment, admitted that a direct quote from Lydia “sounds hateful”.
Eric’s comments here have not been attacks on trans rights or comments on substantive issues, but personal attacks. 19 January: misspelling my name; calling me “not very nice”, accusing me of “deliberate distortion”, calling that “shameful”; and today, accusing a Friend of a “not Quakerly” “slur”, and me of “deception”, saying something which is “not the truth”, me “not getting it” and having a “fixation”.
The point on “fixation” needs a direct answer. I am trans. This is my life. I should not have to defend my rights in Quaker spaces: others should do that as allies. But Eric has two comments here, more on 19 January, and others have written up to three letters each attacking trans rights. It is the anti-trans campaigners who are “fixated”.
By Abigail Maxwell on 2024 02 24
Thank you, Abigail, for going through Robin’s points.
By ElizabethC on 2024 02 24
Please login to add a comment
