(How) should Quakers talk about sex and gender?

 

Should Quakers discuss contentious issues about sex and gender?  If so, how?  Have British Quakers taken a collective position that means there is nothing more to talk about, or that precludes the expression of certain views?

 

This post is meant primarily for Quakers, but in case it’s of interest to others too, I want to start with some terminology and history, on matters familiar to most Quakers.

 

I begin with Yearly Meeting (YM), which the Quakers in Britain website describes as follows:

 

Yearly Meeting is an annual event at which important concerns and questions for Quakers in Britain are considered. It makes decisions on Quaker work and is the final constitutional body for Quakers in Britain.

All Quakers can attend YM, either in person or online.  As the extract makes clear, YM is a decision-making body. It uses the Quaker business method, which means that no votes are taken, but instead there is a process of collective discernment.  YM clerks play a central role in this.

 

For each agenda item, clerks will invite contributions from those who wish to speak.  Where there are numerous individuals wishing to be heard, clerks will decide who should be called upon, and in what order.  When clerks think that the time is right, they will seek to draw up a written document (a “minute”), summarising the common view of the meeting in the light of the spoken contributions.  Clerks will read out their draft minute and invite corrections; but at this point no new points of substance should be raised.  By the end of the meeting, there will be a final version of the minute.  This constitutes the collective position reached by YM.  Where it is impossible to reach an agreed position then there are various possible options; for instance, the issue might be deferred for further consideration in future. 

 

In 2021, YM adopted Minute 31, headed “Acknowledging and Welcoming Gender Diverse People”.  In full, it reads as follows.

 

Our testimony of equality stems from the religious conviction that all people are of equal spiritual worth, that each one of us is unique, precious, a child of God.

 

In 2003, Meeting for Sufferings responded to the Gender Recognition Bill, based on our testimony of equality, and encouraged Quaker Life Central Committee to promote the pastoral care of transgender people, their families, spouses and children, their friends and meetings. In 2015 the Tabular Statement started to record “Other” as well as men and women as one step to acknowledging the diversity among us. More recently, following consideration of trans and nonbinary inclusion in a number of meetings, Quaker Life drafted an initial statement in 2018, inviting all Quakers in Britain to discuss and reflect together on gender diversity.

 

These discussions and reflections have not always been easy. Our consideration has coincided with wider consideration of legislation reform in Britain, and the associated conflict has been reflected among Friends in our yearly meeting. We recognise that we need to keep listening and searching together.

 

In an atmosphere of trust, we need to listen, to share our journeys, in silent worship, and in prayer. We all have human gifts and friendship to offer. We need to rejoice in the things that make us different, not be ashamed or excluded. Our differences are a blessing, and we must all work to ensure that the support is there in each meeting to allow this blessing to bear fruit.

 

We seek to provide places of worship and community that are welcoming and supportive to trans and non-binary people who want to be among us. Belonging is more than fitting in. With glad hearts we acknowledge and affirm the trans and gender diverse Friends in our Quaker communities, and express appreciation for the contribution and gifts that they bring to our meetings, which are communities made up of people with a diverse range of gender expressions. The end of our travelling is for differences not to divide us. We rejoice in recognising God’s creation in one another. This is what love requires of us.

 

Some Quakers hold what are often called “gender critical” views about issues of sex and gender.  Other labels are sometimes used - for instance, individuals may describe themselves as “sex realist” - but I will adopt the term gender critical as it’s the most common usage.

 

Gender critical views come in a variety of forms, but in general they include five key points.  First, sex is understood as a physiological reality; it is about the state of the body not the mind.  Secondly, human sex is binary; human beings are in principle either male or female (there may be a tiny minority of cases that are hard to classify).  Thirdly, humans cannot literally change their sex (though there are legal provisions whereby some individuals may be deemed for certain purposes to have done so).  Fourthly, sex is different from gender expression, or gender identity.  And fifthly, there are contexts in which sex matters:  that is to say, there are contexts where a person’s sex matters more than (say) their gender identity or gender expression.

 

 Gender critical people, including Quakers, are often concerned about how some of the claims made by or on behalf of trans people may affect the rights and interests of women, especially as regards single sex spaces, services or facilities.  Many gender critical people (though not all) self-identify as feminists.  The majority (though not all) are women. 

 

How have gender critical Quakers responded to Minute 31?  I’m not aware of any Quakers who say that we shouldn’t welcome trans or non-binary people.  But gender critical Quakers have also tended to emphasise that Minute 31 refers to the need to keep listening and searching together; they read this as an acknowledgment that Quakers hold a range of different views regarding sex and gender, that these differences need to be recognised and worked through, and that Minute 31 does not attempt to answer every disputed question.

 

Since 2021, Quaker discussion on these issues has in some contexts still been difficult.  For instance, on the Quaker Space Facebook group - which has about 1,500 members and is moderated by Friends’ House staff - moderators have repeatedly intervened in such discussions, sometimes removing posts (both from gender critical Quakers and their opponents), sometimes suspending individuals or removing them from the group altogether.  There are instances where moderators have accused gender critical individuals of not posting in good faith. 

 

On 21st February of this year, The Friend (the Quaker weekly magazine) published a Thought for the Week by Robin Waterston, entitled “Agree to Differ?”  This piece suggests that Quakers are not always good at handling internal conflict, including as to issues about sex and gender.  Robin writes:

 

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). 

 

There are signs of hope:

 

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 …

 

He concludes:

 

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.

 

Robin Waterston’s piece has provoked considerable discussion.  A significant opposing voice has been Mark Russ, a well-known Quaker writer and teacher.  Mark’s views were expressed in a letter to The Friend on 7^th March, and have subsequently been developed at length in a post on his widely read blog, “The Jolly Quaker”. 

 

I think it unlikely that Mark himself will read this piece. At the end of his blog post, he states:

 

As I’m not engaging in debate, I won’t respond to any pushback to this post. People who seek to disagree and debate with me will be blocked.

 

I’m not sure quite how Mark will block me.  I don’t think we are connected on social media at all, in any forum.  But coming from such a prominent Quaker, this pre-emptive refusal to engage with any opposing views is alarming and troubling.  It indicates that Robin is right: we do not always handle disagreement in a healthy way.

 

Mark begins by setting out, at some length, that Quaker speech is not always good speech.  He goes on to say:

 

A group of Quakers I see speaking harmful words in Britain today are those pursuing an anti-trans agenda, questioning the legitimacy of trans identities in the name of protecting cis women and children. They appear to operate on the belief that, in Quaker spaces, all words are good words. They insist that debate and dialogue should be ongoing, that room be continually made for their anti-trans views …

 

At this point, Mark refers specifically to Robin’s article, and links to it, as an example of inappropriate insistence on dialogue and debate.

 

Robin treats To Thine Own Self be True as exemplary.  Mark evidently regards it as unacceptable, and not to be repeated.  It is clear that Mark regards gender critical Quakers as being “anti-trans”, considers that their words are “harmful”, and seeks to exclude their views from any Quaker conversation.  For Mark, any other approach is inconsistent with Minute 31:

 

Welcome, support, acknowledgment and affirmation cannot coexist with continuing ‘debate and dialogue.’ Many cis Quakers have much to discover about the lived reality of trans people, and so there should always be space for discussion fuelled by the genuine desire to learn. But there comes a point where ‘debate and dialogue’ must end, where speech that does not measure up to our collectively discerned standards of love and truth needs to be halted. Either Quakers welcome and support trans people, which includes at a minimum believing they are who they say they are, or Quakers don’t. Or Quakers are using the word ‘welcome’ in such a weak manner as to render it meaningless. To truly welcome trans people means allowing trans people to set the terms for that welcome. We cannot welcome trans people and at the same time keep space open for anti-trans rhetoric. 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.

 

On Mark’s reading of Minute 31, “listening and searching together” means that trans and non-binary people speak about their experience and aspirations, and that everyone else listens.  Anyone who suggests that those aspirations might have adverse implications for other groups is driven by a “spirit of fear” and is engaging in “moral panic”.

 

What exactly is Mark asking for?  A charitable reading might be that he is merely asking gender critical Quakers not to express their views in Quaker spaces (whether in person or online), on the basis that (in his view) those views are out of line with Minute 31. 

 

But I think Mark is going further than this.  He says that certain speech “needs to be halted”, that Friends should not tolerate “debate” (the scare quotes are Mark’s not mine), and that there is no room for compromise.  I do not think, therefore, that he is merely asking for gender critical Quakers to keep silent.  He is asking for their speech to be actively silenced.

 

Mark does not draw out the implications of all this, but I think it is important to do so.  What would happen if Quakers as a body were to adopt the approach that he advocates?

 

Consider Meeting for Worship.  Anyone present is free to offer spoken contributions (or “ministry”).  There will be one or more elders, responsible for the proper holding of the meeting Where ministry is inappropriate – e.g. because it is too lengthy, or abusive in some way – then elders are expected to intervene, either at the time or subsequently.  The implication of Mark’s view is that gender critical speech in ministry should be treated in this way.  In which case, it is hard to see how a Quaker known to hold gender critical views could be suitable for appointment as an elder.

 

What about YM?  A similar approach would apply.  The expression of gender critical views during YM sessions would be treated as a form of misconduct; repeat offenders would be required to leave YM, and (if recalcitrant) might be banned from attendance in future.

 

As for Quaker discussion forums (whether in person on online), the responsibility for policing speech would fall on those running the discussion, or on the moderators of social media group.  But the principle would be the same:  any expression of gender critical views would violate the permitted boundaries of discussion, and action would need to be taken to end it.

 

Finally, what about membership?  The process of coming into membership usually involves a visit by two experienced Quakers, who make a report to Area Meeting which then determines the applicant’s suitability.  It is very rare for applicants to be turned down.  But what if an applicant expresses gender critical views to the visitors.  Would this be a basis for refusal of membership? Why not, if Mark is right about what Minute 31 requires?

 

Historically, Quakers have not required their adherents to sign up to any credal statement.  If we are to follow Mark’s approach, this will no longer be the case.  But the creed will not be about God or Jesus or the Bible or similar matters.  It will go like this: “Trans women are women, trans men are men, and non-binary identities are valid”.

 

I do not believe that YM 2021 intended anything of this kind when it adopted Minute 31.  To repeat, the majority of gender critical people are women; it is therefore women’s speech that principally is at risk of being silenced.  Was Minute 31 really meant as a sort of Scold’s Bridle for turbulent Quaker womenfolk? 

 

Is there any particular value in gender critical Quaker speech?  Or am I simply assuming that all Quaker speech is valuable, which is the approach that Mark expressly rejects?

 

It seems to me that there are at least three respects in which discussion of the issues raised by gender critical Quakers is important for the life of the Society of Friends.

 

The first is about welcome, and specifically about who is welcome.  The usual Quaker approach to membership is that those who are familiar with the life of the Quaker community, who wish to join that community, and who are willing to share in the burden of running it, are welcomed into membership.  All of this extends to trans and non-binary people.  Does it also extend to gender critical people?  If the answer is no, then let’s at least be clear about this, so that we drive away in advance those who are unacceptable to us, to avoid wasting their time and ours.

 

The second is about Quaker interventions in public debate.  There are a range of issues as to sex and gender that are matters of intense debate within wider society.  Robin’s piece gives some examples. In future, are Quakers going to take any collective position in the public debate on such issues?  If their position comes out of an internal discussion that is one-sided and heavily censored, how can it carry any weight in the wider world?

 

The third is about what Quakers might have to offer to the world by way of an example of handling internal conflict.

 

If we follow Mark’s approach, then our example will be that conflict is best dealt with by suppressing and silencing one group, so that disagreement comes to an end.  If we follow Robin’s approach, then our example will be that even on matters where discussion is fraught and conflicting opinions are deeply held, we can find a way to keep talking to one another.  Which approach is better?  Which has more to offer to an increasingly polarised world?

 

Mark Russ makes clear that he has his fingers planted firmly in his ears.  I cannot hope to change his mind.  But I hope that Friends generally will not follow his lead.