Quaker transphobia

Are Quakers transphobic? Yes. Not all, perhaps, but there is a vicious, self-righteous, self-pitying strain of transphobic hatred in many Quakers. At least one cis ally had to step away from her meeting because of transphobia there, and trans people are leaving.

“The Friend” magazine regularly prints the letters of transphobes, and there is a fine example in this week’s. It is anonymous, as the writer fears their vile prejudice becoming known.

It attaches Quaker virtues falsely to the transphobe cause. “The promptings of love and truth” and “sitting with uncertainty” allegedly lead the writer to transphobia. Wokeness is mocked with scare quotes, and being a trans ally called the “easy”, thoughtless path.

Trans concerns are minimised, and myths peddled. “We heard about the trans woman who feels alienated”- this sounds abstract, beside the account of our “victims”. “A young man pressured to redefine his gender rather than accept his homosexuality” as if that ever happens. No-one who cannot accept gay people can accept trans people.

The answer, they imply, is just to exclude trans women. How else to protect vulnerable, fearful women? Well, you could introduce them to the trans woman and show fear of her was unjustified. Few meeting houses have communal showers and changing rooms, and the risk in a toilet cubicle from trans women generally, if it exists, is far less than the risk anywhere else of male sexual violence.

“The Friend” printed an excellent article by James Barrett, specialist psychiatrist, who wrote “it is soul-crushing and miserable for someone to live their lives pretending to be something they are not”, a quote made prominent in large print. The editor is not a transphobe. But letters show a steady drip of poison.

On 17th May, a woman claimed to have had transgender friends! Then she said “the recent politicization of transgender has adversely affected women, girls and lesbians” (sic). She then wrote of “misinformed trans activists” in misogynistic bullying of rape survivors. She wants a “safe space for debate”, or to be able to hate trans women without criticism.

Elsewhere, the self-righteous attempt by some Quakers to promote hate and fear against trans women was on full view. One claimed that being asked what her “gender” was, was a lie- she has sex but no gender. So she works to deny the ordinary descriptive language we use to explain our experience. Another complained of trans women being referred to as “she”.

One suggests the “theory” underpinning our identity is “unhelpful”, and “just be kind” “gets nowhere”.

One asserts “female-bodied people calling themselves non-binary is anti-lesbian”. Some AFAB non-binary people have male partners. She wants to regulate the words we use about ourselves. Another says “it isn’t about trans rights, as gender-critical progressive women are in favour of trans-identified people having fully the same rights as everyone else”- as long as those rights are defined to exclude us. She is against our rights under the Equality Act. Despite all the open transphobia, she claims “honest and open discussion” (transphobia) is “suppressed”. One claimed that trans women talking about our experience “causes pain to other Friends”.

Then there is the old lie, “This is an issue which will affect everyone, not only Quakers”. Gender recognition, the only new right on offer, only affects trans people.

Are Quakers transphobic? Not all, but some are grimly and self-righteously so. If you go to a Quaker meeting there may be someone there resenting your presence. They are unlikely to say anything- despite talk of Quaker “plain speech” we are not good at handling conflict- but you may find yourself frozen out.

As an antidote to the hate, a beautiful picture.

9 thoughts on “Quaker transphobia

  1. Hate seems to make world go around Clare and as someone who is still spiritual but rejects much about the practice of religion, I bemoan the self-rightousness of people who think they have a right to judge while using their faith as a platform to do so. My militancy has taken over and I wont stand for it in my presence

    Liked by 2 people

  2. ““The Friend” magazine regularly prints the letters of transphobes, and there is a fine example in this week’s. It is anonymous, as the writer fears their vile prejudice becoming known.”
    I do not understand this. I acknowledge people’s right to be in different places on this and other issues. But if you are going to take a stand, then do it in a way you can be in conversation instead of monologue. Anonymity makes the abuse easier.


    • I can’t see a good reason for the anonymity. The person might not want trans and allies in their meeting to know their extremism, but given the reference to a particular listening meeting, they should be identifiable. However- did the listening meeting not take place as described? Were the alleged “victims” of trans inclusion debunked, or not named?

      Liked by 1 person

      • When I write a letter to an editor I do so in hope that people who I know will read it and conversation will ensue. If I felt the need to have my name withheld I should find myself pausing. Because this would seem rather too much like a power play.

        Liked by 2 people

        • Here’s an example of the new strand in propaganda:

          “Allison has always supported the rights of gender-reassigned persons to live full lives, free from discrimination, however, she believes that in matters of public policy and law, including safeguarding and statistical gathering and analysis, biological reality must always come before gender identity.”

          (Not a Quaker.)

          She wants to deny all the language we use to describe reality. So when I speak for trans rights, she says that does not include being treated as our true gender. It is the opposite of dialogue.


  3. “safe space for debate” – I suggest that a true debate is not a safe space for either party. You have to be able to unpick claims made and to defend yourself against the same. I suspect what they want is a lecture to re-enforce their beliefs.


    • I don’t know if you saw that letter, or my response to it, but a debate would not be constructive. A debate would use examples as trump cards.

      A well-facilitated discussion might be worthwhile, if people could trust enough to state their personal feelings and fears to the other “side”. Could Quaker trans people and trans excluders come together creatively? I think we are all too hurt for that.


All comments welcome.

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.