Hurray for trans rights. I’ve been personally supporting trans people for almost 40 years now.
As liberals, we support the individual’s liberty to live their life as they wish. That said, my feelings about this business resolution are conflicted. It seems to represent an attempt to get congregations to conform to a program. I fully understand a desire to get other people to support a program, especially a worthy one like this. Part of being a liberal community, however, is letting our congregations run themselves autonomously. That includes letting congregations decide how to prioritize their social justice efforts. It’s hard to let other congregations make their own decisions. Liberalism is hard. With this resolution, I’d like us all to bear in mind the difficult, liberal task of not expecting others to conform to our own expectations.
Let’s agree to follow the science. No cherry-picking. Following the science is a difficult discipline, and I think that as UUs we are up to it.
Great question. I’m not sure why this is a business resolution and not an Action of Immediate Witness.
Hi all, I didn’t realise my time had started during the General Session, so I said I’d post the rest of my comment here:
This is really personal to me. When I was in a workshop about how to respond to anti-trans laws and organising at LREDA Fall Con last year, sitting with trans colleagues who have shaped my faith formation, I got a text from my cousin, asking if we could go for it and have him come live with me in Boston. We’d been talking about this for awhile, because Florida was getting increasingly hostile towards him, as a disabled, gay, trans man. The last straw was when they passed a law making it illegal for him to use the bathroom that matches his gender identity and expression in a public bathroom. (He’s thriving up here, by the way; he just got certified as a paratransit driver and is working a degree in psychology, and helps with our zoom tech.)
I serve our congregation in Canton as their Ministerial Intern. But even here in Massachusetts, while I was honoured to be asked to speak at Canton Pride last year, that was only the second ever Pride event in the town of Canton,; they held their first ever Trans Day of Remembrance this year, sponsored by our church, and there was definitely some opposition in the town. I was their only clergy speaker, and they were so thrilled that our congregation agreed to come. If this is what it’s like even here, we are desperately needed. And that isn’t a condemnation of the South or of red states generally; although my chosen family made one choice, there are so many queer folks and allies there, UUs and not, making good trouble and pushing back against book bans, sex ed bans, don’t say gay laws, and attacks on trans’ people’s right to exist in public, or at all.
I believe that this business resolution, and more broadly, our widespread and wholehearted support for our trans, intersex, and genderqueer siblings at this particular time in history is a vital and needed show of our Unitarian Universalist faith and heritage. We often say that our salvation, however it is we understand salvation, is bound up together, and I strongly urge us to show our trans siblings that we believe this is so, and will work to make it so, within our congregations and in the world at large. Please vote yes.
Also, I know this is a YouTube video, but I think it’s really, really good at addressing a lot of discrimination trans folks face in healthcare, and has a comprehensive discussion of some of the studies mentioned earlier: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v1eWIshUzr8
Can you talk about new scientific findings and recommendations coming out of Europe, ones that have nothing to do w the Cass report?
Good thoughful pionts Dick.
This is from Carey McDonald, UUA EVP
AIWs and CSAIs are specifically directed externally to “social justice” issues, whereas a business resolution can include both internal and external commitments. Additionally, AIW’s express a position of the General Assembly but do not obligate the Association to take any specific action, and CSAI’s are a multi-year process. The goal of this business resolution is to address the urgent needs of the moment by providing an actionable interpretation of our values and covenant within our faith community and beyond, affirmed at the highest level by the General Assembly. It would establish an Associational commitment to supporting transgender people for the UUA’s central organization and for its member congregations.
Would you be interested in reading my researched posts? I have replied to Dick above with refutations and hoping to educate over the last 15 days, with just the science.
There are conversations happening about this in the chat on the zoom call, Jonathan. Quoted from that space (and our bylaws)
A Business Resolution “…directly involves the administration and structure of the Association. Any resolution submitted which, taken as a whole, has as its purpose the making of a statement of social concern or principle shall be deemed to be a Study/Action Issue for Social Justice…” (Rule G-4.18.2)
So, as a Study/Action issue for Social Justice, we go beyond “witnessing” to actively putting energy into the answring the call. Also, as religious educator Tim Atkins pointed out:
An example of how this resolution COULD be used: Here in Oklahoma, the right wing government passed a law that says kids can leave school during the day and attend religious education up to 3x a week for public school credit. This resolution can help with our legal justification for why a trans affirming sex ed program is indeed part of our religion and would qualify. It could be a way where we are able to offer OWL to every public school student in Oklahoma. They forget that their rules apply to us too, not just evangelical churches.
I am a new delegate, and wondering: Would this statement fit better as a Statement of Conscience? which has a broader scope than a Business Resolution which is focused on an item that “directly involves the administration and structure of the Association” bylaws 2351
starting on line 337 of the bylaws in section 4.12
*Section 4.12. UUA Statements of Conscience.
The purpose of the Congregational Study/Action Process is to provide the member congregations of the Association with an opportunity to mobilize energy, ideas, and resources around a common issue. The end result will be a deeper understanding of our religious position on the issue, a clear statement of Association policy as expressed in a Statement of Conscience, and a greater capacity for the congregations to take effective action.
I would argue that this is more about making sure that UUs in relatively “safe” locations are fully mobilized to support UUs who are in more dangerous states, or in active diaspora looking for a safer place to live. And of course, there are federal threats, as well.
I didn’t know there was a limit but the discuss site just told me I couldn’t like your post. “Wow! You’ve been sharing a lot of love! You’ve reached the maximum number of likes within a 24 hour period, but as you gain trust levels, you’ll earn more daily likes.” I send you and all my transgender, nonbinary and intersex siblings so much energy and love. I’m going to step back and do some care for myself too.
Trans / Non-Binary Chaplaincy available here: Meeting Registration - Zoom
This is specifically for the post-General Session III discussion time.
What reports? If you’re asking people to debunk a study or report, you need to indicate the study or report in question.
The statement of conscience process is a three-year process. It does not lend itself to quick action. I assume we could have a study-action process on this issue, but as someone living in the South there is a need to do something inthe near future.
Yes, I have hit that in the past, and also tried more than 3 replies in a row, which is also not allowed. Truly annoying, especially the “trust level” nonsense. Oh, well; what we tolerate for use of a commercial platform.
I can see that many people responding to your post as from defensive, emotional, even aggressive approaches.
I am discouraged to see Unitarians reduced to “my science against your science”, instead of remaining open to the larger “wait and see” process of scientific aggregation.
I choose to see your share having cautionary value, at the very least.
and if I were concerned that we might disagree, I’d rather approach you with curiosity and love, rather than the prevailing ambition to be on more right than kind… let alone on “the right side of history”.
Where others may debate the specific language, I have concerns with the possible “telos”…the goal, or “ask’… of this amendment.
This language feels, to me, like it asks specific behavior from UUs toward a specific (identity-based-)demographic of fellow UUs…and does so exhaustively with language that feels overly specific and overtly-contemporary.
This feels like it’s creeping into creed territory, demanding not only that a person care about a specific issue, but how do to so.
…and THAT feels quite antithetical to the open, tolerant pluralit space in which I have enjoyed personal- and social growth in my 35 years as a UU.
In my opinion, UU principles, and UU individuals, should welcome people who don’t care about every issue the same way, if at all.
In my experience, UU has exposed me to a rich diversity of people and ideas, including not only things I didn’t understand, but things and people I didn’t like, and/or didn’t like me.
I feel “welcoming diversity” cuts both ways, including leaving room for people to feel opposite and/or nothing about whatever hill(s) others may die on.…rather than putting up clear, rigid ideologies that may drive away curious minds that not only could turn, but may yearn to.
Apathy and uncertainty are fundamental dimensions of any open space for people of disparate positions may grow to understand each other.
I will specify: Apathy should not be equated to Antipathy.
I understand that some may feel that “apathy” is “tantamount to complicity” or even feel that “apathy is violence”…
but I and others may not feel that way.
And escalation is not the solution to Widening oUUr Circle.
Adding specific language that expect specific (shows of) feelings about specific issues/demographics may feel good in the short term, but it can be divisive to potential allies who do not live “on that hill”.
I believe uncertainty and ambiguity are cost of doing business when doing diversity.
This revisions adds too much person-specific language, too many “thou shalt/shalt-not"-s, and bets too much on one side of a complex issue…
Thus, it feels at risk of being a wedge issue that could drive away other-minded outsiders from finding fellowship among our (other) folds.
@amylynn good pragmatic point about the making this a business resolution now vs taking years to have this be a Statement of Conscience. I am a bit torn between having Business Resolution statements now to support a great group of people vs the possibility of having s Statement of Conscience in the years to come.