It appears that this lengthy statement of transgender, etc issues is proposed to be an addition to Article II. To be in scale with the rest of Article II, it should be just one sentence.
Once again, this has nothing to do with this particular amendment. John, your comment is better addressed in the discussion topic for the main business resolution linked like four posts above yours.
This also has nothing to do with Article 2. This is a business resolution, or more specifically, this is about an amendment to a business resolution. It has nothing to do with UUA bylaws, which Article 2 does. You can be snarky about the length of Article 2 in the Article 2 discussion boards, because doing it here isnāt germane and is kinda rude.
The amendment Iām proposing is just one sentence. But I somehow doubt thatās what you mean.
2 Likes
Thank you for proposing this amendment, Tim. I think this is an excellent suggestion. This change is within the spirit of the original proposal and may result in concrete actions by other UU congregations. I also appreciate the comment in which you shared specific examples of support you have already received and how much it has meant for your congregants.
5 Likes
Thank you for proposing this amendment Tim!
1 Like
Friendly amendment suggestion: āSupporting member congregations in states and communities that are hostile toward transgender affirming legislation.ā
2 Likes
Certainly agree and will vote in favour, but I wonder if this is enough? Iām particularly thinking of congregations that are themselves transphobic (etc). Sometimes supporting congregations/boards and supporting marginalized people in those congregations are not the same thing.
4 Likes
Hi Frances - Although I agree with you, I feel like that would have needed to be an entirely different amendment that gets into both the text of the resolution and additional bullet points of action. I do think thatās worth bringing up in the discussion forum for the main business resolution.
3 Likes
Hi Katie. I appreciate the thought and intent behind this suggestion. Iām not super comfortable with friendly amendments on this - I did get the language of this run through the UUA legal counsel in advance (and made a tweak based off their feedback, which is this finalized version.) I do think thereās a difference between being hostile toward transgender affirming legislation and actively oppressing their two spirit/trans/genderqueer/intersex community.
3 Likes
Tim,
What is the existing or proposed statement to which this long addition is to be attached? The line numbers made it appear to me to be attached to Article II. If I have misunderstood your proposal, I am sorry. I agree that this discussion is not about the substance of the Article II proposal. My concern was not about the length of the Article II revision; it was about adding so much additional text to it.
John Hansman
Hi Joettaā¦itās Libby
Yes we do live in an oppressive state. I understand the expression of this. My daughter lives in Idaho which is vying for most oppressive. My concern is how and who defines oppressiveā¦I know it, you know it. Does the Supreme Court or our does AG know it. Recently a Ohio legislator introduced a bill that would defund public libraries if they donāt remove or hide so-called āharmfulā materials to juveniles. Earlier a bill H.B. 556 was introduced that would charge teachers and school district librarians with felonies for āpanderingā so-called āobsceneā material. These are intimidation tactics but they attempts to set arbitrary standards. This amendment is asking for support for those ministering to those whoās rights and safety are being threatenedā¦ even in states that donāt appear āoppressiveā.
I have a transgender daughter living in Idaho. Itās a scary world!!! I support this amendment but I want to paste a comment I made on this forum to a friend. Itās about the problem of by whom and how oppression is defined:
āYes we do live in an oppressive state. I understand the expression of this. My daughter lives in Idaho which is vying for most oppressive. My concern is how and who defines oppressiveā¦I know it, you know it. Does the Supreme Court or our does AG know it. Recently a Ohio legislator introduced a bill that would defund public libraries if they donāt remove or hide so-called āharmfulā materials to juveniles. Earlier a bill H.B. 556 was introduced that would charge teachers and school district librarians with felonies for āpanderingā so-called āobsceneā material. These are intimidation tactics but they attempt to set arbitrary standards. This amendment is asking for support for those ministering to those whoās rights and safety are being threatenedā¦ even in states that donāt appear āoppressiveā.ā
thank you for your
work.
My concern is with subjective language such as āoppressive.ā - What standard are we using - legislation? Community events? Etc.
My initial reading of the amendment connected the suggested verbiage with the point before, and I see where I was mistaken in attempting to combine and consolidate the two. But, my concern regarding agility in response still nags at me.
As a trans person living in a state (and community) where I am currently āsafeā but that could change, and in a community where there is a bubble of safety but far more potential for a sudden shift in that safety than I want to think about, I believe we need to be poised to shift resources, etc. quickly as situations develop and change.
Perhaps it could be phrased:
ā¢ Directly supporting member congregations and communities of the UUA engaged in ministry to
transgender, nonbinary, and intersex individuals and families in locations where increased support is warranted due to concerns for safety or other circumstances;
My concern is that verbiage such as āoppressive,ā while communicating the degree of severity is subjective, and could allow room for equivocation. Whereas, concern for safety, etc. is a bit more quantifiable and less open to interpretation.
The business resolution.
It is literally linked in these comments above that I referred to in my earlier reply. This has nothing at all to do with Article 2.
1 Like
As we are already voting on this, it can not be amended.
That feels like a technical cop out to a conversation though. I also would not have accepted it as a friendly amendment; I would have encouraged it as an entirely different amendment to add an additional bullet point.
I understand that even in communities that appear to be safer right now, that it can change on a moments notice and no community is truly Safe for gender queer folk.
But surely you can also acknowledge that the issues facing trans families in deep deep red states have a different level of urgency right now? As a denomination we struggle with acknowledging regional differences with oppression.
Weāve had multiple families from our church leave Oklahoma because they have genderqueer kids. They fled to communities like the ones you describe. One example from here in Oklahoma - a teachers certification would be revoked if they were to use a pronoun different than the one implied on a birth certificate, even if the parents were fine with it.
Iāve only lived in Oklahoma for four years. Before this, 3 in Maryland/dc, 4 in Jersey, and Georgia a long time before that. The level of oppression here is just on a different level, and we have such a hard time acknowledging that as a denomination.
Lifting up the problems facing these oppressive. communities doesnāt diminish what anyone else is going through. Which is why I would have encouraged you to admit as a seperate bullet point
4 Likes
I sincerely appreciate your willingness to respond even though no amendments are possible at this point. And, please know that I do recognize and understand the difference in urgency for those in currently-active oppressive states/regions. I thought I conveyed that in my original comment, but understand that may not have come across.
I think my concern lies in the fact that, these are bylaws - governing documents for the association as a whole. There is a generality to such documents, where permissible, in the interest of allowing the most latitude for action. But, the drawback there is that it also allows inaction, if the situation is not deemed as meeting the standard for such a charged word. I think that using phrases/terms such as āoppressive,ā or other equally evocative terms in direct calls to action/advocacy/awareness efforts is necessary. I just donāt know the efficacy in such a document as this.
This is a proposed amendment to a Business Resolution. It has nothing to do with Article II. (I was one of the Board Liaisons to the Article II Study Commission).
2 Likes
Where can one see the business resolution to which the transgender amendment would be added?
A business resolution has nothing to do with bylaws. We are making no changes to bylaws in this proposal.
This is a business resolution that dictates to the UUA what the general assembly wants it to do. It will not be editing or amending any bylaw.
If the business resolution passes, it will still not be a part of our bylaws and governance. That would need to be a bylaw amendment, not a business resolution.
If this were an attempt to change bylaws, yes, the resolution would be problematic. (Like saying to support a specific UUA program by name in the bylaws would be bad to do, because what if the program changes its name next year, etc.)
2 Likes
Ah, I see my error. This is my first time, so Iām still getting the hang of things.
1 Like
I like to think of it in terms of intended target/audience:
A bylaw revision is for current and future governance.
A business resolution is for current and future UUA Actions and behavior
A budget resolution (very rare) is about immediate priorities for the UUA
A AIW is more of a social justice statement aimed at the outside world.
Thatās my general rule of thumb. Not anything official.
5 Likes