# "Men"



## AndreAshlar (Aug 8, 2015)

If a woman "identifies" as a man, should the same be eligible for admission into The Craft?  Why or why not?


----------



## Pscyclepath (Aug 8, 2015)

Typically, the answer would be "no."   Having mis-matched chromosomes is one of the ancient landmarks of the Craft.

With the current cultural and political interest in gender issues, there's a lot of discussion going on in the various masonic forums (including elsewhere on this one), with lots of argument on either side and not a small bit in the middle.  It will depend a great deal on the individual lodge...  but one of the ancient landmarks for recognition of a grand jurisdiction is that it makes Masons "of men only."

Admission to Freemasonry is controlled by the ballot box in the blue lodge, subject to the rules and edicts set forth by itsparent grand jurisdiction.Freemasonry is not for everyone, and the ballot box makes that cut.  Each individual Mason is charged to search within his heart, and vote for the good of the Craft.  Me personally?  I would have a hard time casting a white ball in this circumstance.


----------



## Glen Cook (Aug 8, 2015)

This is much discussed over at the Reddit Freemasonry list


----------



## coachn (Aug 8, 2015)

AndreAshlar said:


> If a woman "identifies" as a man, should the same be eligible for admission into The Craft?  Why or why not?


If she petitions a female craft or co-masonic lodge, there should not be a problem.  Why?  They Admit biological females whether they identify with being a male or female.

If she petitions a male craft lodge, she shall not be Admitted.  Why?  They do not Admit biological females regardless of identification.


----------



## JJones (Aug 8, 2015)

The responses here are like a breath of fresh air after reading the nonsense over at Reddit on this very same subject earlier this week.


----------



## SeeKer.mm (Aug 8, 2015)

Clandestine maybe,  mainstream,  I would say no.   I think coachn said it best


----------



## AndreAshlar (Aug 8, 2015)

Herein lies the problem.   Many don't believe that gender is determined by biology.  A brother in my lodge told me it would be unmasonic to deny admission to a woman who "identifies" as a man.  His thinking is, she's a man because she feels like one.


----------



## SeeKer.mm (Aug 8, 2015)

AndreAshlar said:


> Herein lies the problem.   Many don't believe that gender is determined by biology.  A brother in my lodge told me it would be unmasonic to deny admission to a woman who "identifies" as a man.  His thinking is, she's a man because she feels like one.



In this case I would have to inquire of the GL of what their definition of gender is as to be in concordance with the rules in our jurisdiction before voting black or white.  I may not have a problem with it personally but it is my Masonic duty to uphold jurisprudence.   I do see the brothers point though because if a transgender male petitioned the lodge,  they are biologically male and identify as female.... Would we let them in (assuming all the spiritual,  mental and moral qualities are up to par of course.)?   I honestly don't know.   Did they not have this issue in the 1700s?


----------



## coachn (Aug 8, 2015)

SeeKer.mm said:


> Clandestine maybe,  mainstream,  I would say no.   I think coachn said it best


Thanks Bro.  

Those reading this thread: Keep in mind that the word "Clandestine" (and "Regular" and "Irregular" for that matter) is defined by the Grand Lodges themselves.  Hence what is Clandestine to one Grand Lodge, may not be Clandestine to another. 

No amount of word slinging by any member of one Grand Lodge against another is ever going to change this; even though we are going to have these words thrown by those members who can't accept this simple reality.


----------



## coachn (Aug 8, 2015)

AndreAshlar said:


> Herein lies the problem.


It's not a problem.  The rules are simple.  When you want to participate a certain way, simply find an organization were the rules support what you want. 



AndreAshlar said:


> Many don't believe that gender is determined by biology.  A brother in my lodge told me it would be unmasonic to deny admission to a woman who "identifies" as a man.  His thinking is, she's a man because she feels like one.


As far as this Brother is concerned, if he "really" feels this way, then he is living a lie by being a member that doesn't support his beliefs.  Harsh?  No.  Just keeping it real.  He is a member that doesn't believe in the rules he is obligated to uphold.  Can you say "integrity issue?"


----------



## Companion Joe (Aug 8, 2015)

No, because despite what our current screwed up society tells people, just because you "identify" as something, it doesn't make it so. Sorry, that's life. I can identify as a bird all I want, but that doesn't mean if I jump out of a tree and flap my arms, I can fly. There will be disastrous results, and I'm afraid that's where the world is headed thanks to the current climate.


----------



## LAMason (Aug 9, 2015)

Herbert Garrison, was also known as Janet Garrison after a sex change operation. He is the The 4th Grade teacher at South Park Elementary. Mr. Garrison was a man throughout the first eight seasons of South Park, but underwent a male to female sex change operation and later got a reverse sex change operation becoming male again.


----------



## LAMason (Aug 9, 2015)

Gender Dysphoria/Gender Identity Disorder is recognized as a Psychiatric Disorder in _Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (5th Edition).  _While we should have compassion for people with Mental Disorders, individuals with Mental Disorders including this Psychiatric Disorder are not prepared mentally, emotionally, psychologically, or spiritually to become a Freemason, and Freemasonry was/is not designed to help these individuals.

Further, “Epidemiological studies are lacking so that no strong conclusions about the prevalence of GID can be drawn. The prevalence estimates cited in DSM-IV for adults of 1:30,000 for natal males and 1:100,000 in natal females are likely to be under estimates_.” Report of the APA Task Force on Treatment of Gender Identity Disorder Approved by the Joint Reference Committee, July 2011 Approved by the Board of Trustees, September 2011, Footnote 1, Page 2_.  Which would be .0033% and .001% respectively.  So if we assume that the prevalence is .005% to make up for the assumed under estimation as stated in the footnote, then based on the U. S. Population estimate of 318,881,992 as of July 4, 2014, http://www.census.gov/popclock/, that would indicate that there are approximately 15,944 individuals with this disorder in the U. S.  Then when you consider that only a very small percentage of those are/will be interested in Freemasonry, it is obvious that the whole issue is a tempest in a teapot.


----------



## pointwithinacircle2 (Aug 9, 2015)

EDIT: comment removed


----------



## coachn (Aug 9, 2015)

pointwithinacircle2 said:


> EDIT: comment removed


<sigh>


----------



## pointwithinacircle2 (Aug 9, 2015)

coachn said:


> <sigh>


Yeah, it was something about the difference between the terms Gender and Gender Role.  And how just saying they are the same thing doesn't make them the same thing.  But that is not even what really bothers me about this topic.  I don't really care what you believe about yourself.  But, if you disagree with God about your gender please don't expect me to believe that it was God who made the mistake!


----------



## coachn (Aug 9, 2015)

pointwithinacircle2 said:


> Yeah, it was something about the difference between the terms Gender and Gender Role.  And how just saying they are the same thing doesn't make them the same thing.  But that is not even what really bothers me about this topic.  I don't really care what you believe about yourself.  But, if you disagree with God about your gender please don't expect me to believe that it was God who made the mistake!


Well then, I am delighted you held back and didn't post such things.  If you had you would have ripped in two the space-time continuum.


----------



## dfreybur (Aug 10, 2015)

LAMason said:


> Gender Dysphoria/Gender Identity Disorder is recognized as a Psychiatric Disorder in _Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (5th Edition).  _While we should have compassion for people with Mental Disorders, individuals with Mental Disorders including this Psychiatric Disorder are not prepared mentally, emotionally, psychologically, or spiritually to become a Freemason, and Freemasonry was/is not designed to help these individuals.



One of the promises we make is to not permit a mentally ill individual to become a Mason.  The fact that it gets diagnosed as a disorder will be enough for some to give a negative recommendation at the time of the committee.  The best time to filter is in the person's head deciding to not petition.  All steps after that become more problematic.



> Further, “Epidemiological studies are lacking so that no strong conclusions about the prevalence of GID can be drawn. The prevalence estimates cited in DSM-IV for adults of 1:30,000 for natal males and 1:100,000 in natal females are likely to be under estimates_.” Report of the APA Task Force on Treatment of Gender Identity Disorder Approved by the Joint Reference Committee, July 2011 Approved by the Board of Trustees, September 2011, Footnote 1, Page 2_.  Which would be .0033% and .001% respectively.  So if we assume that the prevalence is .005% to make up for the assumed under estimation as stated in the footnote, then based on the U. S. Population estimate of 318,881,992 as of July 4, 2014, http://www.census.gov/popclock/, that would indicate that there are approximately 15,944 individuals with this disorder in the U. S.  Then when you consider that only a very small percentage of those are/will be interested in Freemasonry, it is obvious that the whole issue is a tempest in a teapot.



Yet it has happened one in California.

Given the rarity is it a tempest in a teapot, or an interesting hypothetical based on stories currently in the media?  To me a bit of both.

At some point the procedures will be good enough that we can't tell.  Just like political or religious membership there may end up a member that we never learn this is there status.  We need to reach a peace about that within ourselves independently of whether we know in our hearts how we would ballot.  The California example from the Order of the Amaranth gives one version of how to reach peace, but that example was easily detected as the person was a PM before starting the operations so was widely known.  At some point, though, someone is going to move, change identities and eventually petition.  It is that situation that we need to be at peace about, trial or not.


----------



## hanzosbm (Aug 10, 2015)

Here's where I see the problem...

I said it in another thread and I'll say it again here; our oaths were not given before the GL, they were given before GAOTU.  For that reason, no ruling from the GL can change what we swore to.  Even if the GL comes out and says 'yeah, we're cool with trannies' I still have to answer to the big man upstairs.  My belief is that no amount of believing or body mutilation changes one's gender, so if the GL says to let them in, in my mind the GL has just become irregular and I will not be part of it. 
The unfortunate thing here is that the GLs are going to be put in a VERY difficult position.  What happens when one allows it and the others don't?  Are you suddenly going to have an entire state with no recognized Freemasons?  Will one state recognize them but not another?  Is there going to be a schism?  Think about the difficulties here.  Let's say California allows transgender Masons.  Texas does not.  Texas no longer recognizes California.  Along comes Nevada, they don't allow transgender Masons, but they still recognize California and allows visitation.  How does Texas treat a state like Nevada that allows transgender Masons to sit in lodge with them?  That's just 3 states, what happens when this spreads across 50?  Now multiply that by the same problems with Prince Hall lodges.  Who recognizes who?  It would be disastrously confusing.
Not only because I think it's the right thing to do, but if Freemasonry wishes to keep the peace and harmony it has, it needs to say no.


----------



## BroBook (Aug 10, 2015)

Short answer: NO
Long answer: I did not, I will not  .......,,


----------



## JJones (Aug 10, 2015)

hanzosbm said:


> Here's where I see the problem...
> 
> I said it in another thread and I'll say it again here; our oaths were not given before the GL, they were given before GAOTU.  For that reason, no ruling from the GL can change what we swore to.  Even if the GL comes out and says 'yeah, we're cool with trannies' I still have to answer to the big man upstairs.



Agreed. What a man swears is what a man swears, you can't go back and edit your oath like it was some form of legal document.


----------



## pointwithinacircle2 (Aug 10, 2015)

hanzosbm said:


> The unfortunate thing here is that the GLs are going to be put in a VERY difficult position.


Honestly, I doubt that any Grand Lodge will rule on something as dicey as what does and does not constitute the male gender.  (Unless it can be determined using geometry - lets see, if the angle of the dangle - OMG!, Where is the delete button!)  Seriously, ruling on this issue would be as inappropriate as ruling on which religions believe in an acceptable God.  OH NO! we're doomed!


----------



## hanzosbm (Aug 10, 2015)

pointwithinacircle2 said:


> ...Unless it can be determined using geometry - lets see, if the angle of the dangle...


Well that seems a little harsh.  With as many older Masons as we have in our lodges, there's going to be a number of them who can't raise it to a living perpendicular...


----------



## coachn (Aug 10, 2015)

hanzosbm said:


> Well that seems a little harsh.  With as many older Masons as we have in our lodges, there's going to be a number of them who can't raise it to a living perpendicular...


Isn't that what your Lewis is used for; Raising your Stones?


----------



## hanzosbm (Aug 10, 2015)

Lewis, Viagra, whatever it takes...


----------



## dfreybur (Aug 10, 2015)

pointwithinacircle2 said:


> Honestly, I doubt that any Grand Lodge will rule on something as dicey as what does and does not constitute the male gender.



With the tiny population of transgendered and the chance of it being handled at the ballot box, I expect any jurisdiction asked to buck the question back to the local level.  It won't come up often enough for any sort of ruling to be made.


----------



## coachn (Aug 10, 2015)

That is, not until there's a court challenge.


----------



## hanzosbm (Aug 10, 2015)

I think GL is going to get pulled into it whether they like it or not.  The second a single lodge anywhere in the country tries to initiate a transgender person, the dominos will start to fall.  Imagine a "progressive" lodge someplace like San Francisco or Portland goes ahead with it.  Any other Mason in that district gets wind of it and doesn't like it and tries to have them brought up on charges, and now it's started.


----------



## pointwithinacircle2 (Aug 10, 2015)

hanzosbm said:


> I think GL is going to get pulled into it whether they like it or not.  The second a single lodge anywhere in the country tries to initiate a transgender person, the dominos will start to fall.  Imagine a "progressive" lodge someplace like San Francisco or Portland goes ahead with it.  Any other Mason in that district gets wind of it and doesn't like it and tries to have them brought up on charges, and now it's started.


We should be fine unless a member of that Lodge has posted on a Masonic BB that they would vote against such a person.  Then we have a conspiracy.


----------



## coachn (Aug 10, 2015)

and then, dogs and cats shall start living together in sin.


----------



## Warrior1256 (Sep 19, 2015)

Pscyclepath said:


> Typically, the answer would be "no."   Having mis-matched chromosomes is one of the ancient landmarks of the Craft.
> 
> With the current cultural and political interest in gender issues, there's a lot of discussion going on in the various masonic forums (including elsewhere on this one), with lots of argument on either side and not a small bit in the middle.  It will depend a great deal on the individual lodge...  but one of the ancient landmarks for recognition of a grand jurisdiction is that it makes Masons "of men only."
> 
> Admission to Freemasonry is controlled by the ballot box in the blue lodge, subject to the rules and edicts set forth by itsparent grand jurisdiction.Freemasonry is not for everyone, and the ballot box makes that cut.  Each individual Mason is charged to search within his heart, and vote for the good of the Craft.  Me personally?  I would have a hard time casting a white ball in this circumstance.


Same here.


----------



## Brother_Steve (Sep 19, 2015)

Eduted. Not germane to the conversation.


----------



## hanzosbm (Sep 21, 2015)

JamestheJust said:


> When I was initiated I was happy to swear allegiance to the GAOTU.
> 
> But the obligation also required me to swear allegiance to whatever Grand Lodge had secured that exclusive territory, and swear allegiance to the only lodge easily accessible.
> 
> ...



If I'm understanding your point correctly brother, you are pointing out that it is possible for one's obligation to be conflict with itself.  If we swore to never admit a woman, and also to follow the directives of the Grand Lodge and the Grand Lodge tells us to admit a woman, we're in a no win situation.  Normally, we'd say that the GL would never issue an edict in opposition to parts of the obligation, but this exact situation shows us that grey areas do exist that make things dramatically more complicated.


----------

