# UGLE Gender Policy



## Ripcord22A (Aug 1, 2018)

https://www.freemasonrytoday.com/ug...der-reassignment-policy#.W2HMXoInUvc.facebook

Your thoughts brethren?


----------



## coachn (Aug 1, 2018)

Ripcord22A said:


> https://www.freemasonrytoday.com/ug...der-reassignment-policy#.W2HMXoInUvc.facebook
> 
> Your thoughts brethren?


----------



## CLewey44 (Aug 1, 2018)

Meh, I don't think it will really be an issue. The rare occasion that it does, it's not our business what formed between their legs in utero and what they had 'reassigned'. Progression will move forward. I can imagine the flack this will receive but it's such a non-issue, the UGLE is just trying to go with the times maybe and not seem what some may consider as bigoted. If they've went as far as to have the surgery, legally changed their name/sex/gender and they are a 'man' of good character, I don't really have a problem with it. That's just me though. I'd welcome them and treat them as such. I can't remember the exact verbiage but I don't think anywhere it says to be 'born a man' but just to 'be a man'. Could be wrong and some states may differ as well.


----------



## David612 (Aug 1, 2018)

As it would be unlawful to not accept them based on gender if they are legally identified as male it’s a non issue theoretically speaking- however freemasonry in some countries especially have a track record of getting involved where they don’t belong.

From the article this sentence is interesting;

 “A Freemason who after initiation ceases to be a man does not cease to be a Freemason“

Really good progressive policy IMHO-
Nice to see from UGLE.

It’s all well and good to say it’s not my fight and so on but these are the struggles of our brothers and it’s not as uncommon as many think- 
Last thing we need is another court battle due to discrimination, it paints the craft in an awful light and detracts hugely from what we are about.


----------



## chrmc (Aug 1, 2018)

That one is a tough one, and certainly a hot topic. To be honest I'm personally not that concerned about what people feel they are, or what they used to be, but I would say that if we're a mens only Fraternity, I would be in favor for only allowing people that are identifying as men (and what that then may mean, is a longer discussion). 

If you used to be a man, and have transitioned to a woman, I'd say that you could no longer be a member of the fraternity. And I would feel good with also saying that it would be treating the given person, in line with the gender they are / have become. 

But it's a touchy topic for sure. But not as far removed as it could be. We had a lodge in Texas that had a brother become a sister here within the last 2 years. The individual demitted so GL didn't have to become involved, and no official policy was made based on this case.


----------



## Warrior1256 (Aug 2, 2018)

chrmc said:


> f we're a mens only Fraternity, I would be in favor for only allowing people that are identifying as men





chrmc said:


> If you used to be a man, and have transitioned to a woman, I'd say that you could no longer be a member of the fraternity.


This is pretty much my view.


chrmc said:


> But it's a touchy topic for sure.


Absolutely!


----------



## dfreybur (Aug 2, 2018)

chrmc said:


> But it's a touchy topic for sure. But not as far removed as it could be. We had a lodge in Texas that had a brother become a sister here within the last 2 years. The individual demitted so GL didn't have to become involved, and no official policy was made based on this case.



When I was going through the line the first time in the 1990s similar happened in the LA metro area.  She then petitioned the Amaranth.  Once the grand level folks at the Amaranth learned that people vouching for her reporting knowing her since birth there was a gigantic negative reaction.  Those signers had known him since birth and her since gender transition.

No my circus.  No my monkeys.  Love the advice!

I don't have either an accordion or the requisite perogies so I don't have a ten foot Pole to not touch this with.  Whew.


----------



## hanzosbm (Aug 2, 2018)

So, for everyone saying 'not my circus, not my monkeys', what would your reaction be when a young woman shows up to your lodge with a UGLE dues card seeking admission?


----------



## coachn (Aug 2, 2018)

hanzosbm said:


> So, for everyone saying 'not my circus, not my monkeys', what would your reaction be when a young woman shows up to your lodge with a UGLE dues card seeking admission?


LOL!  I have already shared this one with about a half a dozen brothers as a back channel COACH'S CHALLENGE.  Interesting spread of responses too!


----------



## David612 (Aug 2, 2018)

Personally I forwarded it to my GL rep and my secretary to ensure they knew about it-


----------



## Warrior1256 (Aug 2, 2018)

David612 said:


> Personally I forwarded it to my GL rep and my secretary to ensure they knew about it-


Good idea! I'll do the same.


----------



## Glen Cook (Aug 2, 2018)

hanzosbm said:


> So, for everyone saying 'not my circus, not my monkeys', what would your reaction be when a young woman shows up to your lodge with a UGLE dues card seeking admission?


Many lodges have the right to reject a visitor.  In Utah, any member can object.  

nb. no dues card in UGLE.


----------



## Dontrell Stroman (Aug 2, 2018)

Due to my personal beliefs I think its absurd just like girls joining the "boy scouts". I dont believe this will go over too well at my lodge or any other PH lodge that I know of.


----------



## David612 (Aug 2, 2018)

Travelling Man91 said:


> Due to my personal beliefs I think its absurd just like girls joining the "boy scouts". I dont believe this will go over too well at my lodge or any other PH lodge that I know of.


Perhaps you should look at that in yourself as this is the way masonry is going as shown by this policy, see if you can learn more about the people in your community to whom this is relevant if you arnt already learned of the community-
People arnt flocking to masonry as it is- 
The last thing we need is to come across discriminatory.


----------



## Dontrell Stroman (Aug 2, 2018)

This is not the way Masonry is going. This is the way "One" GL is Choosing to go. Just because a group of people decide they want to go left and you want to go right doesnt mean you have to follow.


----------



## David612 (Aug 2, 2018)

Travelling Man91 said:


> This is not the way Masonry is going. This is the way "One" GL is Choosing to go. Just because a group of people decide they want to go left and you want to go right doesnt mean you have to follow.


You are quite right but UGLE is not really just any grand lodge-
You are entirely entitled to your opinion on the subject, I just hope its coming from a place of understanding and education on the subject-
We have had public court cases where Freemasonry has come off bigoted- wouldn’t like to see more and beyond that if the law recognises their gender we arnt in a position to question that.
It’s not a question of belief- it’s law.


----------



## Dontrell Stroman (Aug 2, 2018)

David612 said:


> You are quite right but UGLE is not really just any grand lodge-
> You are entirely entitled to your opinion on the subject, I just hope its coming from a place of understanding and education on the subject-
> We have had public court cases where Freemasonry has come off bigoted- wouldn’t like to see more and beyond that if the law recognises their gender we arnt in a position to question that.
> It’s not a question of belief- it’s law.


We will have to agree to disagree. I see the UGLE as just a GL. They have no power over your GL or mine. I understand the history etc etc, but in the end of the day, I answer to my GL


----------



## David612 (Aug 2, 2018)

Travelling Man91 said:


> We will have to agree to disagree. I see the UGLE as just a GL. They have no power over your GL or mine. I understand the history etc etc, but in the end of the day, I answer to my GL


I appreciate what you are saying and while officially you are correct but let’s be honest- 
Now that UGLE has addressed this it would be erroneous to think it won’t be addressed in time by other grand lodges-
That said of course to think that all lodges under a grand lodge follow the policies as set would be justs as foolish as thinking just because racism is outside of policy means it dosnt happen.

All we can do is push for the betterment of our lodges.


----------



## Dontrell Stroman (Aug 2, 2018)

David612 said:


> I appreciate what you are saying and while officially you are correct but let’s be honest-
> Now that UGLE has addressed this it would be erroneous to think it won’t be addressed in time by other grand lodges-
> That said of course to think that all lodges under a grand lodge follow the policies as set would be justs as foolish as thinking just because racism is outside of policy means it dosnt happen.
> 
> All we can do is push for the betterment of our lodges.


It may be addressed, but that doesn't mean they will follow suit. The UGLE tomorrow can put out an edict stating "you no longer have to go through degress to be a freemason" extreme example, but you honestly think everyone would follow suit ? Maybe a few, but not all. Heck look at at the GL of AK. They do their own thing


----------



## David612 (Aug 2, 2018)

Travelling Man91 said:


> It may be addressed, but that doesn't mean they will follow suit. The UGLE tomorrow can put out an edict stating "you no longer have to go through degress to be a freemason" extreme example, but you honestly think everyone would follow suit ? Maybe a few, but not all. Heck look at at the GL of AK. They do their own thing


To be fair I don’t think you have to “go through” the degrees as it is in many US states but rather just watch them however when dealing with descimination law o don’t know that many GL would fight this, I bet most will simply ignore it and hope it’s never a problem.
That said a few outliers don’t affect the overall trend this will bring.


----------



## Elexir (Aug 2, 2018)

David612 said:


> The last thing we need is to come across discriminatory.



We discriminate against atheists, women already so that ship sailed long ago...


----------



## darsehole (Aug 2, 2018)

This is a step in the wrong direction. 

UGLE will lose more active freemasons than they will gain on this venture. 

One cannot simply re-write the rules of a 300 year old fraternity, based on the popular opinion of society outside of the craft. 

Transgendered people make up, at maximum estimate, 0.6% of the population. 

Out of those, you need to find one that believes in a supreme being, wants to join a Lodge, passes the scrutiny of an interview, is found mentally sane (despite their lifestyle EASILY being found contrary to the laws of science and nature), and then pass balloting. 

You will lose more than 0.6% of freemasons on the jurisdiction before you pass one candidate. 

UGLE has lost its path. If any bother feels the desire to petition their own GL to un-recognize UGLE as regular, they will not be alone. 


Sent from my iPhone using My Freemasonry mobile app


----------



## David612 (Aug 3, 2018)

Elexir said:


> We discriminate against atheists, women already so that ship sailed long ago...


Not the same thing..
The definition of what constitutes a “man” has changed and the UGLE policy reflects that-
The choice to not exclude a man who has become a woman is likely done to avoid exposure on allegations of exclusion based of transgender status.


----------



## Thomas Stright (Aug 3, 2018)

David612 said:


> The choice to not exclude a man who has become a woman is likely done to avoid exposure on allegations of exclusion based of transgender status.



I tend to beleive they did this to be PC and to keep under the radar.


----------



## Warrior1256 (Aug 3, 2018)

Elexir said:


> We discriminate against atheists, women already so that ship sailed long ago...


True.


darsehole said:


> UGLE will lose more active freemasons than they will gain on this venture.
> 
> One cannot simply re-write the rules of a 300 year old fraternity, based on the popular opinion of society outside of the craft.
> 
> ...


I had not looked at it this way but your points are VERY valid!


----------



## dfreybur (Aug 3, 2018)

hanzosbm said:


> So, for everyone saying 'not my circus, not my monkeys', what would your reaction be when a young woman shows up to your lodge with a UGLE dues card seeking admission?



When he took his degrees he was a man.  The Brothers in her mother lodge remember that status and probably in the rest of her district.  The rest of us don't remember that.

Should a women present herself for admission, she's a woman at the point I met her.  Not admitted.  We are quite open about discriminating based on gender.  Having a valid letter of introduction and a form of current dues status (they don't call it a dues card, but that's what a dues card is) does not change her status as a woman.

I'm not bothered by jurisdictions that take women.  I'm not bothered by people who have identified as women all their lives transitioning to be physically female in visible characteristics to match their mental characteristics.  My church group has a couple of people who transitioned and it just doesn't matter to that group.  I am puzzled why someone who identifies as a woman would join a men's order, but I'm not even bothered by that.  I am puzzled why someone who transitions would not demit, but I know how pervasive the fellowship at lodge is to many of us so I can imagine having one of the Brothers I already know transition and keep attending.

But visiting a lodge where zero of the Brothers ever met you as a man?  No thanks.  Maybe you'd like me to help you google the nearest CoMason lodge.

I get the point of the UGLE policy, but they should privately encourage folks to switch to a mixed gender jurisdiction.  Think is, you can't exactly have a policy that openly asks specific people to switch jurisdictions.  You can only say yes or no and under what circumstances.


----------



## Thomas Stright (Aug 3, 2018)

dfreybur said:


> Should a women present herself for admission, she's a woman at the point I met her.  Not admitted.  We are quite open about discriminating based on gender.  Having a valid letter of introduction and a form of current dues status (they don't call it a dues card, but that's what a dues card is) does not change her status as a woman.



My thought as well.....


----------



## chrmc (Aug 3, 2018)

It's worth reading the recent article by Hodapp, who as usual is insightful. Especially worth noting that some of the policy is determined by current EU legislation, and therefore not up to UGLE. 

http://freemasonsfordummies.blogspot.com/2018/08/england-issues-transgender-policy.html


----------



## Scoops (Aug 3, 2018)

chrmc said:


> It's worth reading the recent article by Hodapp, who as usual is insightful. Especially worth noting that some of the policy is determined by current EU legislation, and therefore not up to UGLE.
> 
> http://freemasonsfordummies.blogspot.com/2018/08/england-issues-transgender-policy.html


Indeed. Although, I would hasten to add that's its not EU legislation, as someone could easily bring up Brexit, but rather the European Convention on Human Rights, to which we will still be signatories after leaving the EU.

Sent from my EVA-L09 using Tapatalk


----------



## darsehole (Aug 3, 2018)

chrmc said:


> It's worth reading the recent article by Hodapp, who as usual is insightful. Especially worth noting that some of the policy is determined by current EU legislation, and therefore not up to UGLE.
> 
> http://freemasonsfordummies.blogspot.com/2018/08/england-issues-transgender-policy.html



Under the link you shared; According to several news sources, the UGLE is protected under English and European Union laws from legal accusations of gender discrimination because of Freemasonry's longstanding male-only admissions criteria. They are recognized in England and Wales under the law as a single-sex association.

It can also be successfully argued that EU polices wouldn’t matter to UGLE, or any other British institution, since the population voted in favor of Brexit. 

Massive legal bills and headaches that will waste time and money, change nothing, and will only facilitate a small fraction of the (maximum estimate) 0.6% of the non-Masonic population that First desires, and secondly passes, initiation into the craft. 

This path can be described, at best, as nonsense. 


Sent from my iPhone using My Freemasonry mobile app


----------



## Warrior1256 (Aug 3, 2018)

dfreybur said:


> When he took his degrees he was a man. The Brothers in her mother lodge remember that status and probably in the rest of her district. The rest of us don't remember that.
> 
> Should a women present herself for admission, she's a woman at the point I met her. Not admitted. We are quite open about discriminating based on gender. Having a valid letter of introduction and a form of current dues status (they don't call it a dues card, but that's what a dues card is) does not change her status as a woman.


Agreed!


----------



## Elexir (Aug 3, 2018)

chrmc said:


> It's worth reading the recent article by Hodapp, who as usual is insightful. Especially worth noting that some of the policy is determined by current EU legislation, and therefore not up to UGLE.
> 
> http://freemasonsfordummies.blogspot.com/2018/08/england-issues-transgender-policy.html



Im not to sure about it being EU legislation.
In Sweden no policy like the one UGLE has been declared yet so it seems like there is something that brews in England.


----------



## Glen Cook (Aug 3, 2018)

After some thought about this, I don't have a jurisprudence objection to one who physically transitioned to male and identifies as such. I also accept that the law determines if one is, or is not, a particular sex.  Any personal objections are another matter. 

However, by the same token, if someone identifies as female, then I must respect that choice as well. 

The UGLE Principles of Recognition state:
That the membership of the Grand Lodge and individual Lodges shall be composed exclusively of men; and that each Grand Lodge shall have no Masonic intercourse of any kind with mixed Lodges or bodies which admit women to membership. Page 7 https://www.ugle.org.uk/document-ar...for-the-guidance-of-members-of-the-craft/file

My view is that if an individual whom I believe to be a woman is present in a tyled lodge, I must respectfully retire.

I had a chat with a senior UK judge last night on the issue. We disagreed that men who had transitioned to women must remain in the fraternity.


----------



## David612 (Aug 3, 2018)

There is obviously a lot of politics involved here but I think it comes down to the legal requirement to address those who are identified male as such and the decision to not exclude is a charitable decision, though there are probably legal ramifications there too.

As for it being such a small percentage, yes indeed it is and the .6% may seem insignificant but that figure comes from a 2016 survey by UCLA- that figures is DOUBLE the 2011 survey at .3%
Either they are improving the survey technique or the transgender population has doubled in 5 years- either way I don’t think we can use these figures to write off hundreds of thousands of people as they appear statistically insignificant- not to mention that survey is only of the US, I doubt the US is an accurate representation of the entire world.


----------



## darsehole (Aug 3, 2018)

David612 said:


> There is obviously a lot of politics involved here but I think it comes down to the legal requirement to address those who are identified male as such and the decision to not exclude is a charitable decision, though there are probably legal ramifications there too.
> 
> As for it being such a small percentage, yes indeed it is and the .6% may seem insignificant but that figure comes from a 2016 survey by UCLA- that figures is DOUBLE the 2011 survey at .3%
> Either they are improving the survey technique or the transgender population has doubled in 5 years- either way I don’t think we can use these figures to write off hundreds of thousands of people as they appear statistically insignificant- not to mention that survey is only of the US, I doubt the US is an accurate representation of the entire world.



The absolute highest number I could find is 0.6%. That’s six in a thousand. I’d bet my oil and specie that the actual numbers are much, much lower. 

From there, let’s subtract the number that don’t believe in a supreme being. And then subtract those that don’t want to become freemasons. 

Now, let’s get to the interview process. And then contend that there won’t be a couple black balls in their future. 

That’s the actual number of transgender people you are looking at. 

Compared to the number of active freemasons that will not accept the new rules of UGLE?

Insignificant. 




Sent from my iPhone using My Freemasonry mobile app


----------



## darsehole (Aug 3, 2018)

JamestheJust said:


> Does the GAOTU consider that gender is the most important categorization for humans?
> 
> Could the GAOTU have other categories such as uprightness or openness of heart or radiation of Light?



If we are created in HIS image, through intelligent design, then by altering ones “sexual orientation”, are we not defacing HIS creation, or even image?

One could also debate that they are making unto themselves a graven image, from a Judo-Christian point of view. 

Ultimately, (in my opinion),the individual brother must refer to their own VSL, which is the written word of GAOTU, as simple Masons can not fathom the will of the Almighty without guidance. 

With the exception of “the book of the law”, which is the VSL of Thelma, I cannot think of any VSL that would speak well of Transgender individuals. 

If there are other opinions, I would be open to discussing them. 


Sent from my iPhone using My Freemasonry mobile app


----------



## David612 (Aug 3, 2018)

I think James was being rhetorical.
Really there are many people we can discount and use religion as a justification but really it’s 2018- ain’t nobody got time for that


----------



## Bloke (Aug 4, 2018)

darsehole said:


> This is a step in the wrong direction.
> 
> UGLE will lose more active freemasons than they will gain on this venture.
> 
> ...



I don't think this is about expanding membership, it is about fairness and acting fraternally (oh the irony of using that word).

While we can say not my circus and not my monkeys (it was quoted at me yesterday and love it) we have had comments here on discrimination based on skin and sexuality in jurisdictions outside our own. Some see these as veneers, some as intrinsic, and also extend that to gender.

I am still thinking about it,but very much in the abstract. I am a big believer my organisation remaining a fraternity, and probably do not worry much about a trans man entering my lodge. For all I know they might be there now. I think the absence of sexual politics (not sure that is the right phrase - but I am thinking of tensions around couples and sexual attraction) is one of our strengths and while we have some gay men, I've never been in a lodge where they were the majority and never experiences tension of couples or thwarted sexual attraction in my lodges... On reading what I just wrote "sexual attraction" seems silly, because society generally deals with that well in my workplaces, but lodge is not a work space and does offer a truly unique male space. If I petitioner presented as male and was legally a male, I dont think I would have issues around that person, as long as they did not bring psychological baggage with them which they displayed at every moment. If a brother became a female, and esp if in my social circle, I might still be comfortable sitting in lodge with them (but don't really know). If a lodge member of mine was in difficulty which was not around abhorrent or illegal activity, I would think it is my masonic duty to support them, even if that was them becoming a woman. If that also saw them wanting to remain in lodge, I suspect that I would feel caught and have not choice to support them, even before I examined if I would make such a choice after consideration, however I suspect that an experienced Freemason would withdraw from the Craft if they became a woman, but perhaps not....

One thing I do know in this debate which is often lost, because we are an all male organisation, many people mistake that for misogyny, and if there is one thing we all know, you cannot be a good Freemason and a misogynist for misogyny is damaging and immoral.  

Another interesting thing to note, what UGLE issues (smartly) was a guideline and not an edit, it is how it wants its members to act, esp noted in Section 6 which does state some rules.

If "Transgendered people make up, at maximum estimate, 0.6% of the population." and that statistic includes reassigning to either gender, statistically we are dealing with a very small number of potential cases so as not to give this my attention until someone, and it will be one, is treated badly, or it happens in a sphere I need to address in one of my masonic capacities.


----------



## darsehole (Aug 4, 2018)

Bloke said:


> I don't think this is about expanding membership, it is about fairness and acting fraternally (oh the irony of using that word).
> 
> While we can say not my circus and not my monkeys (it was quoted at me yesterday and love it) we have had comments here on discrimination based on skin and sexuality in jurisdictions outside our own. Some see these as veneers, some as intrinsic, and also extend that to gender.
> 
> ...



If this matter is truly about fairness and acting fraternally, then how many brothers benefit from this ruling, and how many will feel left out. Indeed, how many will protest, how many will remove themselves from lodge, and how many will demit?

If the number of brothers that feel displaced by this ruling out number the number of brothers that benefit from it by one, then it is not fair. And it was was not carried out fraternally. 

I state again, the consequences of this action will far out weigh any benefit from it. 

Look at the resent discord between the GL of Tennessee, the GL of Georgia, and the number of Lodges that disagreed with their stance on homosexuality. 

We are a fraternity. But we are a fraternity with a belief in a Supreme Being. The VOSL rests on every alter. 

And what does the VOSL state about gender variance?

If we ignore the written word of the GAOTU, then what good is our obligation? And without a obligation, what does our fraternity stand on?


Sent from my iPhone using My Freemasonry mobile app


----------



## David612 (Aug 4, 2018)

darsehole said:


> If this matter is truly about fairness and acting fraternally, then how many brothers benefit from this ruling, and how many will feel left out. Indeed, how many will protest, how many will remove themselves from lodge, and how many will demit?
> 
> If the number of brothers that feel displaced by this ruling out number the number of brothers that benefit from it by one, then it is not fair. And it was was not carried out fraternally.
> 
> ...


Lodge isn’t church-
The biases you carry and explain away under religious grounds arnt relevant in Masonic policy-
Keep in mind the the VSL on the alter isn’t always your VSL


----------



## Warrior1256 (Aug 4, 2018)

Glen Cook said:


> My view is that if an individual whom I believe to be a woman is present in a tyled lodge, I must respectfully retire.


Same here.


darsehole said:


> f the number of brothers that feel displaced by this ruling out number the number of brothers that benefit from it by one, then it is not fair. And it was was not carried out fraternally.





darsehole said:


> I state again, the consequences of this action will far out weigh any benefit from it.


Agreed!


----------



## darsehole (Aug 4, 2018)

David612 said:


> Lodge isn’t church-
> The biases you carry and explain away under religious grounds arnt relevant in Masonic policy-
> Keep in mind the the VSL on the alter isn’t always your VSL



No, it isn’t Church. It’s a religious fraternity based on events that happened while building a temple to the GAOTU, in which every member must believe in a Supreme Being, and where the religious text, or VOSL is literally the center of lodge. 

The word of GAOTU, in any form, is the greatest light in Freemasonry. 

As I clearly stated before, the ONLY VOSL I can think of that would encourage this behavior is The Book of the Law on Thelma. 

If there are others, I’d be happy to learn about their stance on gender variance. 


Sent from my iPhone using My Freemasonry mobile app


----------



## David612 (Aug 4, 2018)

darsehole said:


> No, it isn’t Church. It’s a religious fraternity based on events that happened while building a temple to the GAOTU, in which every member must believe in a Supreme Being, and where the religious text, or VOSL is literally the center of lodge.
> 
> The word of GAOTU, in any form, is the greatest light in Freemasonry.
> 
> ...


Yes and no-
Freemasonry requires its members to believe in a supreme being but being religious isn’t a requirement-
These are quite different things.
So no freemasonry isn’t a religious fraternity per say.

There is indeed a VSL at the alter, in the room there are also some rocks, som random paintings and at the alter there is also a crude picture of a tie fighter from Star Wars- that’s how it would look if you only take what you see literally as just about all things in that room are allegorical why would the VSL be different?
This is of cause a rhetorical question-


----------



## LK600 (Aug 4, 2018)

David612 said:


> ...as just about all things in that room are allegorical why would the VSL be different?
> This is of cause a rhetorical question-



Because we take oaths on it.  Are my oaths also allegorical? (I'm not taking a side on this by this comment)


----------



## darsehole (Aug 4, 2018)

David612 said:


> Yes and no-
> Freemasonry requires its members to believe in a supreme being but being religious isn’t a requirement-
> These are quite different things.
> So no freemasonry isn’t a religious fraternity per say.
> ...



Do you consider the VSOL just another piece of furniture, or do you consider it one of the three great lights in our fraternity?

Which is held between our hands when we recite a obligation to the fraternity. 

We don’t get to pick and choose what parts we like and don’t like. 

It’s the VOSL. The written word of GAOTU. 




Sent from my iPhone using My Freemasonry mobile app


----------



## David612 (Aug 4, 2018)

LK600 said:


> Because we take oaths on it.  Are my oaths also allegorical? (I'm not taking a side on this by this comment)


The VSL is emblematic of truth, virtue and the will of the GAOTU-
The dogmatic teachings within a specific VSL are relevant only to the individual mason who is a member of that faith- 

It is indeed a great light and like the other 2 great lights they too are allegorical.


----------



## LK600 (Aug 4, 2018)

David612 said:


> The VSL is emblematic of truth, virtue and the will of the GAOTU-
> The dogmatic teachings within a specific VSL are relevant only to the individual mason who is a member of that faith-
> 
> It is indeed a great light and like the other 2 great lights they too are allegorical.



If you added the words... "To me" it would then be accurate.


----------



## David612 (Aug 4, 2018)

LK600 said:


> If you added the words... "To me" it would then be accurate.


To expect Freemasonry to start forwarding the dogma of all faiths under its banners would be absurd-

That said you are of course welcome to your opinion but when people start pushing their religious beliefs in the guise of Masonic principals it does the craft a disservice, not to discredit anyone’s religious point of view- it’s just not freemasonrys point of view.


----------



## LK600 (Aug 4, 2018)

David612 said:


> To expect Freemasonry to start forwarding the dogma of all faiths under its banners would be absurd-


That is an argument you and I have not stepped into as of yet.  It appears to be directed t0 another argument upstream maybe?  My discussion is with your apparent belief that the VSL is nothing more than a prop... like... to use your words, rocks, pictures, and drawings.  The VSL has meaning in and of itself regardless of who's version it may be.  It is not an emblem of anything; it is itself.  If it was a prop... an emblem for something else, our oaths would be meaningless, or worse, a mockery of the real thing.


----------



## David612 (Aug 4, 2018)

LK600 said:


> That is an argument you and I have not stepped into as of yet.  It appears to be directed t0 another argument upstream maybe?  My discussion is with your apparent belief that the VSL is nothing more than a prop... like... to use your words, rocks, pictures, and drawings.  The VSL has meaning in and of itself regardless of who's version it may be.  It is not an emblem of anything; it is itself.  If it was a prop... an emblem for something else, our oaths would be meaningless, or worse, a mockery of the real thing.


Well the oaths arnt literal are they?
Any given VSL has intrinsic value to a Brother who subscribes to that faith-yes that’s true-but not all Masons are Religious but are instead spiritual and while meeting the requirements for admission they don’t have a VSL persay as a result any given holy book substitutes.
Additionally would I be erroneous to say that not all members of a given faith take what is written in their VSL to be literal?


----------



## David612 (Aug 4, 2018)

darsehole said:


> Do you consider the VSOL just another piece of furniture, or do you consider it one of the three great lights in our fraternity?
> 
> Which is held between our hands when we recite a obligation to the fraternity.
> 
> ...


That’s the religious interpretation not the Masonic one.


----------



## LK600 (Aug 4, 2018)

David612 said:


> Well the oaths arnt literal are they?



Sir, with every additional post I'm getting more confused lol.  So the VSL is a prop and your obligation isn't real?  Look, it doesn't really matter I guess, you do you.  I'm pulling you off the topic of the thread anyway.  Peace.


----------



## David612 (Aug 4, 2018)

LK600 said:


> Sir, with every additional post I'm getting more confused lol.  So the VSL is a prop and your obligation isn't real?  Look, it doesn't really matter I guess, you do you.  I'm pulling you off the topic of the thread anyway.  Peace.


Those are your words not mine-


----------



## LK600 (Aug 4, 2018)

David612 said:


> Those are your words not mine-



Then I'll just quote yours...



David612 said:


> There is indeed a VSL at the alter, in the room there are also some rocks, som random paintings and at the alter there is also a crude picture of a tie fighter from Star Wars- that’s how it would look if you only take what you see literally as just about all things in that room are allegorical why would the VSL be different?





David612 said:


> Well the oaths arnt literal are they?



Like I said, you do you.


----------



## Elexir (Aug 4, 2018)

David612 said:


> That’s the religious interpretation not the Masonic one.



Please dont try to speak for all of freemasonry. It just looks awful...


----------



## darsehole (Aug 4, 2018)

LK600 said:


> Then I'll just quote yours...
> 
> 
> 
> ...



It seems some take their oaths more seriously than others.

And some take the VOSL for what it is, and not a “book of obscure guidelines”.  


Sent from my iPhone using My Freemasonry mobile app


----------



## David612 (Aug 4, 2018)

Elexir said:


> Please dont try to speak for all of freemasonry. It just looks awful...


Please show me where I’m wrong?
If I’m incorrect here I’d love to know about it.


----------



## David612 (Aug 4, 2018)

darsehole said:


> It seems some take their oaths more seriously than others.
> 
> And some take the VOSL for what it is, and not a “book of obscure guidelines”.
> 
> ...


I take my obligations very seriously and to call into my fidelity because i disagree with your pushing a religious agenda thinly veiled as a Masonic one is quite silly.
Keep in mind that there are those whose spiritual beliefs have a cold deistic slant for example and they are every bit the mason anyone else is.

Consider the question asked:
What is freemasonry?
I’m sure you remember the answer.


----------



## darsehole (Aug 4, 2018)

David612 said:


> I take my obligations very seriously and to call into my fidelity because i disagree with your pushing a religious agenda thinly veiled as a Masonic one is quite silly.
> Keep in mind that there are those whose spiritual beliefs have a cold deistic slant for example and they are every bit the mason anyone else is.



Referring to the VOSL as a piece of furniture, suggesting that our obligation should not be taken literally, and insulting a MM because he protests your obvious disregard for both the VOSL and the obligation, is not taking your obligation seriously, IMHO. 

At least not as seriously as some. 

The craft has not thrived for over 300 years by reciting meaningless words on some book that looks pretty on the middle of the room. 

It has been built and maintained by Men of strong moral fiber, whose belief in a Supreme Being and a obligation to one another is un faltering. 

Many of those men still take their literal obligation, on the written word of GAOTU quite seriously. 

More seriously than others. 


Sent from my iPhone using My Freemasonry mobile app


----------



## Glen Cook (Aug 4, 2018)

David612 said:


> Well the oaths arnt literal are they?
> ....


Yes, the obligations are literal.  Violation of them may subject one to Masonic discipline, including as the most severe, expulsion (exclusion) from the fraternity.


----------



## David612 (Aug 4, 2018)

darsehole said:


> Referring to the VOSL as a piece of furniture, suggesting that our obligation should not be taken literally, and insulting a MM because he protests your obvious disregard for both the VOSL and the obligation, is not taking your obligation seriously, IMHO.
> 
> At least not as seriously as some.
> 
> ...


Simply because people disagree dosnt mean people are insulted, it’s called a civil discourse.
Why it is that my views on the esoteric nature of our craft upsets you so is beyond me however-
For your to say that the words said are meaningless says more about you and your point of view than it does mine-

If you feel you cannot engage in a discussion about this subject please just add me to your ignore list-
Personally I add people I think are trolls or generally don’t put forward valuable talking points- as a result this thread for example is shorter for me than it is for many I’m sure.
In no way do I want to live in an echo chamber but to say the VSL can only be what it literally appears to be because God said so dosnt resonate with me personally, you are of cause welcome to disagree.


----------



## Glen Cook (Aug 4, 2018)

I would suggest that “religious “ is susceptible to two meanings. 

Relating to or believing in a religion;

A belief or practice forming part of one’s belief in a divine being.  
See https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/religious

In English speaking jurisdictions, Masonic symbolic ( craft) degrees are not the former, they are the latter.


----------



## CLewey44 (Aug 4, 2018)

If the UGLE, in an effort to be tolerant, runs off intolerant individuals, I'm quite ok with that.


----------



## darsehole (Aug 4, 2018)

CLewey44 said:


> If the UGLE, in an effort to be tolerant, runs off intolerant individuals, I'm quote ok with that.



Define “tolerant”. 

We don’t allow women, atheists, and people with mental disabilities. 




Sent from my iPhone using My Freemasonry mobile app


----------



## Glen Cook (Aug 4, 2018)

darsehole said:


> Define “tolerant”.
> 
> We don’t allow women, atheists, and people with mental disabilities.
> 
> ...


In substance I agree, but I would clarify that I’m unaware of any jurisdiction which uses the term “mental disabilities.”  Yes, many prohibit the “mad man” and the “fool”as well as an “old man in his dotage.”  However, those are more specific than just a prohibition on “mental disabilities.”  I know Masons with PTSD and depression.  I once had an expert testify that at some point in their life, 70% of adults suffer depression.  I know those who appear to meet the criteria for a narcissistic personality disorder, and other personality disorders.  Yet, here we all are with our many imperfections.


----------



## darsehole (Aug 4, 2018)

Glen Cook said:


> In substance I agree, but I would clarify that I’m unaware of any jurisdiction which uses the term “mental disabilities.”  Yes, many prohibit the “mad man” and the “fool”as well as an “old man in his dotage.”  However, those are more specific than just a prohibition on “mental disabilities.”  I know Masons with PTSD and depression.  I once had an expert testify that at some point in their life, 70% of adults suffer depression.  I know those who appear to meet the criteria for a narcissistic personality disorder, and other personality disorders.  Yet, here we all are with our many imperfections.



Ok. I could argue this point, but its more important to me that I don’t, out of respect for any brothers who may be suffering from any form of depression, to whom I wish a full and speedy recovery. 

We’ll leave it at women and atheists. 

Do we have a definition on tolerance yet?


Sent from my iPhone using My Freemasonry mobile app


----------



## CLewey44 (Aug 4, 2018)

That's where the divide would be. Are these individuals now men or still women. Who am I to decide that. Probably wouldn't even know it in most cases.


----------



## darsehole (Aug 4, 2018)

CLewey44 said:


> That's where the divide would be. Are these individuals now men or still women. Who am I to decide that. Probably wouldn't even know it in most cases.



Perhaps we should only allow free born men, of strong moral virtue, with a belief in a Supreme Being. 

Then there would be no divide. 

Like it was prior to UGLE announcement. 


Sent from my iPhone using My Freemasonry mobile app


----------



## coachn (Aug 4, 2018)

David612 said:


> ...The last thing we need is to come across discriminatory.


LOL!  That ship has sailed.


----------



## Glen Cook (Aug 4, 2018)

darsehole said:


> Ok. I could argue this point, but its more important to me that I don’t, out of respect for any brothers who may be suffering from any form of depression, to whom I wish a full and speedy recovery.
> 
> We’ll leave it at women and atheists.
> 
> ...


I’m reminded of HL Mencken’s quip:  We must respect the other fellow’s religion, but only in the sense that we respect his theory that his wife is beautiful and his children are smart.


----------



## Elexir (Aug 4, 2018)

David612 said:


> Please show me where I’m wrong?
> If I’m incorrect here I’d love to know about it.



For starters: a big part of masonry is your religion and your relationship with God, even looking at a version of the FC in webb I was suprised by how much it points to your own God.

Second, while the VSL also has a tradition history its posistion in ritual also denotes its higher meaning in Freemasonry.

Thirdly and lastly, prayers as used in anyform has a specific purpose. There is a reason its not used in secular organisations.

Within GOdF etc. the VSL is changed to something known as the "white book". If the VSL dont hold a religious signicance, why did they change it?

(Sidenote: there are masonic juristictions and orders that only allows christians to join)


----------



## CLewey44 (Aug 4, 2018)

darsehole said:


> Perhaps we should only allow free born men, of strong moral virtue, with a belief in a Supreme Being.
> 
> Then there would be no divide.
> 
> ...


I feel ya. Let's stay the course for sure then.


----------



## coachn (Aug 4, 2018)

darsehole said:


> Define “tolerant”. ..


Not taking negative, detrimental, violent, immoral, unethical or illegal actions toward what irritates, unnerves or disagrees with you.


----------



## CLewey44 (Aug 4, 2018)

coachn said:


> Not taking negative, detrimental, violent, immoral, unethical or illegal actions toward what irritates, unnerves or disagrees with you.


Layne's Law?


----------



## coachn (Aug 4, 2018)

CLewey44 said:


> Layne's Law?


Only if you want to argue that the definition I offered is not the one I go by ;-)


----------



## Bloke (Aug 4, 2018)

I think ones view of ones own VSL as either allegorical or the literal word of God is exactly that, your own view depending on your beliefs and the religious traditions you belong to. I also think in lodges, you will have people in both camps, perhaps some even just seeing their VSL as a loose moral guide. While there might indeed be a "Truth" in one view, each Freemason can only try to follow his version of that "Truth" according to his own conscience and if varying from our own, respect their beliefs; respect for difference, being a core value in Freemasonry. Under my Grand Lodge, an individual's view of their VSL is regarded as the private affair of each individual Freemason and hence cannot be validly used as a sweeping point of argument in a discourse or debate on an ethical or moral discussion, and further, that a religious discussion is actually something which cannot take place in a lodge. Hence I wonder if resting on a point made according to a specific view of the content or standing of a VSL is an admissible point in a discussion around Freemasonry, unless presented as a selectively held belief or viewpoint with according weight within the body of Freemasonry, also acknowledging that outside Freemasonry  that view might be an axiom without challenge. 

I was asked about this last night at lodge, and simply replied that I have so much to do and so many more pressing concerns, that until it arose in one of my official capacities or within a specific lodge I was a member of, that I would focus on other challenges and working to make my lodges and the Craft strong within my own jurisdiction. I might be a member for 50 years and never meet this question in any other form but the abstract.

That said, some have said they would retire from a lodge where a woman was given entry, and to that, we can do nothing but ask them if they feel that is right, and if fixed on the idea, but do nothing but respect their decision.


----------



## David612 (Aug 4, 2018)

Bloke said:


> I think ones view of ones own VSL as either allegorical or the literal word of God is exactly that, your own view depending on your beliefs and the religious traditions you belong to. I also think in lodges, you will have people in both camps, perhaps some even just seeing their VSL as a loose moral guide. While there might indeed be a "Truth" in one view, each Freemason can only try to follow his version of that "Truth" according to his own conscience and if varying from our own, respect their beliefs; respect for difference, being a core value in Freemasonry. Under my Grand Lodge, an individual's view of their VSL is regarded as the private affair of each individual Freemason and hence cannot be validly used as a sweeping point of argument in a discourse or debate on an ethical or moral discussion, and further, that a religious discussion is actually something which cannot take place in a lodge. Hence I wonder if resting on a point made according to a specific view of the content or standing of a VSL is an admissible point in a discussion around Freemasonry, unless presented as a selectively held belief or viewpoint with according weight within the body of Freemasonry, also acknowledging that outside Freemasonry  that view might be an axiom without challenge.
> 
> I was asked about this last night at lodge, and simply replied that I have so much to do and so many more pressing concerns, that until it arose in one of my official capacities or within a specific lodge I was a member of, that I would focus on other challenges and working to make my lodges and the Craft strong within my own jurisdiction. I might be a member for 50 years and never meet this question in any other form but the abstract.
> 
> That said, some have said they would retire from a lodge where a woman was given entry, and to that, we can do nothing but ask them if they feel that is right, and if fixed on the idea, but do nothing but respect their decision.


You are quite right bloke, in the interest of harmony I’m going to desist-
I wonder if the VSL could reasonably discussed in a meeting


----------



## LK600 (Aug 5, 2018)

Bloke said:


> I think ones view of ones own VSL as either allegorical or the literal word of God is exactly that, your own view depending on your beliefs and the religious traditions you belong to. I also think in lodges, you will have people in both camps, perhaps some even just seeing their VSL as a loose moral guide. While there might indeed be a "Truth" in one view, each Freemason can only try to follow his version of that "Truth" according to his own conscience and if varying from our own, respect their beliefs; respect for difference, being a core value in Freemasonry. Under my Grand Lodge, an individual's view of their VSL is regarded as the private affair of each individual Freemason and hence cannot be validly used as a sweeping point of argument in a discourse or debate on an ethical or moral discussion, and further, that a religious discussion is actually something which cannot take place in a lodge. Hence I wonder if resting on a point made according to a specific view of the content or standing of a VSL is an admissible point in a discussion around Freemasonry, unless presented as a selectively held belief or viewpoint with according weight within the body of Freemasonry, also acknowledging that outside Freemasonry  that view might be an axiom without challenge.
> 
> I was asked about this last night at lodge, and simply replied that I have so much to do and so many more pressing concerns, that until it arose in one of my official capacities or within a specific lodge I was a member of, that I would focus on other challenges and working to make my lodges and the Craft strong within my own jurisdiction. I might be a member for 50 years and never meet this question in any other form but the abstract.
> 
> That said, some have said they would retire from a lodge where a woman was given entry, and to that, we can do nothing but ask them if they feel that is right, and if fixed on the idea, but do nothing but respect their decision.



There's very little you have stated that I disagree with.  One's personal view of the content of the VSL is up to the individual.  Within Freemasonry, no member should push their beliefs on another person, regardless if the person believes the VSL is written by the hand of God or a loose set of rules or symbolic in nature and has very little meaning to them.  Regardless, The VSL is not a prop within Freemasonry to be compared to pictures or rocks, because it does not carry the same weight.  The VSL (at least in the US) is a Landmark just as the requirement (also a Landmark) in the belief in a supreme being(worded differently by Jurisdiction).  You could remove the rocks, pictures, etc out of a lodge and you would still have a lodge.  Remove the VSL and you would not.  I will leave the other issue alone due to relevance.


----------



## Warrior1256 (Aug 5, 2018)

Glen Cook said:


> I’m reminded of HL Mencken’s quip: We must respect the other fellow’s religion, but only in the sense that we respect his theory that his wife is beautiful and his children are smart.


Lol!


Bloke said:


> That said, some have said they would retire from a lodge where a woman was given entry, and to that, we can do nothing but ask them if they feel that is right, and if fixed on the idea, but do nothing but respect their decision.


Agreed.


LK600 said:


> One's personal view of the content of the VSL is up to the individual.


True.


----------



## David612 (Aug 5, 2018)

LK600 said:


> There's very little you have stated that I disagree with.  One's personal view of the content of the VSL is up to the individual.  Within Freemasonry, no member should push their beliefs on another person, regardless if the person believes the VSL is written by the hand of God or a loose set of rules or symbolic in nature and has very little meaning to them.  Regardless, The VSL is not a prop within Freemasonry to be compared to pictures or rocks, because it does not carry the same weight.  The VSL (at least in the US) is a Landmark just as the requirement (also a Landmark) in the belief in a supreme being(worded differently by Jurisdiction).  You could remove the rocks, pictures, etc out of a lodge and you would still have a lodge.  Remove the VSL and you would not.  I will leave the other issue alone due to relevance.


So people can believe what they want- as long as they agree with you on this point?


----------



## LK600 (Aug 5, 2018)

David612 said:


> So people can believe what they want- as long as they agree with you on this point?



Which part are you referring to?  The part where I say nobody should push their personal point of view on another... or the part where I state the FACT that the VSL is a Landmark, and not the same thing as rocks, pictures etc. ?

I think you're projecting a little.


----------



## Bloke (Aug 5, 2018)

LK600 said:


> There's very little you have stated that I disagree with.  One's personal view of the content of the VSL is up to the individual.  Within Freemasonry, no member should push their beliefs on another person, regardless if the person believes the VSL is written by the hand of God or a loose set of rules or symbolic in nature and has very little meaning to them.  Regardless, The VSL is not a prop within Freemasonry to be compared to pictures or rocks, because it does not carry the same weight.  The VSL (at least in the US) is a Landmark just as the requirement (also a Landmark) in the belief in a supreme being(worded differently by Jurisdiction).  You could remove the rocks, pictures, etc out of a lodge and you would still have a lodge.  Remove the VSL and you would not.  I will leave the other issue alone due to relevance.


For the record, the VSL would be regarded as a landmark here (our GL lists which ones can be used and one much be used) and is described as the one of the Great Lights.. We cannot open a lodge without our warrant and a VSL.


----------



## Warrior1256 (Aug 6, 2018)

Bloke said:


> For the record, the VSL would be regarded as a landmark here (our GL lists which ones can be used and one much be used) and is described as the one of the Great Lights.. We cannot open a lodge without our warrant and a VSL.


Same here in Kentucky.


----------



## dfreybur (Aug 6, 2018)

On the 0.6% number.  As the change was not possible until recent decades I figure there are a backlog of candidates who have spent their lives miserable with their gender not matching their bodies.  So it happens to look like more now but it will settle back after a while to a lower number.  Rather like a few decades before it seemed like so many people coming out of the closet but it was just how many had been in the closet forever.

We openly discriminate on gender.  But was also are supposed to lead the world on freedom and equal treatment.  Quite the contradiction!  It's also a huge opportunity for expanding our minds.  There's the old saying  - A mind is like a parachute.  It only works when open.  But please not so open your brain falls out onto the sidewalk in front of you.

It gets very hard to figure where to draw the line when you know for a fact it's a moving line.  Is each one of us the one who leads, follows, gets in the way, wonders what happened.

Tolerance was mentioned.  Tolerance is not acceptance.  Tolerance is mutual peace.  We can be at peace with someone who went through a transition and still not accept them into one of our tiled meetings.  But once a Mason always a Mason remains a valid point.  It would be nice for someone who transitions to demit, but not all of us are willing to demand that for a member of our own lodges.

On VSL.  I don't know of any VSL written since the transition process became possible.  As such it's not mentioned in any VSL I can imagine.  I've only read Old Testament, New Testament, Koran, Book of Mormon, Bagavat Gita, Ramanyana, Analects of Confucius, Tao Te Ching, Dharma Padha and Triptaka of Buddhism and about a dozen others.  I'm certain the topic is not mentioned at all in any that I have read. Maybe your clergy is not silent on the topic but your VSL is definitely silent on the topic.  Quotes I've seen don't actually address the topic.

Since we discriminate, it's a hard topic to discuss.  Each jurisdiction has to function in accord with its local laws.  Which tend to put limits on discrimination.

Have you seen the recent TV commercials asking for the public to contribute to the Shrine Hospitals?  That's definitely going to trigger non-discrimination laws at the state level at least in California and probably in other states.  Say goodbye to the Shrine only admitting Masons from our regular and recognized male only orders!  Soliciting donations from the general public subjects a charity to non-discrimination laws!  It will be a mess between the charitable foundation and Shriners International, one forbidden from discriminating the other openly discriminating.


----------



## MasonicAdept (Oct 7, 2018)

Each Grand Lodge is Sovereign, and has the right to enact any law they deem fruitful.
The vote was made by the Grand Body. The Craft of the United Grand Lodge of England chose to adopt the policy. It would be interesting to read the discussion on the floor regarding it, and what the final vote was.


----------



## Glen Cook (Oct 7, 2018)

There was no discussion on the floor of United Grand Lodge and there was no vote at Communication.


----------



## MasonicAdept (Oct 7, 2018)

Glen Cook said:


> There was no discussion on the floor of United Grand Lodge and there was no vote at Communication.



So how was the policy enacted?


----------



## Glen Cook (Oct 7, 2018)

I think it would be better to say it was developed and then announced by GQS as a policy.


----------



## MasonicAdept (Oct 8, 2018)

Hmmmm.....


----------



## bro.william (Mar 31, 2019)

A brother who is also a parishioner asked me about the UGLE's policy shortly after it came out.  I think he was looking for my thoughts both as a (then-newly-made) Masonic brother and as a clergy person who might have insight from a Christian perspective.  This was my response.  After not quite a year's reflection, I think it still stands.  I'm proud of the way the UGLE has navigated this potential minefield.  As I've said in the letter before, I am perfectly content with Freemasonry being male-only and staying that way; that, to me, was a draw when I decided to petition.  That said, I think our pastoral care for one another is the greater obligation.  I don't think this is opening the floodgates to co-masonry.  It's just an attempt to abide by our oaths of loyalty in a case where everyone has acted in good faith.  

Dear W. Bro [name redacted] … 

I found this [the UGLE's policy document and discussion] made for interesting reading — thank you for sending it.  The underlying psychological issues are terribly complex, and it seems to me that these documents are looking to address those as well as the obvious legal issues it’s trying to step through.  My gut feeling is that, legal points aside, it is, and is meant to be, a strong pastoral response to people who came to us in good faith as male and now find themselves in a rather different situation — one that probably took decades to unpick, even in their own head.  Whilst I have personally found a distinct value in the male bonding that regular freemasonry is built upon, still I was more heartened by the appeal to masonic values of compassion and charity above all when dealing with fellow human beings and an issue that, no doubt, will be controversial in some quarters.  

I’d be happy to chat further if you wish.  I realise that an email can only contain broad brush-strokes, and there may be more you might wish to unpick.  

Every fraternal blessing, 
Will


----------



## Rifleman1776 (Apr 7, 2019)

It is a stupid issue. Simply because changing sex is not possible. A person may have their body changed with drugs or surgery but their gender can never be changed. OTOH, it may be possible for a candidate to slip by if he/she/it looks male and does not get a black ball. I have to wonder what happens in the changing room. If I were a Steward and saw evidence the candidate was not male I would report it to the WM and members.


----------



## David612 (Apr 7, 2019)

I think this “discussion” has run its course-


----------



## Winter (Apr 7, 2019)

Rifleman1776 said:


> It is a stupid issue. Simply because changing sex is not possible. A person may have their body changed with drugs or surgery but their gender can never be changed. OTOH, it may be possible for a candidate to slip by if he/she/it looks male and does not get a black ball. I have to wonder what happens in the changing room. If I were a Steward and saw evidence the candidate was not male I would report it to the WM and members.



You should really qualify statements like that with, "In my opinion..." since if it were as cut and dried as you seem to believe, society would not be having the debate.


----------



## Warrior1256 (Apr 7, 2019)

Winter said:


> You should really qualify statements like that with, "In my opinion..." since if it were as cut and dried as you seem to believe, society would not be having the debate.


Quite correct.


----------



## Brother JC (Apr 7, 2019)

Absolute statements such as that one are exactly why there needs to be discussion.
I’m inclined to agree with David612 regarding this particular one, though.


----------



## coachn (Apr 8, 2019)

Winter said:


> Rifleman1776 said:
> 
> 
> > It is a stupid issue. Simply because changing sex is not possible. A person may have their body changed with drugs or surgery but their gender can never be changed. OTOH, it may be possible for a candidate to slip by if he/she/it looks male and does not get a black ball. I have to wonder what happens in the changing room. If I were a Steward and saw evidence the candidate was not male I would report it to the WM and members.
> ...


To whom do we share thanks for the origination of this prescription? 

BTW - Isn't "In my opinion..." already implied? Why does not spelling it out make it improper?


Winter said:


> ...since if it were as cut and dried as you seem to believe, society would not be having the debate.


LOL!  Do you truly believe people will stop debating when things get cut and dried? (asking for a friend)


Warrior1256 said:


> Quite correct.


Only when a reader doesn't understand it is already implied, in my opinion ;-)


Brother JC said:


> Absolute statements such as that one are exactly why there needs to be discussion.


Agreed! in my opinion ;-)


Brother JC said:


> I’m inclined to agree with David612 regarding this particular one, though.


Are you referring to his last comment? 


David612 said:


> So people can believe what they want- as long as they agree with you on this point?


Or is there another one to which you're actually inclined?


----------



## Winter (Apr 8, 2019)

coachn said:


> To whom do we share thanks for the origination of this prescription?
> BTW - Isn't "In my opinion..." already implied? Why does not spelling it out make it improper?
> LOL!  Do you truly believe people will stop debating when things get cut and dried? (asking for a friend)



His post as read made it sound as if his position was an accepted fact and anyone who disagrees with it is wrong.  This is simply not the case.  And I have no doubt that the gender debate will continue raging long after I am gone!


----------



## Warrior1256 (Apr 8, 2019)

Winter said:


> His post as read made it sound as if his position was an accepted fact and anyone who disagrees with it is wrong. This is simply not the case. And I have no doubt that the gender debate will continue raging long after I am gone!


This is the way that I took it. "In the eye of the beholder" as they say.


----------



## Rifleman1776 (Apr 8, 2019)

Winter said:


> You should really qualify statements like that with, "In my opinion..." since if it were as cut and dried as you seem to believe, society would not be having the debate.



What part do you think should be opinion?


----------



## Winter (Apr 8, 2019)

Rifleman1776 said:


> What part do you think should be opinion?


All of it.  Numerous species across different biomes are known to change their sex naturally to increase their evolutionary fitness. Humans replicate natural phenomena daily using science. How is this any different?

Transmitted via R5 astromech using Tapatalk Galactic


----------



## coachn (Apr 8, 2019)

Winter said:


> His post as read made it sound as if his position was an accepted fact


Perhaps it is accepted fact, in his opinion...


Winter said:


> ...and anyone who disagrees with it is wrong.


I can see where one can take it this way.  However, after numerous years on forums, I take a lot of these with a ton of salt.


Winter said:


> This is simply not the case.


In your opinion?


Winter said:


> And I have no doubt that the gender debate will continue raging long after I am gone!


LOL!  That's a sure bet!


Winter said:


> ...Numerous species across different biomes are known to change their sex naturally to increase their evolutionary fitness. Humans replicate natural phenomena daily using science. How is this any different?


Because the x and y genes in these species allow for it whereas human x and y genes are currently fixed and not similar enough to be transmutable once the zygote has formed.


----------



## Winter (Apr 8, 2019)

coachn said:


> Because the x and y genes in these species allow for it whereas human x and y genes are currently fixed and not similar enough to be transmutable once the zygote has formed.



Science is continually proving what we "know" to be wrong. But I think the real issue here is the confusion between the terms sex and gender, which are not analogous. And which one of those are we using for a candidate to determine their suitability for receiving the degrees?

Transmitted via R5 astromech using Tapatalk Galactic


----------



## coachn (Apr 8, 2019)

Winter said:


> Science is continually proving what we "know" to be wrong.


In general, most things are not wrongly understood. To argue we must accept something because science "may" prove it to be right someday, is eating the horse before it's born.


Winter said:


> But I think the real issue here is the confusion between the terms sex and gender,



In your opinion?  (couldn't resist!)

Okay, seriously... I agree that many do not know there is a difference.  And some know there is a difference and define each exactly the opposite of those who define them differently.


Winter said:


> ...which are not analogous.


Analogous or synonymous?  Much like Masonry and Freemasonry ;-)


Winter said:


> And which one of those are we using for a candidate to determine their suitability for receiving the degrees?


Hazarding a guess, the observers are most likely looking at what's in the candidates' jeans rather then what's in their genes.


----------



## Elexir (Apr 8, 2019)

As one who has fallowed a close freind of mine through the process its not limited to just trying to define x and y genes. 
In Sweden to get diagnosed for gender dysmorfia goes through a long process involving social workers and pschologists as well as doctors. This has to do with the fact that its partly based on the minds relation to the body.


----------



## Brother JC (Apr 8, 2019)

coachn said:


> Are you referring to his last comment?



Gosh, Coach, I thought the discussion I was discussing was implied through the opinion of the discussion we were discussing. I think I got the implication of the opinion crossed with the opinion of the implication.

Things are a lot more like they used to be than they are now.


----------



## coachn (Apr 8, 2019)

Brother JC said:


> Gosh, Coach, I thought the discussion I was discussing was implied through the opinion of the discussion we were discussing. I think I got the implication of the opinion crossed with the opinion of the implication.
> 
> Things are a lot more like they used to be than they are now.


LOL!  Good One!


----------



## Rifleman1776 (Apr 8, 2019)

Winter said:


> All of it.  Numerous species across different biomes are known to change their sex naturally to increase their evolutionary fitness. Humans replicate natural phenomena daily using science. How is this any different?
> 
> Transmitted via R5 astromech using Tapatalk Galactic



Low order animals, like worms and fish, can change. Humans are the highest order and cannot change sex. Females who undergo surgery and drugs cannot father children. Males who do the same cannot bear children. Female chromosomes stay XX. Male chromosomes stay XY.  Those are medical facts.


----------

