Real easy: Don't deliberately misgender people

In May, the Quakers in Britain published a Statement of policy on provision of transinclusive facilities on BYM’s estate.

They also wrote up a toilet presentation (PDF) in June.

On 26 June, an organization wrote to the Quakers. They identified themselves as Sex Matters to Quakers, apparently deriving their name from Helen Joyce's organization, Sex Matters. They also have an X account that says "Joined September 2023." The day after writing to the Quakers, they posted their complaint to Facebook. Their complaint is simply an elaboration of the idea that the category of women belongs to cis women, that trans women mustn't exist within it, and that trans/cis coexistence is a philosophical question that must be subjected to ongoing debate where the terms of the debate involve ongoing consultation with anti-trans people.

On 16 July, the Britain Yearly Meeting Trustees responded publicly (PDF), restating their policy. They said they don't answer to Helen Joyceists — not in the ethical sense of "answer," anyway. ("...as you highlighted, Sex Matters to Quakers is not a Quaker Recognised Body, and therefore there is no relationship of accountability between BYMT and it – we are accountable solely to Yearly Meeting.") They may, however, answer a letter in the mere sense of writing a letter: "We respond to you as a matter of courtesy."

At the end of the Quakers' five-page reply, they gave this list of pointers I rather like (I'm quoting it):

• Deliberate misgendering of a person is transphobia.
• Referring to trans women as men is transphobia.
• Assuming a trans person poses a risk simply for being trans is transphobic.
• Stating that trans men are vulnerable and “groomed” into transition is a transphobic trope.
• References to “trans activism” as anything other than the legitimate effort to protect and advocate for the rights of people who are trans or non-binary is transphobic.
• Alleging that Quakers have been “infiltrated” by trans activists is a transphobic conspiracy theory and we are particularly offended by it.
• The notion that supporting and advocating for the safety, wellbeing, and inclusion of trans people could be damaging to the Religious Society’s reputation, or even “might be the thing that finally destroys them” is shocking and dangerous. It is fearmongering, threatening, and extreme.

A reframe of these tips I might use and offer to others:

People belong to a gender on their own say-so. Don't deliberately call someone by a gender other than what they say they are. Don't assume that trans women are predators, that trans men are helpless victims of someone who convinced them that they're trans, that trans people in general are delusional, or that transness itself puts others at risk. Apart from activism for trans rights, there's no such thing as "trans activism" — so don't use that phrase as a bogeyman, and don't imply that cis people who are trans-inclusive have been somehow infiltrated, captured, brainwashed etc. by trans people or by some trans-inclusive agenda that has forced them to speak in a trans-inclusive way. Trans and cis people alike can mutually support each other's safety, wellbeing, and inclusion. Trans inclusion will not undermine our shared civilization (in which trans people already live and have always lived) and there is probably no reason to expect it will sink any particular organization.