UGLE Gender Policy

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.

 

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.

 

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.

 

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.

 

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

 

So how was the policy enacted?

 

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

 

Hmmmm.....

 

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

 

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.

 

I think this “discussion” has run its course-

 

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.

 

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)

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

Agreed! in my opinion ;-)

Are you referring to his last comment?

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

 

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.

 

What part do you think should be opinion?