One of Early America’s Most Famous Preachers Was Nonbinary
Nonbinary identity isn’t a fad, isn’t new, isn’t anti-Christian
The Public Universal Friend, as was the Friend’s chosen name, was born a Quaker in the colony of Rhode Island in 1752. For the first 23 years of the Friend’s life, the Friend lived as a traditional woman, although without getting married. The Friend attended the Quaker meetings of the area, but when the Friend was in the Friend’s early 20s, a group known as the New-Light Baptists caught the Friend’s attention.
At age 23, the Friend fell ill with a terrible sickness. The Friend nearly died, yet suddenly recovered, and claimed that the Friend had been spared by God, and the Friend’s body reincarnated. The Friend announced the Friend had been sent back to earth with a mission — to be a prophet, warning humanity that the apocalypse was near. This resulted in the Friend’s eviction from the Quaker church the Friend had been close to prior.
In all respects, these details are similar to many other self-proclaimed prophets. What was different about the Friend is that the Friend insisted that the Friend was neither a woman nor a man, but an entity entirely separate from gender. The Friend announced that the Friend’s old name would no longer be used, and instead introduced themself simply as the “Public Universal Friend.”
The Friend refused to respond to the Friend’s old name and wore a variety of clothing that was attributed to both men and women of the time, including vests, skirts and neckties. The Friend wore their hair short on top but with ringlets in the back.
Although the Friend did not often discuss gender, instead preferring to discuss religious matters, the Friend would cite the Biblical verse Galatians 3:28: “There is neither Jew nor Gentile, neither slave nor free, nor is there male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus.” The Friend also described the reincarnation event that created the Friend using Jeremiah 31:22: “The Lord hath created a new thing in the earth, a woman shall compass a man.” According to a letter published in a Philadelphia newspaper during the Friend’s life, someone once asked the Friend if the Friend was male or female, to which the Friend replied, “I am that I am.”
For those reading this story from a modern perspective, the description provided by the Friend about the Friend’s gender aligns closely with the modern concept of a person being agender, or a person who feels they are outside the gender spectrum entirely, and simply do not have a gender.
Although the Friend lacked many of the language terms we use today to describe nonbinary identity, the Friend is one example of evidence that trans and nonbinary people have existed throughout human history, even if the attitudes, language and culture surrounding these people change through time.
Followers of the Friend often referred to the preacher with “he/him” pronouns, however in the Friend’s own correspondences, the Friend avoided pronouns altogether, simply addressing the Friend as either the “Public Universal Friend” or simply, “Friend”.
The Friend travelled the northeastern United States on horseback, preaching a doctrine that was primarily a combination of Quaker and Baptist belief systems. Core beliefs of the Friend’s doctrine included abolition/anti-slavery activism, an encouragement of celibacy, and a true egalitarianism between men and women in the church.
Women in the Friend’s church often held leadership positions along with men.
The Friend was staunchly anti-war, and while preaching during the Revolutionary War, the Friend would treat wounded soldiers on both sides. The Friend was also insistent that women not be subservient to men — a common Christian teaching at the time — but rather that both men and women be subservient to God alone. Due to this, many women were drawn to the Society of Universal Friends, where they saw opportunity for greater self-determination. This combined with the Society of Universal Friends’ encouragement of celibacy meant that women could avoid marriage and be fully independent members of their societies if they so chose.
The Friend was, by all accounts, incredibly persuasive and compelling. The Society of Universal Friends, as the Friend’s church was called, drew members from even the elites of the United States’ Northeast, who would often give up careers, wealth and power to follow the Friend.
A figure such as the Friend, of course, also drew great scandal in an era with such strictly defined gender roles. In Philadelphia, the Friend drew such scorn that a riot broke out, citizens throwing bricks at the house where the Friend was living. The doctrine of the Friend was not very different from other groups at the time, and the majority of the criticism against the Friend was directed at the Friend’s gender nonconformity. The Friend was accused of sexual obscenity due to the Friend’s gender identity, despite the Friend being sworn to celibacy.
Regardless of personal attributes, those who violate gender norms are often assumed to be overtly sexual, a transphobic argument that persists to this day.
Partially due to threats such as these, the Friend decided to move the Society of Universal Friends westward, to what was then the “wilderness” of New York State. This territory belonged to the Seneca and Susquehannock peoples. The Society of Universal Friends were the first white colonizers to occupy this area permanently, and led to the foundation of what is today Yates County, where descendants of the Society of Universal Friends still live. Due to the isolation of this area, however, the group began to die, as new followers were not converted and old followers began to leave due to religious schisms and land disputes.
The major land dispute centered around one issue. The Friend envisioned a completely communal society, which many of the previously wealthy members of the church rejected.
The wealthy members of the church who left the Society did more than simply leave the settlement — in the 1790s, they brought the Friend to court on charges of blasphemy. This court case became a defining one in terms of legality around gender authority in the United States. The major argument brought against the Friend were that the Friend’s power was a threat to the state and other religious orders. The defectors from the Friend’s church and those who brought the court case against the Friend were all wealthy men resentful that within the Friend’s society, masculine authority was not presumed dominant. This case failed when Judge Morgan Lewis ruled that there was no Constitutional authority that allowed for a blasphemy case to be brought against someone. This court ruling had major ramifications for religious freedoms in the young United States.
The Friend eventually died in 1819, however the Friend maintained that the Friend had “left time” and truly died in 1776.
In a way, the Friend did leave time, in that the Friend’s story is still being passed around for its sheer oddity and fascination. The Friend is an enigmatic, mysterious figure for whom it is difficult to make any definitive claims, but one thing that we can learn from the Friend is that human perspectives on gender are highly personal and varied. We can also learn that these highly personal and varied experiences exist even in the times and cultures that we consider to be some of the most puritanical.
We can learn that seeing gender nonconformity or unconventional gender or gender expression is often perceived as a threat.
The accusations made against those who dare to break traditional gender norms have hardly changed in the last several hundred years in the United States, with arguments frequently made in the modern day that would not have been out of place in opinions written about the Friend. Arguments that gender nonconformity is inherently sexual, anti-Christian and unhealthy for children are all ones heard shouted against trans and gender nonconforming people today. The moral panics around trans people today should be recognized for what they are; outdated, puritanical arguments from a bygone era, desperate attempts to maintain a gender hierarchy with cis men at the top.
Trans people have always been here. Nonbinary people have always been here. We will continue to be born, in all cultures and corners of the world, in all history. To be trans is to be a fundamental aspect of the human experience, and often allows unique and progressive perspectives on gender in society at large. Trans liberation is feminist, and trans liberation is intrinsically tied to women’s liberation and gender equality at large.
For more articles like this, please see my ongoing series, #NoMoreRevisionistCistory.
If you are interested in supporting my writing and trans activism work, please consider sponsoring me on Patreon, here:
