Church of England transgender blessings

SOrry R0 no clue. Will have a think and a dig.

There’s also the fact that we’re a pastoral organisation and on the level of individuals it makes sense to be sensitive and welcoming.

YY. This is true and good. But I just don't understand the official celebratory sparkles for transition.

It doesn't make sense for the church to take such a positive position. Transition isn't an inherently good thing. It is complicated and nuanced. It could potentially harm the transitioner and hurt those around them. Not to mention transgenderism's inherent misogyny and homophobia.

On an individual level we know that people are complicated and that the church welcomes everyone. But unpleasant opinions shouldn't be affirmed at an organisational level IMO. A neutral official position would be so much more appropriate, with welcome on an individual level. The church should leave this alone.

R0 a female vicar did write a piece in Church Times pointing out that women’s rights are impacted by trans ideology.... She does thought for the day sometimes too. Worth keeping an eye out for - her name is Angela Tilby.

www.churchtimes.co.uk/articles/2018/19-october/comment/columnists/angela-tilby-my-worries-about-the-trans-lobby

SwearyG I have a memory of a female academic (English Literature?) who was also part of the clergy and wrote a significant article earlier this year (Spring)
Can't think who she was.
I don't suppose you know?

If Rachel isn’t married Rachel oughtnt to be having sex.

Rachel transitioned as an adult and I think Rachel also identifies as lesbian... I have met Rachel and found Rachel likeable and respectful.

Identifying as a lesbian isn't at all respectful though.

I'd also just like to say good morning to the monitors watching this thread.

That article in the Telegraph! Refusing to wear a dress again as an indictation of being trans/non binary/really a man/gender queer.
Just don't wear the dress ffs! Parents, stop forcing dresses on your daughters. Watch Fried Green Tomatoes or something.

Yes the woke branch of the C of E were wringing their hands over Angela Tilby's very mild piece on the GRA. Angela Tilby is old school and not the sort to worry about what people think of her.

R0 a female vicar did write a piece in Church Times pointing out that women’s rights are impacted by trans ideology. The letters in response were woke beyond belief (one writer had both her children transing - wtf?). She does thought for the day sometimes too. Worth keeping an eye out for - her name is Angela Tilby.

Rabbi Laura Janner-Klausner
www.telegraph.co.uk/family/parenting/rabbi-laura-janner-klausner-non-binary-child-fulfills-different/

O apologies.

That was a rabbi, I can't remember her name. Laura something?

Does anyone know who the female vicar / minister is who has been on Radio 4 a few times talking about gender-ideology?
She has a daughter who identifies as non-binary & has discussed trans-rights on Today Thought for the Day & Woman's Hour in the last few months.

I think you are right about Anglican Mainstream, blimey, very strange ally.

LARPing lesbians like Mann really make me want to leave the church.

Me too, vaginafetishist.

Sadly I think the opposition to this is going to come from the conservative right, not lesbians in the church. The only opposition to it I’ve seen so far, not that I’ve looked much, comes from the ultra-conservative (and ironically named) ‘Anglican Mainstream’.

That said, everyone I’ve talked to about this in the Church, bar the terminally woke, think it’s a nonsense but they don’t know enough or don’t want to risk it to oppose it openly. There’s also the fact that we’re a pastoral organisation and on the level of individuals it makes sense to be sensitive and welcoming. There’s a trans woman who sometimes attends a church I go to and I would never be anything other than welcoming on an individual level, there or in any other neutral situation.

PotPlant2 what do you think the chances are of any feminist response to transgenderism within the church? The female priests mostly seem very woke.
It bothers me as a lesbian in the Church to be lumped in with the tqia.

All sorts of coercion can be applied to vicars, as anyone else. But technically they are office holders, not employees, and they work on something that’s more akin to academic tenure than an employment contract (it’s vastly more complicated than this but that’s the basics).

This means they have a lot of freedom of conscience, and the few ways there are of holding them in check (such as complaints under the Clergy Discipline Measure) have tended to shy away from addressing conscience issues. Further, their freedom of conscience is deliberately set out in statute and/or guidance in several important matters, notably that they can refuse to remarry divorcees, or to marry a couple where one or both parties has a GRC. They can also refuse to receive Communion from or work alongside a woman priest (!), in certain circumstances.

The chances of a trans person successfully forcing a vicar to go against their conscience and perform this service seems small to me.

Ive met a few men of the cloths. Quite a few of them cared very much about what they wore.

Ive net a few women of the cloths. Not a single one gave two farts about what they wore.

I remember asking Carol what she owed those women who had struggled for so long to have their calling to the priesthood acted upon. His calling, as a man, had never been questioned. I had nothing but a blank look and more concerns about clothing. “I know it sounds silly,” she said. “But I’ve nothing to wear.”

Jenni Murray's article (excerpt above), provided by @Rowan is very telling.

TRAs still aren’t happy but are a bit more content now this guidance has been issued, and are talking on a Facebook group I saw about how it’s ecustence means that priests will HAVE to offer such services to trans people whether they like it or not. To which I say, good luck with that; trying to force vicars to do anything tends to be like herding cats.

In fairness to the TRAs who think they can force vicars, there is a huge amount of precedent of effective coersive control in other areas when it comes to enforcing some trans rights.

Chewy I assure you I am perfectly aware priests wear frocks. However, these priests are not men. Therefore, it is offensive to refer to them as such.

FGS you arrived on the thread claiming it was full of people talking about 'men in frocks' because transphobia.

You then acknwledged not full.

As other's have said there is a long long tradition of calling priests 'men in frocks' & of course only a relatively recent tradition of female priests (still none in many denominations)

The deleted post was about 'males in frocks' the context is discussing blessings within the Church of England.

To which I say, good luck with that; trying to force vicars to do anything tends to be like herding cats.

On what grounds would they be allowed to refuse? I can't see any other way that would go beyond howls of "transphobe"! and bad press, so surely clergy will just be coerced from on high.

I feel the C if E can do whatever it wants but do wonder why such a service is necessary. The person is the same person. I don't think splitting your life in to before and after blocks is healthy. Also I thought they now claim to have been born in the wrong body so must believe God made a mistake if Christian so am surprised they then still believe or want to worship such a god.

Anyone can make use of that service, yes. The Bishops declined to provide a special service from trans people (this led to wailing and gnashing of teeth from the churvh’s small but vocal number of TRAs a few months back). Instead they have provided this guidance to go alongside the existing service of Reaffirmation of Bsptismal Vows. Anyone can have that service, as long as they’ve been baptised (if not they’ll be offered baptism) and, yes, people often choose it after a particular crossroads or change in their lives.

The Bishops didn’t accede to the TRAs’ demands which included a full rebaptism in the new name and changes made to the baptism register and baptism certificate. (So TRAs wanted it to be that someone baptised with the name John as a baby could 50 years later have the official baptism record changed to show they had always been Jane). This is largely because theologically you can only be baptised once, but also to preserve the integrity of the historical record.

TRAs still aren’t happy but are a bit more content now this guidance has been issued, and are talking on a Facebook group I saw about how it’s ecustence means that priests will HAVE to offer such services to trans people whether they like it or not. To which I say, good luck with that; trying to force vicars to do anything tends to be like herding cats.

Ah well user, some people seem to be continually offended, that’s life. I don’t think it’s healthy to deny reality to avoid hurting feelings -therein lies a path to insanity.