Cambridge sermon: Jesus may have been trans

Heath, whose PhD was supervised by the Right Rev Lord Williams of Oystermouth, a former Archbishop of Canterbury, also told worshippers that in The Prayer Book of Bonne of Luxembourg, from the 14th century, the wound was isolated and “takes on a decidedly vaginal appearance”

Do I have that right that he's basing that on a painting in ONE prayerbook that will have been painted and decorated to the patron's order and in which that painting of the wound is depicted as 'vagina like' for reasons we haven't the faintest idea about? he's rather making the assumption that just because he sees vagina then that's what the people looking at this illustration would have seen as well. This article suggests it's a bit more complex than that - which a theologian should appreciate.

smarthistory.org/jean-le-noir-bourgot-miniature-of-christ-wound-passion-prayer-book-bonne-luxembourg/

Perhaps congregation numbers are low and he's trying to be relevant to the captured students?

That last comment is a good one. Quite right too.

This comment got to the serious point
Complete misunderstanding of the issue by the Dean. The offence is not 'Jesus might have been trans' (under Stonewall's umbrella definition, most people are) but that 'female' means 'having a wound'/'being penetrated'. It's gross sexism and a denial of life to denigrate the female body and women's role in childbirth in this way.
It's also interesting that the speaker isn't being criticised as a transphobe for suggesting that a trans vagina is just a wound. Women have been banned from Twitter for less.

For some reason, the thought of Jesus' side-gina is giving me the giggles. I'm so sorry, Christian people.

Well, he had long hair and a dress, so the side vagina is just the icing on the trans cake for the revisionists.

I think usually the comments don't show up from a sharetoken link. Sometimes they do, but mostly not. I don't know why in either case.

This!

Don't they show up from that sharetoken link? I've not looked at many of the 1.8k (the piece went up at midday yesterday) but I'm quite liking I think that, in order to promote interfaith understanding and ecumenical debate, this researcher should be encouraged to go and explore the idea of transgenderism in relation to the Prophet in his nearest mosque.

Comments are behind a paywall, Errol. Any gems stand out?

In the Times now, with pithy comments as expected

www.thetimes.co.uk/article/9e5fb932-6e72-11ed-8a5b-f385de7508fe?shareToken=f8e44dbd516c1542fcfc592e668a83df

DameMaud I missed that!!! 😂

Not today Satan, not today.

You know, I wouldn't be surprised if he has.

But the fact is that bringing the idea of a "trans body" into speculations about Jesus, or medieval art, is pretty questionable. It's wholly anachronistic and imo is the kind of faddish crap scholars come up with to get funding that is attached to the faddish crap.

It still has no place in a sermon, where in my experience rather than bringing in funding it is somehow meant to show the preacher is with it, and "make the Church relevant," as they say.

For that matter it's perfectly reasonable to ask if St Michael was a kitten and Mary Magdalen time travelled to Scotland and became Nicola Sturgeon.

I mean, why not at this point?

There are quite a lot of fanciful speculations about the role of women in the past, which simply seem to assume that anything that seems humble was a female thing, and anything involving power or action was only done by men. Despite plenty of evidence to the contrary.

Maybe not so unreasonable!
Remember this?:

www.mumsnet.com/talk/womens_rights/3489152-Cross-dressing-Nazi-soldiers

If it is reasonable to ask whether Jesus was a closeted transwoman, it is equally reasonable to ask if Hitler was a closeted transwoman…

Now I'm imagining Lynn from Alan Partridge frowning and saying "Jesus wasn't trans" instead of "Jesus wasn't brown"

The world is going crazy

I mean it is pretty offensive to women. Vaginas are not holes, wounds or gashes

You do have to wonder how many actual vaginas this bloke has experienced. In the Times today Banner is claiming to have been 'grossly misrepresented.' In that case he can explain what he did mean.

This guy claims Jesus was transgender because he washed people's feet which is an act that women do

That'll be news to a few medieval and early modern kings and clergy (who tended to be men)

my-albion.blogspot.com/2015/02/humilitas-christi-washing-of-feet-in.html

I mean, I'm not saying queens didn't do it to demonstrate their humility, but to claim it as a specific female act is...odd.

I'm fine if our culture wants to create the concept of a "genderqueer" transbody that combines male and female bodies.

Our culture is full of different types of bodies, like fairies and giants and zombies, that don't exist in material terms but nevertheless embody something meaningful to us. Taken that way, framing Jesus through a "genderqueer" lens to gain new insights is just part of the long tradition of twisting the familiar to make it new and exciting again.

I don't think this cultural need/desire/use for genderqueer figures/iconology means we need to instantiate them in the real world, any more than we need to instantiate fairies, unicorns or zombies, but I wouldn't stop any mentally healthy adult who wants, for aesthetic, sexual or political reasons to make their body a facsimile of genderqueer because the concept expresses something meaningful to them, just like those who get their teeth sharpened or subdermal horn implants to express something they feel.

However, I don't see any connection between these body modifications and the material reality of sex, nor does it follow the existence of such modified bodies means sex-based needs and rights are somehow superceded by mental gender.

Not two hours ago, as The Last Supper was being dissected, the thought crossed my mind - how long before it’s claimed Jesus was trans

This isn't even the first time it happened, I automatically assumed this was the same guy from a similar story earlier this year, but searching it out, it isn't. This guy claims Jesus was transgender because he washed people's feet which is an act that women do:

twitter.com/wokepreachertv/status/1484203077351751683

I have to say, it was really... interesting to run a google search using custom dates from 2020 to early 2022 (I did this because when I was trying to find the above it kept bringing up this recent story). There's been a lot of push it seems in other countries for transgender Jesus.

Some of the headlines:

June 2021: "Scottish union sparks outrage over transgender Jesus play"

December 2021: "Germany Bible museum puts on play presenting Jesus as transgender, weeks before Christmas"

December 2020: "Church depicts Jesus as genderqueer with breasts, a beard and make-up so ‘everyone sees themselves in Christ’" (Iceland)

I saw the painting and the statement Jesus had a transbody and just assumed you couldn't see any male genitals but no female breasts so a representation of trans.

Did he actually say Jesus was trans or just referred to "transbody". I can't see why he actually said.