To not understand the logic for transgender baptism

[ReallyTired]

I don't understand why someone would want to be baptised twice, unless they see their first baptism as unsound. I know there are people who don't recongise infant baptism and are baptised by full immersion as an adult. Why would someone want to be re baptised because they have changed sex? They still have the same soul and are the same person.

www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-manchester-35441852

Surely there is one baptism for the remission of sins. The gender of that person is irrelevant. Baptism is not a naming ceremony, but a sacrement of the church. It's formally joining the church and surely you can only do that once. A transgender person can be baptised like anyone else, if they have not been baptised before.

I am in favour of a service of blessing for a transgender person, but theologically you can't be baptised twice.

Of course, people do like to trot it out when it fits to their prejudice.

I will have to hold my hands up and admit to the very specific prejudice that I don't think people (regardless of whether they are black, white, British, trans or whatever) need to be baptised twice so vicars should not be obliged to do it.

This is nothing to do with being trans or not.

How will the CofE ever get to know that a person has already been baptised (to be able to 'refuse' their 2nd baptism). Do they keep electronic records now, and can look up the person on their database?

I like the idea of second baptism as an active choice but i dont actually agree with infant baptism

But the who issue to to do with 'being trans'. What does it truly matter if they have a second baptism as the person they are? Isn't the whole point of the ceremony going 'here is a new person being introduced to God's family'? No one is making churches do it either, just one church choosing to do so. No one needs to be baptised in the first instance, so makes zero difference if they have 3 or 4. Much like people having more than one marriage isn't it?

Marriage does have significantly more legal standing than a baptism. People don't traditionally have second weddings in churches either, do they?

I have taken part in some of the so called 'trans bashing' on here (AKA discussion of how one groups.rights are being trampled over to appease.another group).

But, seriously, who gives a shit how many times a trans person gets bloody.baptised?!

Once you've joined the church family through baptism that's you in, doesn't matter if you change your name, change your genitals or whatever, you are already in .
The fact that your didn't know about it as a baby - if that bothers you then you need a denomination that practises believer's baptism rather than infant baptism.

Alisvolatpropiis - nothing really stopping people having a second church wedding, not all places are as narrow minded as CoE. Marriage often isn't for life these days, since we don't have to stay together 'no matter what' (thank goodness). It's not just divorce obviously, you're not exactly breaking religious vows if you're widowed and getting remarried are you? So if there are 'loopholes' for 'traditional marriage', why not in this instance?

I will also point out, no one usually makes you get married when you're a baby, without your input. Not exactly the trans person's fault that they have already been baspitsed, is it? How can you saction someone for wanting to join a church as their 'true selfs', because their parents baptised them without choice as a baby?

Interesting, I didn't have a religious wedding so hadn't really thought about it. I mostly only know Church of England/Church of Wales Christians (I know people of other religions obviously) anyway.

Well, I don't think it is their "true self",and neither does the dsm.

As a transgender person I find it ridiculous. It's not about naming but about becoming part of the church

It isn't the Church of England. It's the Unitarian Church. So their theology presumably differs.

And I would love it if the trans stuff could have its own space. I actually find it incredibly upsetting reading the anti-trans venom on here, and it is getting more and more petty. I get there are a section of cis women on here who are basically terrified of anything that ever had a penis because...I don't know...feminism says penis = poison gas or something but I wish they weren't so desperate to insert their own insecurities into everything.

I thought the trans-bashing was mainly boredom with the topic, rather than transphobia, on mn?

Good publicity piece for that church, though. Not fussed about the theological aspects. Most make it up as they go along anyway?

Unitarians are not affiliated to the church of England. Unitarianism came out of radical dissent to church hierarchy and although based on judeo Christian heritage usually incorporates elements of many world religions and philosophies. All unitarian churches are independent of each other although they do have input to a general council. Many unitarians consider themselves to be spiritual humanists or just interested in thinking about things and unitarians are usually very tolerant. The unitarian church I know conducted same sex blessings long before other churches considered this reasonable.
It is not necessary to be baptised to become a member of a unitarian church I know. The minister can do whatever the congregation supports. It is fairly make it up as you go along - nothing wrong with that in my view. Presumably this transgender child feels the need for baptism and they are supporting this. The real shame should be on whatever church has refused this child.
However I also feel that there is a lot of talk about trans bashing on mumsnet when in reality there is very little. I wish the best for individual trans people and fully support their personal struggle for happiness. What I object strongly to is selling out biological women's rights by allowing men access to women's safe spaces, making the collection of statistical data meaningless and allowing trans women to compete in women's sport. Me thinking that trans women are a subset of men doesn't make me trans phobic - just grounded in biological reality.

They don't seem to be offering re-baptisms. It looks like just plain old first ones, because many churches don't want anything to do with them.
The OP didn't spot that while she was busy googling "transgender" looking for something to complain about them with. Shame you felt the need to make up the bit about getting baptised twice. Not surprised though.

Unitarian baptisms aren't considered valid baptisms by sacramental churches anyway.

If you were baptised in the Unitarian church and wanted to join, say, the Catholic Church, the Catholic Church would have to baptise you again.

The Catholic Church would not re baptise an Anglican, because Anglican baptism is deemed valid.

What would Jesus do?

I think he'd baptise whoever asked and wanted it and wouldnt drag out a rule book

We're not talking about what Jesus would do.

The OP was asking about the theological beliefs of the church/churches.

That generally has little to do with Jesus.

I've not seen loads of transphobic things here, just posts of women who feel they are getting screwed over so other people can have more rights.

Regarding baptism, God knows what's in your heart. I don't understand the need to be rebaptised, but to me it isn't a major thing.

Not buying into the whole born as the wrong gender rubbish has nothing to do with insecurities or fears of penises.

Not buying into the whole born wrong gender rubbish
How can you not believe that gender is real where transgender people exist? You can't say something isn't real when there is evidence that it is...

I'm sure people who believe they have been born the wrong gender exist. That doesn't affect my opinion of the whole thing though.

The existence of transgender people doesn't prove the existence of gender.

How can trans exist if the people don't have a gender