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.

Tara is allegedly a sex worker who presumably might like sex. It's not beyond possibility that Tara might fancy a bit if sex whilst in the women's prison. I'm sure lots of women prisoners are pretty hard but many are vulnerable and may have suffered domestic and sexual abuse - what about their rights?

I'm obviously more of a fan of the precautionary principle than you. As i said in my first post I'm all fir the child being baptised or blessed or whatever - anything unlikely to harm another group is fine by me.

Very telling you refused to use the 'she' pronoun in your last post. Just because she's a sex worker, doesn't mean she had no self-control. You know, like a rapist, which she isn't. What about Tara's right not be vunrable as someone who identifies as female and is living as such, being put in a male prison? You do know women 'fancy a bit of sex' as well right? I'm sure there are men who are vunrable in male prisons as well, so as sad as that is, not quite getting your point.

It's not beyond possibility that some of the other inmates might fancy a bit of sex while in the women's prison too.

Well thats not how it will be in future if the equalities minister follows through on her parliamentary report. . .

44. While we recognise the importance of the Gender Recognition Act as pioneering legislation when it was passed, it is clear that the Act is now dated. The medicalised approach regarding mental-health diagnosis pathologises trans identities; as such, it runs contrary to the dignity and personal autonomy of applicants.
45. Within the current Parliament, the Government must bring forward proposals to update the Gender Recognition Act, in line with the principles of gender self-declaration that have been developed in other jurisdictions. In place of the present medicalised, quasi-judicial application process, an administrative process must be developed, centred on the wishes of the individual applicant, rather than on intensive analysis by doctors and lawyers

In other words, self declaration, no surgery, no hormones, no living as a woman for 2 years (whatever that meant)
Gender identity rather than having formally changed gender would be a protected characteristic.
This would also affect areas currently protected such as womens refuges, prisons, hospitals

Well that has neither passed, not does it say if it will sanction special areas such as prisons. A report does not mean men will be let into female prisons whenever they feel like it, you're taking minimal information and blowing it up out of context.

www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201516/cmselect/cmwomeq/390/390.pdf

Are you ok with it though as a concept or not? If you are, no need to do anything, if, like me, you are worried it could be misused, then best make your views heard now as it is the final report and those are the recommendations. It does refer in section 3 then near the end to current exemptions such as refuges, hospitals and prisons

Exemptions in respect of trans people
21. Significant concerns have been raised with us regarding the provisions of the
Equality Act concerned with separate-sex and single-sex services and the genuine
occupational requirement as these relate to trans people. These are sensitive areas,
where there does need to be some limited ability to exercise discretion, if this is a
proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim. However, we are not persuaded
that this discretion should apply where a trans person has been recognised as of
their acquired gender “for all legal purposes” under the Gender Recognition Act.
In many instances this is unlikely, in any case, to meet the proportionate test.
(Paragraph 132)
22. We recommend that the Equality Act be amended so that the occupational
requirements provision and / or the single-sex / separate services provision shall
not apply in relation to discrimination against a person whose acquired gender has
been recognised under the Gender Recognition Act 2004. (Paragraph 132)

I can't get my head around a sex worker who boasts about using their penis with their customers being described as 'living like a female'.

Bear in mind that the recommendation is to update the act so people can self identify

Now, you might actually be ok with that, but i think it is open to misuse and abuse by people who have no gender dysphoria at all but just want, in the example of prisons, access to women

Am I ok with a man pretending to be in a prison ok? No, of course not, but you know that's not the context. The link you have sent show's the equalities minister has and is taking into account the views and issues on both sides. There is also very valid points in there about vunrable trans people being put at risk if they are denied the same rights to 'safe places' as you put them, because of discrimination. Did you read over the part where people transitioning are more likely to suffer DV? Or do they again not matter, because they are in the minority? So overall, no. I trust our system not to just believe a convicted rapist who claims to be a woman just so he can go into a female prison.

Male violence against women, transwomen and transmen is a massive issue, you are right

If you disagree with people being able to self identify and then gain access to women only (or indeed men only) spaces, please make your voice heard.
Once it is law i dont see how it can be possible for any organisation to challenge self declared gender identity.

As is discrimination against trans people based on the fact that some males are violent, therefore allowing some women to exaggerate facts and come up with situations that are unlikely to happen as a means to scare people into the same opinion.

"Come on, Bomb - you know there would be a procedure put in place if such a scenario occured. Do you know what it takes to be taken seriously as someone who wants to transition in the first place? a hell of a lot more than just saying 'I'm a woman in a man's body'. Even then, a prison system would highly likely put such a person in a singular isolation cell, if they had been convicted for sexual assult against women, most certainly if they still had a functioning penis. It's so many hoops and jumps, so many years of going throuh these things, most men trying to 'pull a fast one' would either give up, or even be out of jail by the time they 'succeeded'."

So do you still feel the same now you have read the recommendations that will be put to parliament by the equalities minister? Does it matter to you that the years/hoops/lack of opportunity to pull a fast one are going to be replaced by "i'm a woman in a mans body"?

I do actually hope you are right about the isolation cell part although it doesnt sound a very nice experience for anyone to be put in isolation and i doubt there is much room as it is in womens prisons

Sorry, "are proposed to be replaced by ....."
I for one hope that by increasing knowledge of these recommendations, that if people disagree (or indeed agree) that they let their mp know

Yes I do, because they still wouldn't just take a male rapist at his word of 'I am now a woman', just so he could be placed in a female prison with a high chance of assulting women. That would not happen. No amount of 'but it could because the law will say anyone can identify as any gender' will convince me otherwise. The law can be stupid at times but it's not downright dangerous as to give male rapist a basic open field opportunity to sexually assult more women. It's like saying they will rehabilitate pedophiles by giving them community serivce in schools.

There is room in this for a debate on segregation by biological sex. I'd prefer it if we just did that to be honest. Perhaps society would ferl happier with no single sex areas and everywhere being unisex. I can see that working eg individual changing cubicles everywhere or perhaps even open unisex changing areas. Individual cells in prisons. Own room in hospitals. I'd actually feel safer like that than in a single sex area open to anyone willing to say 'i am a woman'.

( I am actually quite paranoid about sexual abuse but thats got a back story)

Thats not how law works though. Once its law, how can it not be followed? Sure, the prison service might say no, but the prisoner will sue, and because it would be law, would win

The law has subclauses to deal with these types of situations though, so people cannot take advantage as in the scenario you describe. It's never as black and white as it seems. I'm sorry you're paranoid about sexual assault, but it does not mean that all biological men are out to prey at any given opportunity. It's highly unfair on the minority who so need help as they struggle with gender issues. We have come so far as a society in acceptance with race, sexulity, gender issues etc. There's so much more to do, but we cannot take a step back by showing so much negativity towards trans people 'just incase the worst happens'. Too much of this thought is going on in the world - people in need being treated like dirt because a minorty of them can do some terrible things.

Oh look,another trans-bashing thread, not understanding 'why' people who are changing gender are allowed to do x, y and z. How does it affect anyone if they are happier if they are baptised one, twice or 358 times? It obviously has meaning to them, being baptised as the 'right person'. The Christian God hasn't come down and expressed his feelings on any this or any farcical ceremony within the church,so shall we just presume it doesn't matter?

^

This.

And it's so predictable that people came along immediately after this was posted to claim that it isn't a trans-bashing thread, when it blatantly is.

Honestly, the obsession with knocking transsexuals amongst some people round here is positively unhealthy. Is this really such a massive issue that it deserves to be discussed over and over and over again? These threads inevitably descend into the same people making the same tedious points and shouting down anyone who disagrees with the party line. It said it all when someone decided it was necessary to start yet another thread moaning about people who could find better things to do than to vote in the trans-bashing "poll".

Once its law, how can it not be followed?

I will worry about that once it actually appears in a draft Bill laid before Parliament; till then, I refuse to scaremonger about it. Like Gently, I really don't believe that legislation will be passed without safeguards.

The Church of England had already had services of affirmation. Ie. Welcoming the person to the church community and showing that they accept the person as their new sex with any new name.

www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-33685858

It is better to call it a service of affirmation than re baptism because the church teaching us that you can only be baptised once. Baptism is formally joining the church and someone's gender is irrelevant.

Another day, another trans thread...