A Statement on Gender from the Catholic Bishops of England and Wales

[massi71]

catholicnews.org.uk/plenary-april18-gender

I thought this might be interesting to read. As far as I can see it's the only organisation that's openly expressing reservations about the dangers of uncontrolled self ID (I could be wrong though)

Yes of course there’s nothing wrong with being privately pleased about it because it might bring others round to your viewpoint, even if for different reasons. I would stop short of publicly celebrating it though because then people will start to think ‘hang on’ and you will lose a lot of support, maybe not in Ireland but in the UK in particular because we don’t tend to look to the Catholic Church for guidance.

Obviously those of us who are Catholic or have children at Catholic schools (no small number!) can use it though.

Be interesting to hear the reaction from the TRAs on this.

They will be suiting up and grabbing their face masks as we speak surely? Chapels will be picketed this morning no doubt by masked men shouting that there will be no debate on this issue. And that the church's transphobic stance is literal violence to them. One of the activists might physically attack a priest in a pre-emptive strike as he thinks that the priest might out him in the future. Twitter will explode with groups condemning Catholicism and mainstream media will suggest that there is fault and violence on both sides.

No?

Or is it a bit more likely that alleged transphobia only exists when it is women who are saying it?

"Discourse is about agreeing or disagreeing with ideas and concepts. I find the personalisation of discourse in the modern age disturbing and yes. verging on bigoted at times. One can agree on certain things while respectfully disagreeing on others." I totally agree, fascinated.

(And thank you, Dione! )

Anything from the Scottish Bishops?

Fascinated well put.

Chester is not “sealioning”.

As I read her, she feels/has come to feel that the positive histories/strands she identifies are enough for her to be happy as a female Catholic.

When the rest of us exclaim that the Catholic Church is anti women it’s only natural for her to want to share the information that she finds inspirational and to feel frustrated that we show little interest in it.

(My own position is that I had 7 years of it at school and, no, it’s not enough for me).

The point is whether you are virulently anti-Catholic or not, a major organisation which does have a lot of influence (not just on its followers but potentially as a political force) has made a strong statement. I do welcome it.

But then again, I've read theology since Aquinas; I recognise that the church not only supports but teaches contraception (the fertility awareness method is 76-98% effective depending on which research you read) and have worked with organisations in the Church that are led by women. There is so much misinformation about the Catholic Church on this thread.

The rate of sexual abuse is horrific but it is also the same as across society in general (source Criminal Justice Report 2004 etc).Where the Church failed completely was in its response to that abuse.

And, in some parts of Scotland, this week, the letter from the Bishop is about an abuse case. That might have affected their schedule for the gender letter. If the Scottish bishops issue a gender letter to all parishes, it puts them in direct conflict with the SNP and will bring the matter to as wide an audience as possible.

Quite, Popchyk
Also maybe true that TRAs have fewer links with the church and are unaware of this assualt on their wellbeing.
Can someone please explain what 'sealioning' is?
Have tried to figure it out from context but all I canglean is that it's a bad thing.

newt, both HerFemaleness and I gave definitions of "sea-lioning", in our posts of 00.34 and 00.54 today. It has nothing to do with the actual topic of this thread.

the whole Irish constitution is based on a belief that women belong in the home

Wow, is that really true? I had no idea.

No. It's not really true.

It's a big fat piece of hyperbole that stems from one clause in the constitution, written in the 1930s, that "recognises that by her life within the home, woman gives to the State a support without which the common good cannot be achieved”. It continues: “The State shall, therefore, endeavour to ensure that mothers shall not be obliged by economic necessity to engage in labour to the neglect of their duties in the home."

It's of course anachronistic and there have been calls to remove it, but the fact that it gives statutory recognition to the importance of care work in the home means that it's been used onn occasion in court to defend women with caring responsibilities from debt collectorss. So it's not simple, but we'll get round to a suitable amendment one of these years.

But back to the topic of the OP...

Broken link in the above, sorry.

Thanks for that, Mar, very interesting. I like that clause a lot, anachronistic language notwithstanding; anything which highlights and insists upon the value of the caring roles that are essential 'for the common good', is A Good Thing, IMO.

When I was a Big Career Woman without kids I was entirely unaware of the importance of caring roles and emotional and domestic labour. It’s too big a topic just for this one post but let’s just say I think it’s something that feminism as I knew it overlooked - who’s going to do all that work when we are out of the home? You can disagree that it is the natural order that women do that labour. But if it’s invisible and unquantified we cannot even start the discussion about who should be doing it. At least that clause articulates what is going on. As far as I can see a lot of working women are now shouldering an economic and a domestic burden, on top of the biological burden of pregnancy and breastfeeding/very early years caring. That needs to be addressed at a Societal level.

ChesterBelloc asked at Sat 21-Apr-18 21:17:28:

stopping women from regulating their own fertility - how?

forcing rape victims to give birth against their will - how??

stopping cancer patients from accessing treatment because they are pregnant - how???

wherethevioletsgrow provided links to respond to all of these at Sat 21-Apr-18 21:31:31

Chester failed to acknowledge that the questions had been answered and tried to shift the parameters of the debate to put emphasis on the the number of strong women associated with Catholicism.

It then also became about people not being controlled by the church, they can disregard the doctrine if they choose. Like the thousands of young Catholic women who risk their health, wellbeing and fertility having abortions up to double figures in some Catholic countries because they can ask forgiveness for that sin, but not for taking the pill every day. Common certainly in Poland when I was there about 20 years ago.

You can disagree that it is the natural order that women do that labour. But if it’s invisible and unquantified we cannot even start the discussion about who should be doing it. At least that clause articulates what is going on.

That clause emphasises that it's women who will do the work, for free and because that is their pre-ordained role. It pretends that society values the work, but if it really did, it would reward women for it. It is particularly dangerous in a society that is also fairly liberal as regards divorce (I know Ireland is not). In England and Wales, even though there is no constitution where it is clearly said that women should do all the unpaid work, it allows people to divorce easily and with fewer and fewer post-divorce financial obligations. Courts have stopped ordering long-term maintenance for instance. Women are therefore at risk of post-separation and old-age poverty so it is very beneficial for society to claim that women are pre-ordained to do this role and not bother their heads with economic work. It makes women financially dependent and in E+W at least, vulnerable to being tossed aside with no remedy where the relationship breaks down.

I definitely think that society needs to consider this type of unpaid work, but I don't think the solution is the Irish way at all because that doesn't truly value the work.

Where the violets - I don’t disagree- it all presupposes that the males are doing their part and being responsible. But it fails to acknowledge reality and economic dependence. What I am saying is that the debate needs to be had and at this point the labour isn’t acknowledged at all. And it isn’t just kids it’s the elderly, the long term sick, the disabled. Capitalism as currently practised does not account for that work at all. And de-emphasising that women are doing it doesn’t necessarily help those still in that situation - as the vast majority of women are. We’ve leapfrogged an important stage and women are suffering for it.

I totally agree with you. We are almost in a worse position now where we pretend women are all economically independent and ignoring the unpaid invisible work. It needs tackling but my point is that the answer should never be that it is all women’s responsibility because this kind of thinking has not benefited women at all through history. But agree wholeheartedly that the drive for equality has overlooked it and it is a huge problem.

I too absolutely agree with this, fascinated:

"At least that clause articulates what is going on. As far as I can see a lot of working women are now shouldering an economic and a domestic burden, on top of the biological burden of pregnancy and breastfeeding/very early years caring. That needs to be addressed at a Societal level."

I would like to see a 'caring' wage introduced, pegged to the Minimum Wage as an absolute minimum.

But then again, I've read theology since Aquinas;

Would that be the same Aquinas who described women as defective males?

HerFemaleness, you accuse Chester of "Sealioning", but you are the one changing this discussion from a very current and pertinent question today to what a man who lived centuries ago wrote down.

Is this your first time on a discussion forum, Dione?

No.

Also I was tacitly accused of spreading misinformation on this thread when I know I damn well am not.

Is that more important than the OP's topic?

You've lost me now.