Transgender ideology - religious responses

[Sometimesonly]

The idea that sex does not exist or at least does not exist to any meaningful extent must surely impact on religious communities which generally have a clear definition of roles based on sex. I haven't seen much discussion of this from official channels though - have I missed it? Can anybody point me to any articles/discussions on this? Thanks.

To be clear, I am not talking about rights in general but specifically about the notion that biological sex is no longer relevant which I know is not a position that all transgender people hold.

I only know the Catholic church came out with a strong statement on this.

www.vaticannews.va/en/vatican-city/news/2019-06/vatican-document-on-gender-yes-to-dialogue-no-to-ideology.html

I think this is the document.
www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/ccatheduc/documents/rc_con_ccatheduc_doc_20190202_maschio-e-femmina_en.pdf

There was supposed to be a review of impact on all protected characteristics and British law does protect religion. No news on the Judicial Review in Hampstead?
www.5tjt.com/orthodox-jews-protest-use-of-women-only-london-pond-by-trans-wwimmers/

The Americans are wholly sympathetic to this transgender lesbian not so much the wife and 4 children. www.nbcnews.com/feature/nbc-out/closeted-hasidic-trans-woman-inches-closer-hetr-feminine-dream-n1239214
Mentions the opinions of the community.

Ultra-conservative arguments are actively unhelpful, as they assume fixed gender roles. These arguments confuse matters by claiming that social gender is the expression of a gendered inner essence (women are born to be nurturers, men are born to be adventurers). Since we can all see for ourselves that these personality traits do not always correlate with biological sex, this leads inexorably to the argument that if gendered inner essence is real and important, then it, and not biological sex, should be recognised in law.

Ultra-conservative arguments about gender and sex also prompt the non-religious / barely religious majority (in this country) to oppose whatever the ultra-conservatives are asking for, out of compassion for individuals whom those religions reject for being gender non-conforming.

Good arguments about the importance of biological sex are grounded in the physical realities of sexual dimorphism (pregnancy, menstruation, smaller and proportionally weaker bodies) and in the sex-based oppression which women experience as a result, especially sexual violence and domestic violence. Arguments about rape in mixed-sex prisons, medicalisation of non-conforming and autistic girls, and fairness in sport are important and persuasive. Unfortunately these arguments are too rarely made by religious leaders.

Thanks for all the links - I am working my way through them. As my husband is Catholic, I am particulary interested in what the Vatican is saying!

You may as well ask for the Catholic views on Islam. Irrelevant. Should one faith's views on another faith's views influence wider policy towards the second faith?

Cross-posted. I was writing before your latest post appeared. My choice of 'Catholic' was random and in no way intended to be a personal comment.

Pikespeaked - I agree but I live in a strong Catholic country so, like it or not, its influence is felt!

Should one faith's views on another faith's views influence wider policy towards the second faith?

No, but its happening now isn't it. Some women can no longer swim in the Hampstead ponds. They used to be able to swim there. One belief trumps all the others and removed their right to a women only pool.

Adam and Eve are stuffed then

@Thelnebriati

Should one faith's views on another faith's views influence wider policy towards the second faith?

No, but its happening now isn't it. Some women can no longer swim in the Hampstead ponds. They used to be able to swim there. One belief trumps all the others and removed their right to a women only pool.

The policy change give TRA views priority over all protected characteristics. But it wasn't TRA's views on Orthodox Judaism that caused the policy change.

The liberal end of the religious pool is very open to absorbing Genderist tenets. If you think about it, believing in a 'gender identity' is basically believing in a disembodied aspect quite like a soul, so it's not a big leap for a religious person who is still connected to traditional gender boxes but is consciously trying to move away from them to adopt an avant garde ideology that allows them to remain identifiably connected to the religion while freeing them to try and escape the gendered restrictions connected to that religion.

@Vermeil

The wokerati don’t care about religious views. A few years ago they did, but ‘respecting people’s deeply held religious beliefs’ isn’t fashionable any more, so it’s been cast off like last season’s coat. Gender is the new black, darling.

The thing about things that are terribly terribly fashionable, is that they, relatively quickly, become terribly terribly UNfashionable.

That'll be...interesting.

I spy a backlash a' comming.

@OneEpisode

The Americans are wholly sympathetic to this transgender lesbian not so much the wife and 4 children. www.nbcnews.com/feature/nbc-out/closeted-hasidic-trans-woman-inches-closer-hetr-feminine-dream-n1239214 Mentions the opinions of the community.

This article is entirely about a man who likes to dress in womens clothes ffs.

Should one faith's views on another faith's views influence wider policy towards the second faith?

I think the comic thing about this is that you have a clash of two incompatible faith positions. The TRAs have a nonsensical faith position that inner gender identity is more real and more important than biological sex. Muslims, Orthodox Jews and no doubt a variety of other religious groups believe that biology is a fixed difference between men and women, and that the sexes should not undress in front of each other. I think this is quite a good thing, because for religious people faith is so important that they won't be swayed by arguments to be kind or accusations that they're a bunch of bigots if they don't allow men into women's changing rooms. They will hold fast.

@RoyalCorgi

Should one faith's views on another faith's views influence wider policy towards the second faith?

I think the comic thing about this is that you have a clash of two incompatible faith positions. The TRAs have a nonsensical faith position that inner gender identity is more real and more important than biological sex. Muslims, Orthodox Jews and no doubt a variety of other religious groups believe that biology is a fixed difference between men and women, and that the sexes should not undress in front of each other. I think this is quite a good thing, because for religious people faith is so important that they won't be swayed by arguments to be kind or accusations that they're a bunch of bigots if they don't allow men into women's changing rooms. They will hold fast.

True, but an unfortunate side effect of that is a risk that the polarisation and mischaracterization of this whole thing as an argument between religious hardliners committed to traditional gendered restrictions and the kind fluffy bunny people who just want people to be free and happy.

Which pisses me off.

On the other hand, if the faith explicitly forbids homosexuality (eg the Abrahamic faiths) but has less to say about transgenderism, they may find transgenderism more tolerable than homosexuality. Particularly the full medical and surgical process.

Abrahamic religions also prohibit cross dressing.

@PikesPeaked

On the other hand, if the faith explicitly forbids homosexuality (eg the Abrahamic faiths) but has less to say about transgenderism, they may find transgenderism more tolerable than homosexuality. Particularly the full medical and surgical process.

Well, this is what I meant about there being being parts of the religious pool that embrace transgender ideology. Some conservatives will love it for homophobic reasons, while liberals find it appealing and easy to adopt the ideas because it's got the veneer of progressiveness and is entirely based in arbitrary abstract ideas.

@Thelnebriati

Abrahamic religions also prohibit cross dressing.

But if they accept that a medically snd surgically transitioned has effectivrly changed sex, then they are no longer cross-dressing.

And somewhere between the conservative God's Law ideologues, and the liberal Progressive BeKind ideologues, are the people of faith who say "Hang on a sec, who benefits, who gets harmed, and how is this compatible with our faith and our wider society?"

@PikesPeaked

And somewhere between the conservative God's Law ideologues, and the liberal Progressive BeKind ideologues, are the people of faith who say "Hang on a sec, who benefits, who gets harmed, and how is this compatible with our faith and our wider society?"

Well, in honesty that's where the bulk of everyone involved in this sit, if you replace 'faith' with the more general 'beliefs'.

It's one of the things I find most frustrating about the ready acceptance of some of my progressive Christian friends of the genderist tenets. It's like they can't even see that a young TM who 'identifies' as a gay man, and makes a big show of being a very progressive Christian off the back of that, is being as stunningly homophobic as a 'being gay is sinful' evangelical when they insist that actual gay men accept them as other gay men.