'For more than five decades, she identified as male.'

[Suzysunflower]

www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2021/sep/24/a-new-start-after-60-i-became-a-priest-at-63-after-44-years-as-a-soldier-and-a-teacher

Hi I am newish to mumsnet and very new to this board. This is my first thread here so please be nice :)

I am a Guardian reader - I got so angry at this article (link above).

I mean, well done to this person for finding their calling but 'For more than five decades, she identified as male' is plain wrong.

That sentence implies that the person was a biological woman identifying as a man, not a biological man who later transitioned.

Is the article's language correct? It made me really cross, but maybe I am wrong? Please help me articulate/understand/see it clearly.

Thank you :)

I completely agree with you, but the Guardian is well known as being uber "progressive". It's all just bollocks really.

I like to think myself as progressive too!

But writing like this makes womanhood as something you choose, a lifestyle choice like a coffee, you know 'I like flat white you like cappuccino' type of thing...

Interesting mentions about the daughters. Poor daughters. And what about the wife/female partner, was there a wife at all, did she have any say in this? Oh I am cross!

It’s mad. This person was a man presenting as a man. After some form of epiphany, in terms of gender and, apparently, religion, they are still a man albeit presenting as a woman (if we are to #be kind and accept that adopting stereotypes of gender = presenting as a woman).

You can’t refer to a male person as ‘identifying as’ male; they simply are male-immutably so.

Sadly the Guardian's not really a serious campaigning newspaper any more so I'm generally sceptical of all these froth pieces. I mean Whatever bright colour you can think of. That’s my faith

OP, there's a thread called "break it down for me" somewhere on here that's quite helpful. And the final comments seem fairly typical:
My adventure is about to start. And I dare say, so is theirs That's a real reflection of self absorption with no interest shown in the congregation and their needs.

I was really sad about the wife in this story. She’d died very young, and the subject of the article transitioned much later, so the wife is now being described as “her wife” which implies a lesbian marriage but of course, no one knows what she would have made of it.

I read that earlier and did the biggest eye roll.....typical pandering nonsense of the Guardian.

I guess churches are more desperate for people than ever, although something tells me this guy will be preaching more about his brave and stunning feelings than about religion. If you think about it, having a congregation is just another way to have followers who listen to you.

And yes, I always think about the wife left behind too, I'm sure she is delighted .

I would say the language is correct if you accept that your gender is up to you (I don't).

In that sentence "she" implies the person is a woman now, not that the person was a woman at the time they identified as a man.

I don't think 'For more than five decades, the teacher was a scientist' implies the person was a teacher and scientist simultaneously.

Is the article's language correct?

I don't know if 'correct' is the right word. It's inaccurate, unscientific, and doesn't make sense. But it's the Guardian, so it's probably 'correct'.

writing like this makes womanhood as something you choose, a lifestyle choice

Yes, I agree. Although people who ascribe to gender identity seem to think that 'gender' is an innate feeling that we are born with - hence the phrase 'born in the wrong body' (which I find quite ridiculous. Who or what is in the body?). At the same time, gender can be 'fluid' - changeable - according to this ideology.

You won't get any argument from most on these boards that we are born one sex and remain that sex, no matter how we 'identify'.

I wonder what the kids think?

The kids and the wife are always shadows in these stories. As for Penny looking down ... the kindest thing I can say is that's very wishful thinking.

Well they should be at home in the priesthood. It's all remarkably similar whether it's inner souls or inner gender.

It's an interesting one in a way, because in Graun-speak, 'identifying as' means you ARE. So they are saying she was a man? So the opposite to all the TRAs that say TW have always actually been women?

Interesting becoming a priest.
I wonder what would happen if the Pope decided to transition?

Myers Briggs! That really is nonsense.

I hope that one day we will find less insulting language to describe this process. It may even be that Diana didn't use that language herself. Sandhurst was after all only open to men until 1984, and Diana fathered children. She may have said that she was a man, she may even have said that she still is. I frankly don't trust Guardian journalists writing colour pieces not to influence the language used.

I started to read it; thought 'oh bollox' and gave up. I read the Grauniad for years but stopped because it's just so out of touch. Although I suspect that The Graun would think that I haven't seen the light.

Guardian went down the rabbit hole a while ago.

Someone on here once mentioned that middle-aged mtf transitioners often choose the name 'Diana' after they have transitioned.

It was a pretty astute observation.

I once exploded with rage reading an account of how a late middle aged male, doing well in a career known for favouring that demographic, now considered they were "going through girl's puberty" as they took female hormones and got a boob job.

It was honestly one of the most grossly insensitive and entitled and male statements I have ever read. But because I "misgendered" the person, someone reported my post and got it deleted.

Because accurately naming the person's sex is obviously FAR more offensive than an adult male appropriating female puberty; a time made extra difficult for girls due to the actions of adult males.

If you can identify in and out, and we should all just accept that because it's real science and totally normal, why the big fanfare when someone transitions? Who wants to know? Who cares?!

Thank you all for the replies and the useful link to the thread, MrsOvertonsWindow.

Thank you for pointing out that 'correct language' was not the right term to use ArabellaScott - I wrote my post on the back of emotion and I had not really considered the terms I was using, equally thank you for your interpretation Winebottle and to PermanentTemporary for pointing out that there may have been some editing from the Graun writer.

PaleGreenGhost, I totally understand where you are coming from, I had my first post deleted a couple of days ago.

I think what upsets me is that being a woman is such a disadvantage.

I have had, on reflection, quite a fortunate life and upbringing and yet I have experienced sexual assault, my body treated as public property, all sorts of unfortunate hormonal events related to periods, being talked over at meetings and in life in general, passed over for promotion at work in favour of men ....

And this is not self pity because I am fully aware that this is how the world works and, as mentioned, I am equally fully aware that I had white privilege, education privilege, middle class privilege, etc so probably what I experienced was less than most women.

However this privilege could not make up for the fact that, as a woman, I have been treated as a second class person all my life.

And it deeply, deeply bothers me that someone who has lived with male privilege for 5 decades can suddenly decide that womanhood is something that can be taken on.

This looks like yet another example of male privilege to me.

I know am not saying anything new, and these concepts are expressed way more eloquently in these forums, but somehow it helps me to write it up.

Your problem is that you haven’t drunk the magic gender potion, Suzy. You are still seeing reality as it is and telling the truth. Once you’ve drunk the magic potion you will understand that men are whatever they say they are, and women are whatever men say they are.

The Guardian is now a magic-potion factory.

All women have been dragged on this journey Suzysunflower - and few of us like it.
It's an interesting (and depressing) phenomenon that an individual's transition is such a source of deep fascination to themselves that everybody else must become an unwitting performer / audience to it. It's no surprise that a major source of income for some transwomen is their story - told repeatedly to different audiences. I saw an account of an LGBT police conference a few years ago and I think 3 of the presentations were from transwomen about .... themselves. Not a lesbian presenter in sight.

I sincerely hope that the needs of Diana's congregation become her focus and that the article is just an unfortunate blip - not a real insight into Diana's main preoccupation.

It all just smacks of self absorption really.
Quite disturbing how many different ways this person has tried to define themselves - as a PP said, Myers Briggs ffs. Perhaps they are deeply troubled, it never mentions much about them having any form of therapy. (Unless I missed it - I tend to scan the Guardian online quickly these days and get out sharpish)

On another note, that Parish is quite near to me. The older members of the congregation I can imagine will be somewhat

And it deeply, deeply bothers me that someone who has lived with male privilege for 5 decades can suddenly decide that womanhood is something that can be taken on.
Quite. This person has worked in the military and the church - both institutions known for discriminating against women in different ways but they don't seem to have questioned that at all. I wonder if they would have been so keen to transition at the beginning of their career?

"There is a wish, or need, to self-categorise, to “turn stuff into something graphic”. She studied engineering in her first degree, and finds comfort in the ability of mathematical models to explain personal complexity"

Weirdly written in the passive case. Did Diana talk about themself like this (a way of talking I associate with elderly posh men who are shrinking away from talking about anything personal so put it in a passive third person when talking about themselves).

Or is the interviewer putting words into the interviewee's mouth to make sense of some incoherent gobbledegook?

Either way, the self absorption is just 🤮🤮🤮

This is the thread mentioned above Suzy. Very useful. Take wine.

www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/3145470-Break-it-down-for-me