CoE says ‘no official definition of a woman’

[achillestoes]

Tonight The Telegraph reports this as the official stance of the Church of England.

Comments from Dr Robert Innes, the Bishop in Europe:

There is no official definition, which reflects the fact that until fairly recently definitions of this kind were thought to be self-evident, as reflected in the marriage liturgy. The LLF project however has begun to explore the marriage complexities associated with gender identity and points to the need for additional care and thought to be given in understanding our commonalities and differences as people made in the image of God.

If anyone knows what that means...

Oh ffs.

ADULT HUMAN FEMALE it's really that simple.

Does that mean they’ll now marry two men or two women if one of them identifies as the opposite sex?

What is it about the triad of historically being misogynist, institutionally homophobic and all for select men wearing frocks that might have alerted us to the idea that the Cof E might go for the genderwoo ? 😂

Well they sure knew what a woman was when debating women and the priesthood.

They certainly knew what a women was when they banned them from priesthood.

They certainly knew what a women was when they banned them from priesthood.

Isn't "women" based on gender not sex though?

@judaskween

When was that decided, and by whom?

I wonder who they think who births the babies? Even the virgin birth needed a woman.

I’m positive Henry VIII knew what a woman was when he split from Rome because he couldn’t divorce the first of his six wives. Absolutely ridiculous, sexist and insulting nonsense.

I'd say in a social context it largely is because much of the time things such as ai in both real life and fiction are often called "women" and they do not have a sex only the characteristics associated with they gender

judaskween - No.

‘I'd say in a social context it largely is because much of the time things such as ai in both real life and fiction are often called "women" and they do not have a sex only the characteristics associated with they gender’

Huh?

I'd say in a social context it largely is because much of the time things such as ai in both real life and fiction are often called "women" and they do not have a sex only the characteristics associated with they gender

Wut? Women are ai now? What fresh hell is this?

If you don't agree that's fine, it's only my interpretation of events.

@judaskween

Well I don’t agree, but I don’t understand your reasoning either. Are you saying a woman is now something we see in fiction?

Mickey Mouse is called a mouse so mice aren't necessarily rodents. Or real.

That's a blatant misinterpretation. In media some characters, who are neither human nor living beings, are called women. Not saying that women are ai it's just an example that shows that the term is used when not referring to beings with a biological sex.

AI and fictional characters are not "beings".

I'm saying that beings who do not have a biological sex are often referred to as women in our current society so it's not completely correct to state that it is a purely biological term.

a real or imaginary living creature or entity, especially an intelligent one.

Reading the above quote doesn't fit with the headline. I can't see where they actually said that in the quote. Is it the newspapers interpretation for a grabby headline?

I'm saying that beings who do not have a biological sex are often referred to as women in our current society so it's not completely correct to state that it is a purely biological term.

This is possible the daftest thing I have ever read.

’I'm saying that beings who do not have a biological sex are often referred to as women in our current society so it's not completely correct to state that it is a purely biological term.’

And lions who don’t have actual manes are rendered as cartoon lions with 2D manes. Does that mean there’s no such thing as a lion?

We’re right down in Plato’s Cave now, aren’t we?