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...

Is there an official definition of a man

🤷‍♀️🤷‍♀️

Cartoon lions are biological lions

Spelunking below it I'd say.

@HipTightOnions ate you talking about sex dolls?

you know that sex robot supplier did an experiment and left the men in a room alone with a robot that looked like a sexually receptive woman? You know that the robots were destroyed by the men? Pulverised them to scrap.

I wonder why.

‘Cartoon lions are biological lions’

But cartoon arguments are constructs.

Eh? This “I imagine my sat nav as female so there is only gender” argument is a new extreme in sheer daftness 😂

Is this a bit like arguing that because my daughter always says “oh look! It’s Mr Squirrel! He’s looking for his nuts!” whenever she sees a squirrel, that the idea of male squirrels exists?

Well yes….? That doesn’t mean there aren’t male and female squirrels? 🤣

Boats are usually called "she" as well aren't they? I don't think anyone with half a brain cell thinks that makes them women/female though.

They only open their mouths to change feet.

I wish they would stick to what they do best - Christianity (do they still do that?), local churches, supportive local networks, the services and so on. they might find more people attend if they shut up a bit more on the politics.

I can barely express how furious this latest dollop of gender bollocks makes me.

So because characters in speculative fiction novels might call a dog-shaped robot a dog, it follows that one can't say dogs are canines? Or that the word 'dog' relates to the animal's biology?

stealtheatingtunnocks that wasn't me! I was quoting another poster!

Well it does all neatly tie up with religious belief as many of us have long pointed out, so this isn't a massive shock.

What is funny is all the attempts to associate feminists who state sex is a biological fact with religion (dark money from the religious right blah blah). Quite clearly our position is the one that could be described as secular.

I wonder if they consulted HMTQ before announcing she one of the billions of people who are undefinable?

I'm just watching this thread for the shocking logic that leads from
AI often use womens' voices, to therefore woman is a construct and a gender and nothing to do with biology.

I can't think of any real life robots that are called women or fictional ones either. Sex dolls, female or feminine robots/androids/AI and so on. I'm probably missing something my knowledge isn't exhaustive. Can anyone help me out?

It's a bullshit argument not least because it would do for any of the words we use to describe ourselves and our species or anything else.

the need for additional care and thought to be given in^ understanding our commonalities and differences as people made in the image of God.^

Given that the Abrahamic religions believe that we were created in the image of God, and that their Bible states "man and woman He created them", I can never understand why any believers of those religions give any credence to transgenderism. Do they believe god gets it wrong some of the time? Why don't they consider it blasphemous to modify god's image? Why don't they apply "Love the sinner, not the sin" to it?

‘War Is Peace. Freedom Is Slavery. Ignorance Is Strength.’

Fiction is reality.

‘Do they believe god gets it wrong some of the time?’

This confuses me as well. One of their (many) slogans is “God doesn’t make mistakes”, and they say that at the same time as “born in the wrong body”.

If God exists, you get the body you’re intended to get, surely? Unless we’re dealing with a particularly capricious or absent-minded deity...

So true.

Surely all this means is that the Church has no official definition because up to now they've taken it for granted. They should delegate the question to the "how many angels can dance on the head of a pin" sub-committee and continue taking it for granted. It's never stopped them correctly identifying women in the past.

There is no official definition, which reflects the fact that until fairly recently definitions of this kind were thought to be self-evident

In other words, no one ever bothered providing a legal definition of "woman" because it was perfectly obvious what a woman is.

I’m a Christian and am horrified at this and v upset actually. Yes, I believe we were all created exactly as God intended. This goes against all the teaching and understanding I have. Arghh

For clarity and to preempt any abuse, I am also utterly pro choice for pragmatic reasons, aka I don’t believe women have abortions because they fancy it.

Also, does anyone have a non paywall link? I’ll Google the whole thing now.

@runningfromreality

It must feel very unsettling to receive treatment like this from your faith leaders. My heart goes out to you.

Thank you, I appreciate it. Thing is, I have a lovely and liberal female vicar and I’ve tried to talk to her about this before and hit a bit of a brick wall. She basically went for the religious version of ‘be kind’.

@runningfromreality

And I imagine you are kind. That doesn’t mean this is what your faith says is true.