Drop ‘illegal’ trans advice to schools, Welby urged

[JanieAllen]

www.thetimes.co.uk/article/drop-illegal-trans-advice-to-schools-welby-urged-tgw3r9psj

Unsure but they'd be minded to if they can as 2 standard lesbians were sentenced to death last month solely for their sexuality.

I think they can do the 'trans get out' too but a PP was correct surgery is required.

Amazingly and to the surprise of no one…. No. They do get stoned to death though. No choice of transition for them

Awful.
Thanks Metabigot for the info.
Surgery required for men and women I assume?

X post. Sorry.
Bloody hell

Some of the woke theologians will tell you that God didn’t create men and women. He created mud people. Don’t know about the cock and balls and fanny bits though. They are probably too high minded to worry about specifics and the actual God-given miracles of DNA, cells, chromosomes and reproductive organs…

So Iran really do know who the men are and who the women are...

Yes, yes they do. As does Afghanistan. It’s almost like in countries where women have fewer rights than men, they know exactly who a woman is. In India and China, they can amazingly tell from birth which sex a baby is, and which ones are at greater risk of being abandoned or killed. It only seems to be in the west that this confusion reigns.

Yes - that poor little female infant could have turned out to be a man according to trans ideology. Somehow I can't see them campaigning on that one.

Priceless!

Where do you get that from? - according to a paper cited in the Wikipedia article, deemed women are also "deemed eligible for reassignment", about twice as many as men in recent years. Just Googling "transmen Iran" comes up with examples.

Where do you get that from? - according to a paper cited in the Wikipedia article, deemed women are also "deemed eligible for reassignment", about twice as many as men in recent years. Just Googling "transmen Iran" comes up with examples.

As a lifelong Anglican (with no plans to change) this is all very predictable. The church continues to machine-gun itself in the foot over gay rights, so it's trying to over-compensate with its approach to trans rights.

The sheer world-warping effrontery of the C of E’s “How To Hold A Pseudo-Baptism” is grotesque.

To have the audacity to attempt to scrape together a connection between someone taking holy orders & the demand for a blessing for the new name of a trans person! Even the comparison to the taking of a confirmation name is grotesque - confirmation candidates choose the name of a Saint to whom they feel drawn; & that Saint becomes their personal Patron. They are not casting off a previous identity - some keep an existing Saint name - but developing & deepening their identity [as Christians].

There are even still a few Anglican nuns, so while I don’t think they change their names, they have some idea what it is they’re shitting all over by daring make the comparison. Those entering Holy Orders sacrifice literally everything for the glory of God; balance spending hours in silent prayer & meditation & indeed silent mealtimes with doing hard physical work until they physically can’t (whether that’s in their 50s or their 90s); & changing their names is to reflect leaving “The World” behind.

Trying to elevate a trans person changing their name to something spiritual - particularly via comparison to practices associated far more with Catholicism than Anglicanism - is worse than disingenuous. Where is the recognition for other Anglicans who feel changing their names has somehow made them whole/brought them into alignment/corrected some kind of error? Why are their feelings not as valid?

If a trans person wishes to reaffirm their faith, surely the appropriate thing for them to do is to be confirmed as a member of their church? The document makes no mention of that, which I find strange. If unbaptised & seeking membership of the church, they do the work to get baptised. If they’ve been baptised but haven’t been confirmed, they should be confirmed. Which I’d think for adults doesn’t involve hanging around with the teenagers doing their weekly/fortnightly/whateverly classes; but Protestants do move in mysterious ways so I’m assuming nothing at this point. Having to keep reiterating “don’t be letting anyone think it’s a second baptism” just highlights what shaky ground they’re on.

Welby et al are going to end up smashing up the Anglican Communion over this. Frankly just the C of E is looking fragile - & I know it’s had Serious Issues before & held together [essentially] fine, but this time around the fight isn’t simply an internal one, society at large is having these blazing rows conversations. Starting to look as if Vincent Nichols had better start putting together some more welcome packs, really.

And then the C of E wonders why it is haemorrhaging members at a rate of knots. From being told ‘God is not infallible’ (rowan Williams) to ‘we don’t know what a woman is’. With the child abuse scandals that have just been exposed and bishops telling the world the C of E is ‘institutionally racist’, then it is a wonder anyone is attending. Our local congregation is made up of elderly people and those with young families wanting to get into the local C of E school.
theybare always asking for ideas on how to recruit members

Everything here - excellent.

@Emotionalsupportviper

Thank you 😶
I was feeling really quite cross about it all. I mean, I still am, but then I was cross such that it moved me to Strong Words.

What is really bizarre is they have for years had this idea that if they keep up with social trends, it will attract people. And it keeps not working, so they try it again.

Is there any point (I actually don't know how the CoE works) writing to a) the head of the church and b) the wife of the head of the church?

And does the CoE support "transing" kids?

If so, given the scandal that we know will come out fully about mermaids, can the King afford to be tainted? To be head of a church supporting under his watch the abuse of children isn't a good look..especially the connections his brother has kept (I know Charles also has had some friendships that if would have been better he didn't..adding to my point).

And Camilla is well aware of issues relating to women's rights. so may have an open ear to this too. And she presumably as the ear of Charles.

Oh - obviously thread title says Welby is saying to drop illegal advice to schools. So presumably isn't supportive of Mermaids.

@aweegc
Ah, no, Welby is being urged to drop the stuff C of E schools currently use - you had it right the first time.

The C of E has absolutely embraced the concept of the “trans child” - right down to their schools considering 6 year olds transphobic if they were to “misgender” a peer/express confusion at a boy wearing a dress & being referred to as she/her. (LBC article from February 2022).

TBH I’m not sure at all how much Charles can do in his roles as “Supreme Governor of the Church of England” & “Defender of the Faith”. I’d think it’d be one for any Protestants to try though maybe: it does seem their faith is in need of defending, just from within rather than without.

The Royal Family website talks about the Monarch’s role in the church (but related to the late Queen). The Church of England just haven’t bothered to update their website, which says Her Majesty the Queen is the Supreme Governor of the Church of England. The Queen appoints archbishops, bishops and deans of cathedrals on the advice of the Prime Minister.

I've just read this post properly. Hyperbolic nonsense. A bit sectarian too, in fact.

"Pseudo-baptism" is your term. What you link to expressly states that the recommended ceremony is not baptism as that can only happen once.

Unless it's your view that there are in reality no trans people at all, there is no basis for criticising the C of E for affirming this in a ceremony.

I get frustrated with the Anglican Church but it'll get there in the end. I am beyond apoplectic about Desmond Tutu's daughter being barred from officiating at her godfathers funeral because she's in a same-sex marriage. Tutu, who was pro-LGBT+ had more moral authority than any clergyperson alive today in any church. But the Anglican Church always gets there in the end, and if there is a split, it won't be the first or the last.