First non-binary priest in C of E

[inkjet]

uk.news.yahoo.com/church-england-first-non-binary-161400908.html

They describe themselves as non-binary and genderqueer but also say that the phrase “from maleness to femaleness” in Genesis provoked an epiphany.

I agree that to say you are non-binary means you are accepting the existence of a gender binary and that it is rare enough to be notable that you are outside of this binary that you believe in.

When, as it's about personality or masculinity or femininity, it's clearly a vast 3-dimensional spectrum with no clearly defined categories, containing every human that ever lived.
But you can't be non-3-dimensional-spectrum (as far as I know) - unless you are one of us agender types?

Either way it has nothing to do with whether you are male or female. To say it has would be to conflate sex and gender.

Um being bi means by definition one isn't gay or straight, that's the whole point... if someone 'comes out' as bi they are by definition 'declaring' they aren't gay or straight. So not sure how that doesn't work.

Right, but you could live your whole life as bi without stating anything and it wouldn't change the fact you are bisexual. 'Coming out' doesn't mean 'being'.

Whereas your gender is what you declare it is, there is no further definition than that. No test, no way of telling what gender anyone is other than the label they give themself.

I don’t believe in god or that you can change, or not be a, sex. So I can see how people with a belief in one might align with people with a belief in the other. I’m meanwhile stuck in my female, non celestial, body.

Ooh I like cockness. I might add it to my vocabulary of vulgarity.

Much thanks.

I like cock me! The word rather than the appendage though these days.

Right, and that also applies to gender as far as I'm aware. Someone's gender doesn't change if they haven't yet come out. They don't have to declare it to have it, they just haven't come out yet.

Oh forget to add, there's no 'test' for 'bi-ness' either doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

'not gay or straight ' is an unusual definition of bisexual. It's usually defined as being attracted to both sexes.

Even if we had no word for gay or straight, that defining still stands on its own.

I still argue that you can't logically define 'non binary' without referencing the binary. There is no other definition. Is there?

I've always thought bi sexual meant you are both gay and straight depending on the person you are shagging at the time. Hence the bi bit you love the cock and the cunt.

Agreed, just another way of saying it I suppose. It's a sensitive point because of being sensitive to bi-erasure. E.g. Sexuality being assumed depending on what partner you happen to be with at the time.

So non binary - Referencing the binary yes, assuming everyone else is binary no.

@Boiledbeetle

WerewolvesAtMidnight
I agree I would think oh that's a cock. Great word. I wouldn't wonder if it identifies as male non binary or female cock. It's irrelevant to the cockness of the cock.

Ooh I like cockness. I might add it to my vocabulary of vulgarity.

Much thanks.

I like cock me! The word rather than the appendage though these days.

Again your analogy doesn't work. Bi, gay etc are not opposites of each other. Non-binary and binary are mutually exclusive opposites. You cannot have non-binary without assuming a binary!!

My bit about non binary females thinking they are better than women didn't come out how I was thinking. I'm finding it difficult to articulate. I guess with young girls they think they are being radical and different therefore assume they are 'better' than boring, straight women. Yet to me it is far more radical to say I'm female and I'm smashing gender stereotypes (as opposed to reinforcing them).
Also at our school the girls who are non binary are mostly autistic or have had some kind of trauma or could be lesbians. They change their name to Jay, Elliott or Kai and have their hair cut short and wear trousers. Bizarre they think that makes them non binary.

Referencing the binary - now we're getting somewhere!

Not necessarily assuming everyone else is binary, but as a poster upthread said, assuming that to be outside of the binary is sufficiently unusual that it warrants stating.

And if it's unusual to be non binary, that means it must be usual to be binary, ie most other people are.

And that is the part that is offensive to many people. Declaring yourself non binary is, by definition, a comment on them.

You keep saying it isn't, but you don't explain how it isn't.

@Poonicorn what are you talking about? Bi and Gay ARE mutually exclusive.

Yes I see your point, and empathise. We should have room for both being non binary, AND not being non binary but smashing the gender stereotypes.

And getting the appropriate help for trauma.

I don't know what the answer is with the apparent correlation between being austistic and non binary, I've seen this too.

I agree some people and possible you find it offensive for someone to declare themselves non binary because they somehow see it as a judgement on themselves. I'm not sure why that is but I'm trying to see your viewpoint. The existence of non binary people doesn't been you have to be a walking stereotype of a woman (or man). E.g. toxic masculinity is not a good thing. Do you think non binary people think we are all walking stereotypes, or do you think there is a concept of masculinity and femininity which we all have a bit of?

Typo - Been should be *mean.

I think Bingo would be a great name for a character in a girl's comic . Midnight feasts with her pals Bunty and Tig.
Alternatively, a jazz 🎺 musician of the 50s. Maybe that's it - he had the wrong vocation?

@crunchermuncher sorry another 'typo' to refer to your point, in my answer where I've said 'all' that should probably read 'most'.

Yes most people are 'binary' i.e not non binary, I suppose, but we aren't walking stereotypes and it shouldn't be inferred that non binary people think we are.

Remember they believe that gender is a feeling, not a stereotype. Difficult to understand I know, and no more easy to believe in than the fact that some people believe in paganism or ghosts, but each to their own it doesn't reflect anything tangible on us, or on what we do. Not really. But I get that you think it does and maybe you're right.

Was there not a Bingo in the Banana Splits. The drummer - a gorilla? Used to love the theme tune!

Oh that's amazing that he's called "Bingo" because that's what I shouted when I'd read the article 😂

✅✅✅✅✅

I miss the "buy a penis car" midlife crisis of old.

@WerewolvesAtMidnight — that’s not what I meant, though. I meant within the church. Gay clergy in the CofE, even in relationships or civil partnerships, still have to sign a pledge not to be sexually active but to be celibate, AFAIK; and face institutional intrusion into their sexual lives. Not so for trans or “non-binary” clergy.

So if you are a gay male vicar in a committed civil partnership you have to pledge that you aren’t having actual sex with your partner! And the church hierarchy can be quite intrusive about this, apparently. So being gay is theoretically okay, just not actually doing anything gay in practice.

Trans clergy don’t face any such restrictions, AFAIK. What happens if a gay make vicar identifies as a woman? Do they then get to have sex with their partner? Presumably so! And what if a married heterosexual man then identifies as a woman? Still can have sex with the wife even though it’s now a “lesbian relationship”! So not subject to the same “rules” as non-trans gay clergy.

As with everything trans, it’s all a fudge of pretence and inconsistency and sometimes we believe in changing sex and sometimes we don’t, and oh-look-over-there-a-squirrel! But the Anglican church certainly seems to be institutionally far less bothered by transgender ideology and its various mumbo-jumbo spiritualisms, than by the whole idea of homosexual sex. Or female vicars giving birth. Funny that!

@postcardpuffin that's really awful and shouldn't be allowed, absolutely appalling. As far as I know, the issue with some 'church' people is the 'act of sodomy' itself, apparently something in the bible probably, along with the shellfish but they somehow don't mind about that. That seems to fit with them 'allowing' gay relationships and partnerships but apparently making them sign these 'celibacy agreements'. I have to admit I was not aware that happened any where other than the Catholic Church 'vow of celibacy'. That's awful.

I would assume though that if a trans woman was 'doing the act' with a man they would face the same restriction as it's the act not the relationship? As far as I know lesbians have never faced the same restrictions as in the days all that was written people didn't believe women could ever do such a thing!

You're still missing the point.

I don't think someone saying they are non binary is a judgement on me, personally (and if it is, I don't give a toss).

I don't assume that I know what "non binary people" think. But I'm trying to figure out how you would decide that you are non binary,as distinct from just having some masculine and some feminine traits, like everybody does (paraphrasing your post).

I'm asking how it's possible to define non binary without reference to stereotypes.

And I'm arguing that the concept of non binary in itself assumes that most people conform, more or less to stereotypes (otherwise in what way are NB people different?why does it need to be announced? What does it actually mean?).

And that this concept of some people being especially non stereotypical - meaning the rest of society by definition is stereotypical- is helping to shore up, rather than break down stereotypes - which benefits no one.

Bingo 😂