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.

What I don’t get is one of the mantras of queer theory is that gender is on a spectrum … there is NO gender binary , and those who think there is a binary are conservative and behind with the times. So if gender by definition is a spectrum then everyone must be non binary, because there is no gender binary to begin with. It’s like if I called myself a non- wizard … this depends on the idea of wizards existing. But if wizards don’t exist then everyone must be a non-wizard! I don’t understand how non binaries don’t see they are imposing a literally non existent identity on the rest of humanity … non existent by their own theory of gender!

😁

And the car thing...Yeah you don't see that much now do you!

Obviously have more important things to spend their money on (and I shall stop there as I think I'm probably very close to being on the naughty step after the amount of deleted posts I've had since this year started. I've been on a two day rage).

Catholic Church is this way -->>>>

Around ten percent of catholic priests are married and most joined when the ordination of women was introduced. How many will join along with their parishioners if this continues?

@crunchermuncher you make some really valid points and you could be right, maybe the concept of 'non binary' does go towards shoring up stereotypes. Because it's difficult to talk about feelings without 'resorting' to 'stereotypes' sometimes.

How does one describe a feeling without talking about stereotypical behaviour, actions and thoughts when having that feeling? E.g. being happy. Smiley, sunny, giggly. None of that's a feeling it's a stereotype of 'being happy'.

I think it probably IS difficult to talk about the concept of 'feeling' feminine and masculine without referring to feminine and masculine 'stereotypes' because it's difficult to describe feelings, it's easier to describe thoughts and actions or behaviours.

I find feelings very difficult to describe.

Isn't it more that they believe there isn't JUST the binary genders. Not just TWO genders? There is presumably a spectrum with genders ranging towards and at each end. It could also be referring to spectrum as in what autistic people refer to as a spectrum which is more of a circle rather than a line.

I think it probably IS difficult to talk about the concept of 'feeling' feminine and masculine without referring to feminine and masculine 'stereotypes' because it's difficult to describe feelings, it's easier to describe thoughts and actions or behaviours

So tell me why we all suddenly have to allow men who 'feel' feminine or perform sexist stereotypes they think apply to women, into female only spaces etc?

You already said sex isn't gender, which we all know, so why does someone's 'gender identity' or 'gender expression' suddenly entitle them to things meant for the opposite SEX.

This is the crux if this felling based nonsense religion.
Self expression is just personality.
Gender doesn't alter biology.
Men can never be women or female.

If a woman wants to call herself non binary because she doesn't feel comfortable being a woman sometimes, do you not think it would be healthier for her to actually explore WHY she feels uncomfortable rather than hiding behind a nonsense, utterly meaningless label.

I feel bloody uncomfortable that men's fantasy of what a woman is, is being prioritised in law over and above actual women!!

We don't have to allow men into female only spaces. Under the law we are allowed and entitled to have female sex based spaces as it's perfectly fine to exclude trans women under the circumstances written in the Equality Act. We probably need more higher ups to step up and specify them as that under the law where we need them.

And yes of course it would be beneficial for women to explore and heal what is making them uncomfortable / unhappy / traumatised delete as appropriate. If it helps them feel happier / more able to cope / fit in better delete as appropriate to define as non binary in the mean time, have at them. Seek counselling too I'd say.

"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."

@WerewolvesAtMidnight Huh? Ok I will admit, being a heathen I've never read the bible, but discovering it covers sodomy and shellfish maybe I should.

I'm confused as to the shellfish. from the small amount remember from primary school assembly I don't remember any particular sermons on the shellfish being the anti Christ or anything so what did I miss whilst I was busy picking my nose rather than absorbing the religious blah blah blahing? (although I can still recite psalm 23).

I’m a wee bit confused. He kept talking about not being straight (which afaik relates to sexual orientation not gender) and yet he doesn’t directly address his orientation at all. Is he claiming that by becoming non-binary and being married in a heterosexual relationship means he is no longer heterosexual? If he is instead coming out as gay then wouldn’t it be fairer to let the wife go?

His sexuality is his business in the end but the way the article posted on page one was written, it was really confusing around the
issue of sexuality. It stopped short of saying what was heavily implied.

Psalm 23 is my favourite (and the only one I know!). I'll have a google see if I can find the stuff on sodomy and shellfish. Not looking forward to what the google algorithm will think to give me tomorrow though!

Woh there are A LOT of verses on Sodom and the Sodomites. The least horrible quote I could find is:

The Bible clearly and explicitly condemns homosexuality as an immoral and unnatural sin (Leviticus 18:222; 20:133; Romans 1:26-277; 1 Corinthians 6:99).

The shellfish thing is:

Leviticus 11:1010_ *
But anything in the seas or the rivers that does not have fins and scales, of the swarming creatures in the waters and of the living creatures that are in the waters, is detestable to you.

I've re-read it but can't see where they say they aren't straight, would it be possible to copy paste that bit?

Being straight normally relates to sexuality rather than gender. Being queer can refer to either although they do specify genderqueer I believe. I don't think they are referring to sexuality are they?

@WerewolvesAtMidnight thank you for that twas most educational!!!

Every days a school day.
Night night
Boiled

Night night Boiled

Re the shellfish, perfectly sound dietary advice for largely desert-dwelling Bronze age nomads. "Off" shellfish can make you very ill indeed

Probably a good time to share this excellent essay on non-binary identities by Rebecca Reilly-Cooper. Covers a lot of the discussion points on this thread.

aeon.co/essays/the-idea-that-gender-is-a-spectrum-is-a-new-gender-prison

Someone on here posted it a few years ago and reading it was a formative experience for me. It's well written and worth a read whatever your view on the subject. Deserves to be more widely shared IMO

@WerewolvesAtMidnight I've appreciated your willingness to engage and debate in good faith on this thread. Would be genuinely interested to know what you think of it.

Interesting. Suggesting there is scope to “trans away the gay”.

As a lapsed Catholic I can’t contribute much on modern day CofE bar a couple of recent conversations about Christian societies at Universities, some of which are apparently Evangelical dominated with elements of homophobia, and a perception that ordinary students are not welcome unless their beliefs align. (A friend’s son has gone in pretty deep.)

I have no idea whether trends within student societies go on to influence the CofE, but it is a concern if transition is seen as the compromise solution to homosexuality. Especially in a body so embedded within the English establishment.

I don't think they are assuming everyone else is binary.

He's at least assuming they're not non-binary, because he says he's the first "non-binary priest"!

The only way you can totally reconcile this with no assumptions about other people is if you conclude that non-binary is meaningless, hence not being non-binary is also meaningless.

But I think you can reach a mid-point where non-binary means "someone who wants you to pretend they're not a man or a woman (ostensibly due to odd ideas about sex roles)". In which case, yes, he is the first of those, and it is true that most other people do not want you to pretend they're not a man or a woman, and it may indeed be true that there has not been a CoE priest demanding that before now.

The problem and objection with "non-binary" really comes down to the fact that people are expected to accept believers' own definition, and follow their religious tenets. It's as if we were expected to think of "Christians" as "someone who is going to heaven" rather than "an adherent of Christianity", and also to engage in their rituals.

"Non-binary" makes sense as a religious signifier. The sooner everyone recognises that, and treat it in a secular fashion - so the demands on others stop and it becomes a purely personal thing - the better. (And it's far from unusual for a religion to have regressive ideas about sex roles - it fits in quite well).

There’s this (pic) talking about his wife thinking she married a straight man and then also the following text :

“Bingo says that during their educational work they are constantly impressed by how 'open-minded' younger people are.

A recent survey by Stonewall found that more than a quarter of younger people now identify as LGBT.

The LGBTQ+ charity claimed 71 per cent of Gen Z respondents – those aged 16 to 26 – identify as straight.

The figure is a contrast to the Baby Boomer generation – those aged 56 to 75 – in which 91 per cent described themselves as straight.

Of the next generation, Gen X, described as being those aged 43 to 56, Stonewall said 87 per cent said they were straight.”

The article seems to conflate not-straight with trans. If they’d discussed NB stats it would’ve made more sense.

The weird thing is, if you and I wanted to declare ourselves non-binary, our act of rejecting the binary could be to take all our old make-up and frilly blouses to the charity shop. Bingo then strolls along to the very same shop, buys up all our discarded items and declares themselves non-binary! It's almost as if there might be something fundamentally different about us and Bingo, but I just can't put my finger on it!

Mermaids webinar in summer 2022 distancing themselves from gender expression bring stereotypes of your gender identity. So if you feel non binary you are and no one can question it because it is in your head.

Thanks Toomie I really appreciate that, and also the article. It was interesting to see gender described from the different feminist perspectives at the beginning bits of the article, although this next bit was probably true in the past and may be still true in certain age groups or personality types, but I don't think it's that widespread:

From birth, and the identification of sex-class membership that happens at that moment, most female people are raised to be passive, submissive, weak and nurturing, while most male people are raised to be active, dominant, strong and aggressive.

From my perspective I tried to raise my children equally and where they were 'treated differently' when they got older that was due to their personality and other traits not their sex or gender.

Neither of them have any particular traits relating to their gender described in the para above but they are in their thirties now. Is it a more recent thing again rather than just old fashioned sexist attitudes? Genuinely asking as none of my friends have small children.

I'll comment on the next bit soon. Thanks again

I thought they said the first 'out' non binary priest rather than there not being any others. I think they also said something like 'to my knowledge'.

I see your point about it being like religion. We are expected to believe it, or at least tolerate it while being polite. I do find it hard to tolerate things I don't believe in so I get it.

I'm not sure we have to go along with any religious tenets or rites, only the non binary pronoun of 'they' which apparently has been used as a singular pronoun since Shakespeare times so I don't have a problem with it. We already use it for a single person when we don't know their gender so it kinda fits.

@Dunnowhattodonow thank you, sorry I see the Mail does quote them saying that. That wasn't in the Telegraph version I must have missed it somehow.

Hmm very odd. I can't tell you what they mean, they do seem to be referring to gender in the absence of anything else though, so really not sure.

And the stats are quite interesting too aren't they, they definitely refer to being straight as opposed to gender.