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.

So the at the time equivalent of the food safety standards Agency, ensuring they didn't lose vast swathes of people to food poisoning. Clever. Although (as with probably vast chunks of writing in the godly book not really relevant in the 21st century) now we have refrigeration and better understanding of hygiene and bugs.

Exactly!

@Wellies54 You might have come up with an idea for the community there. Donate what you don't want and pick up what you fancy.

I dunno it seems like a useful diagram for a seminar, nothing fundamentally wrong with it. I think it's fine for diagrams to exist even if we don't agree with what's on it e.g. a diagram describing a religion I've don't know much about, set out in a simple way. I don't believe in the religion but it's interesting to learn the basics.

My biggest problem with this is his claim that we are all interpreting Genesis 1:27 wrong. It doesn't talk about "maleness and femaleness" at all. It says "male and female he created them".

It shocks me that this chap passed all the theological training to become a priest and yet clearly cannot even look up a verse in an interlinear Bible to see what the original Hebrew words are and hasn't grasped that Genesis 1 is a poetic/meditative story.

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

So the at the time equivalent of the food safety standards Agency, ensuring they didn't lose vast swathes of people to food poisoning. Clever. Although (as with probably vast chunks of writing in the godly book not really relevant in the 21st century) now we have refrigeration and better understanding of hygiene and bugs.

@Boiledbeetle yeah pretty clever for the time, considering! So better understanding of hygiene means they no longer follow that bit. Sadly some still follow the anti gay bits. Hopefully better understanding will help that bit soon too.

A man who likes to wear makeup no female vicar (or churchgoer) would ever wear to a service. A man who enjoys wearing fake tits. A man who claims that Jesus (a pretty socially conservative Jewish man who lived 2000 years ago and preached the word of God, preached humility and poverty and dedicating yourself to others) liked fucking "sparkly eyeshadow".

What an insulting little attention seeker. No wonder the CofE is in serious decline.

Just dreadful. I feel sorry for his children and the congregation. Another example of the spineless Church of England moving further away from Christian values.

I’m completely over this bullshit. What has this guy actually done to warrant a place in the spotlight? I’m in no way religious, but there’s no doubt there are good people in various churches who have a strong social conscience. They feed people, clothe people, shelter people, counsel people. They do this day in, doubt out without drawing attention to themselves for it even though they absolutely deserve plaudits and gratitude.

What has this guy done? Declared an identity. Not only that, he’s declared an identity that all of us have but don’t feel obliged to declare it out loud.

It’s because we live in the era of the Influencer: people who are desperate to tell us all about who they pretend to be and why what they do is somehow so important. In reality these are people who are nothing special and do nothing special.

This is the Priest version of a Kardashian; people famous for doing nothing. Even the Instagram account is vacuous nonsense: “Going to church because Jesus loves sparkly eyeshadow. #girlslikeus #transisbeautiful #nonbinary #eyeshadow”. What’s next? A close up of a glass of red wine while at a resort with #holidaycommunion?

All while genuine worthwhile people who give everything and ask nothing get on with their lives.

FOTTFSOF.

Does he claim that? Or is he describing his own interpretation? I'm afraid I don't know enough about ancient languages to even begin to describe what was originally written so long ago so you could be right, that's what it says.

I do know though that there are different English versions with different words for similar concepts, I think I remember 'man and woman he created', so I don't know.

I agree I don't think the story of Genesis is meant to be literal. His interpretation is not what I get from it either. Humans being created 'fully formed' makes no sense if one believes in evolution!

I find it very interesting that quite often non binary people who were formerly male were raised to believe that homosexuality was wrong.
Its almost as if they are trying to fund a way to be gay without actually being gay.

Perfectly put. I couldn't care less how he presents himself but despite what he thinks, I can not see what is particularly special about him.

Note the homophobic parents. So often present in bios of adult trans identifying people.

You'd think that might be the sort of thing a charity like Stonewall might have cared about.

But eliminating homophobia would necessarily mean less people deciding they are trans. So it's probably akin to genocide or something.

@WerewolvesAtMidnight

They are not mutually exclusive opposites though. You cannot compare them. If you are not non-binary then you are binary.

you can't say if you're not bi you're gay!

They're not exactly in the spotlight. They've had an article written about them being the first out non binary priest in the CofE, written by a journalist for the Telegraph, which has been picked up by the Mail. It's newsworthy due to the headline not their good works or deeds, although it does actually mention pro LGBT works.

There is no indication they aren't good at their job, just that wouldn't make a grabby headline for the journalist.

but I just can't put my finger on it!

@Wellies54 fairly sure you wouldn't want to put your finger on it!😳😶

Sex: everyone is binary, for the sake of completeness and not being gotcha'd a few people with very extreme medical conditions might need to consult a doctor.

Gender: nobody is binary, it isn't a binary system.

Stereotypes: nobody is binary, there are some clusters of stereotypes seen as masculine or feminine but really nobody conforms to all of them.

Not sure where non-binary comes in really.

It's newsworthy due to the headline not their good works or deeds

Well exactly. The journalists are just as bad. But anyone of any integrity would say “don’t do a story on me, do a story on Joan who’s been part of our church for 40 years and looks after the homeless in our community.” Or they’d say “I’d rather talk about the work of the church” if he had any work worth talking about.

But no. These Influencer-style narcissists lap up the attention and shallow excuses for “journalists” are only too happy to give it to them.

@Poonicorn I get what you're saying, but if they believe it's a 'spectrum' rather than by a concept of 'opposite', It can't really be 'opposite' something if there are many genders. What's it opposite to? I suppose binary and non binary but what about all the people on the spectrum (line or circle version), where do they fit in?

Now i looked at that and that second graphic I couldn't help think oh so gender identity is what used to be known as a personality ( the combination of characteristics or qualities that form an individual's distinctive character).

A manipulative clown as a priest is a problem.

WerewolvesAtMidnight
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.

When she says ‘raised’, I don’t think she’s referring to individual parenting styles, more how people are raised on a societal level. A good, if obvious, illustration of this is children’s clothing and toys.

Go into any High Street shop or supermarket, and the girls clothing will be more delicate, less practical and have animal motifs that feature weak/prey animals such as rabbits, deer, butterflies and slogans such as ‘Be Kind’ ‘Cute’ ‘Princess’ etc. Toys in the girls aisle will still be mainly kitchens, babies, nurturing and focus on home, friendship and creativity.

Boys clothing is almost always much more robust, shoes with proper treads, thicker materials and features strong, predator animals such as sharks, dinosaurs, bears and slogans like ‘Little Adventurer’ ‘Here Comes Trouble’. Boys toys are all about action, often fighting, building, sports etc

I have a five year old and can sadly confirm that gendering of kids stuff is definitely worse now than when in my seventies/early 80s childhood.

Obviously gender stereotyping is much more than just children’s toys and clothes, but the fact that this stuff is so ubiquitous from the very start and seldom noticed or challenged, supports Rebecca’s comments about the societal assumptions children are still raised under, whether their parents explicitly engage in it or not.

Sorry if this is a derail

Grrrr bold fail.
The first half of my post is quoting WerewolvesAtMidnight.

Werewolves I've appreciated your willingness to engage and debate in good faith on this thread

I'm going to echo@Toomie sentiment it had made for a much less fraught discussion on differing opinions.

Which is rather refreshing in these parts.

As they say it's good to talk.

but I just can't put my finger on it!

@Wellies54 fairly sure you wouldn't want to put your finger on it!😳😶

@Boiledbeetle Snort! 😆