Trans archdeacon story in the Telegraph – and my dilemma

[RevUlsion]

The Telegraph reports that a vicar is being investigated for calling trans archdeacon Rachel Mann a ‘bloke’.

Comments from Telegraph readers are predictable: ‘Well he is a bloke, and the Church is selling out to woke ideology’. Comments from gender critical people too: ‘Here we go again: another man pretending to be a woman.’

On the other side, progressives inside and outside the Church are outraged at what they see as disrespect and bigotry.

My dilemma is that I’m strongly gender critical, but I suspect a small number of people have real gender dysphoria (as opposed to AGP, sexual motives for entering women’s spaces etc). If anybody has real gender dysphoria, Rachel Mann does.

Somebody with long-term dysphoria who goes as far as having their bits removed as an adult, as Rachel has, instinctively seems to me quite different from men with penises and wigs demanding access to women’s spaces.

Interested to know what others think about this distinction.

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2023/12/16/church-of-england-investigates-vicar-trans-archdeacon/

He's no longer a C of E vicar so I doubt that he cares. Bit late now...

Somebody with long-term dysphoria who goes as far as having their bits removed as an adult, as Rachel has, instinctively seems to me quite different from men with penises and wigs demanding access to women’s spaces

Still a man. No doubt still a man expecting access to women only things.

And i don't want any man in women's toilets, changing rooms, rape groups, prisons, sports etc.

Somebody with long-term dysphoria who goes as far as having their bits removed as an adult, as Rachel has, instinctively seems to me quite different from men with penises and wigs demanding access to women’s spaces.

He is still male though. And since we never actually know whether a male accessing a women's space a) has genuine long-term dysphoria or b) has had the surgery, it's all a moot point.

An emasculated male is still a male. We cannot know what is going on in his head, whether a man has body-modifications in an attempt to ease a dysphoria, or as part of a kink, not whether he is a danger to women.

Note that I am referring to any male who engage in these practices, not to a specific person.

Rachel Mann seems to 'identify as a lesbian'....so is heterosexual.

Why should it be a punishable offense to state a fact just because the person you are talking about would prefer you to lie?

There is no point that a man stops being a man. Your conditional willingness to pretend is your own choice - and it should be everyone else's too.

Pleased to hear there’s a trans archdeacon - that’s markedly progressive! - & wish them all the best. Believe they should be spoken to, & about, respectfully, as should anyone, & acknowledge that “bloke” is potentially provocative & distressing for them (haven’t read up on the case).

If I wasn’t aware of the aggressive threats to my own rights, & dismissal of my feelings, I’d probably condemn it outright.

But.

We all live with offence resulting from the current confusion - I find the image of women presented by the prize-winning, publically-acclaimed Andrea Long Chu utterly humiliating. And Dylan Mulvaney, & his embrace by various companies, distressing & confusing. And yet, women’s offence at this total re-imagination of what a woman actually is (across the spectrum, from these extreme manifestations of this, to the individual above appropriating lesbianism at their expense) - is largely not recognised as valid or even rational, let alone empathised with.

So.

Usually, two wrongs don’t make a right. But here, the perceived wrong is standing up for a truth that may protect & respect women, by highlighting something that can be upsetting to them, too - if doing so uncomfortably directly.

So while I find it distasteful, I understand it, & think, regrettably, we’ve been forced by TRAs into a situation in which such directness is more likely &, in some contexts (emphatically not all - &, again, I’ve not read the article), defensible.

The truth is important. Being able to state it is important. A less emotive expression of it than this, & one that’s prompted by concern for women as opposed to prejudice, & justified by the context, though, is more respectful - &, I believe, more likely to help our cause as well.

It sounds asif the archdeacpn intended to be insulting. I don't think that's OK as part of an employing hierarchy. I seem to remember there is something about the employment status of vicars that went to a legal fight a few years ago - originally the Church did not have employer responsibilities to their clerics, but now they do perhaps? I'd be upset if a boss referred to me as a 'chick'.

As an atheist I would much prefer the CofE not to have any kind of state links so that they can fix their own priorities, but as a cultural Anglican I value the fact that the parish church is open to everyone. I am both angry that it took forever for women to be accepted as human enough to represent Jesus at communion, but no time at all for male people living as women to be a accepted in the same way. But ultimately I think there isn't a human who can't do that.

OP, I realise you are posting in good faith but please think about what you are suggesting here.

Women - adult female humans - are complete beings in their own right.

The idea that if a man makes enough changes he "becomes" a woman is incredibly reductive, sexist and offensive. It is at heart based on men's assumption that their external observations about our lives hold as much - nay more - authority about womanhood than the observations and understanding of those who actually live it.

We aren't interchangeable with men who have had their bits removed, or men with low testosterone, or men who like girly things. We aren't a status a man can achieve if he meets a checklist. We are not, in short, defined simply by our difference to men.

A man with the deep beliefe that he is inside, or should have been, a woman is not in truth a woman. Society needs to find a way to support and value him that doesn't require debasing the reality of womanhood for all women in order to service the needs of a small group of gender dysphoric men.

Here’s an interesting discussion from a few years ago

https://www.mumsnet.com/talk/womens_rights/3833217-Lent-Talk-to-be-given-by-Rachel-Mann-on-Radio-4-on-Trans-Identity?flipped=1

The idea that if a man makes enough changes he "becomes" a woman is incredibly reductive, sexist and offensive. It is at heart based on men's assumption that their external observations about our lives hold as much - nay more - authority about womanhood than the observations and understanding of those who actually live it.

Very well put, @FlirtsWithRhinos !

Chopping bits off doesn't make the slightest difference as men are men and women are women. Sarah Jane Baker chopped his balls off himself in prison but that doesn't stop him being a violent, woman hating man.

Still a man. I like Flirtswithrhino's post .

Having remembered the Airplane mode trick, have read the article, & absolutely condemn “bloke” in this context: person in position of responsibility showing prejudice in public personal attack.

Highlighting that person’s biological sex in less emotive terms, when relevant, must remain possible to do, though - which is why the “accused”, in an unhelpfully disingenuous strawman, tries to suggest this is all he was doing as a reasonable defence.

This is where I worry that rudeness - or such unpleasantness as this - can damage the cause. By deliberately conflating an objective & necessary statement of biological truth, with what was, in this case, a prejudiced insult, this man has made it easier for genuine expressions of such biological truth be condemned as bigotry, & harder for such truth to be referenced in good faith when necessary.

Yes. I agree with others. There was study and I have to go find it again, a male that is supposedly castrated is still very capable of violence and sexual offences. If they lack the capacity to orgasm, there are other ways to get that erotic high that they are seeking.

Plus, still has all the physical advantages of a male.

Sorry OP, no male should be told that if they remove body parts it makes them a woman or makes them more worthy of accessing female single sex spaces and being called a female or any such thing. That is cruel to them to allow them to have such expectations. And it is ridiculous knowing what we do about males who transition to think that this level of ‘commitment’ makes them anything more than a male who has chosen to have extreme body modifications.

Who benefits from telling male people that they become women if they remove body parts or treating them as a woman if they have done this ?

@RevUlsion

My opinion is similar. It's also based on the simple premise, how does it affect you, why do you care what people wear or what they are called?

Single sex spaces are needed in a limited number of circumstances and I defend them but in most of life it really doesn't hurt to be flexible on these things. It also makes sense going forward to have solutions in place rather than just bury your head in the sand saying trans doesn't exist, it does. 3rd spaces make lots of sense

I haven’t read the article. I do think personal targeted attacks against anyone are unkind and unnecessary.

Rachel is a man, but I wouldn’t target that language against them unless deliberately provoked.

I am annoyed that the CofE is prepared to marry a same sex couple of one has a GRC, but not one without.

I am annoyed that there are many things the CofE doesn’t accept, and I imagine it wouldn’t accept a cross dressing vicar but will if he claims to be female.

Was it Rachel who spoke on women’s hour about shaving their legs? All the work for acceptance from women priests, and it’s reduced to wearing tights.

To date, extreme trans activists have leveraged people’s use of pronouns and this social acceptance of males being ‘woman’ to push through their political agenda. Sport is one of area that this has been done. McKinnon/Ivy stood infront of policy makers and argued that it was cruel and inhumane to deny males trans people the right to compete as their chosen gender. Why? Because surely society at large accepted they were ‘female’ as people used their female pronouns and treated them a female. Mridul Wadhwa is another. Applied for a female advertised job role and was made CEO of a rape crisis centre. Because everyone treats this male individual as a female.

When people say to me ‘what harm does it do you? I now start listing the harms that people using pronouns for male people and this ‘acceptance’ has done on a society level.

please don’t deny that activists have absolutely used people being kind to leverage harmful policies and get themselves into positions that cause harm.

A castrated man is still a man, there's no amount of body modification that can change a person's sex.

In the past before I was aware of what was happening to women's rights I may have agreed with you about it being the kinder thing to do to call Rachael a woman, but now I reserve my kindness for actual women who are being harmed by this regressive nonsense.

Men who don’t like the definition society holds of manhood should work to broaden that definition, not seek to colonise womanhood. Being a woman is about following a female biological pathway, it’s not something anyone can opt into or out of, and it’s certainly not about how someone feels. Someone’s characteristics and preferences are their own, and do not need to be related to their sex. So, OP, I do not agree that this person is a woman

That said, I think it is important for everyone to treat others with consideration, and using language with the intention to hurt is not acceptable

I can’t read the article so can’t comment on the context. I’m inclined to think Rev Brett shouldnt have been deliberately rude if he was but we absolutely shouldn’t be coerced into saying something we know to be try.

I’m much more offended by Rachel Man saying they are a woman though

I'm just copy and pasting this from another thread:

The difference between a legitimate transwoman and a man who is faking being a transwoman is within the mind of the transwoman.

We, society, can't know if a man is lying about his feelings or not.

When there is a clash of rights we cannot base societal rules and laws on the subjective feelings of one group while dismissing those of the other group impacted.

To women, it doesn't actually make any difference if Isla Bryson is lying about his feelings or being really honest.

There's a bloke with a cock in women's prison. This is not okay, however he feels.

The difference between a legitimate transwoman and a fake one doesn't actually make any difference to women. The issue is a man in their space.

If you focus the judgement on women's feelings instead of men's the answer is clear. The 'legitimate' transwoman argument only works if you base the argument on the male point of view.