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/

An example of the misogyny within the CofE. Rachel Mann is a man who wants to be a woman but cannot change his biology however many body parts he has removed or added. Woman is not a costume, it's biological reality. I have no idea iif Rachel is a rainbow activist but Rachel certainly seems to lack any understanding of women who do not see themselves simply as support humans for males.. It is not derogatory to describe someone as a man - although some of the wording used might be seen as disrespectful. Rachel Mann has, of course, frequently been disrespectful to women.

So called "progressives" in the church are actually deeply regressive if they want to reimpose sexual stereotypes that belong back in the 1950s. This is not progress, it is misogyny and homophobia. If the church likes having Rachel Mann as an archdeacon that's their choice but they should not encourage Rachel to be disrespectful to women by pretending she is one.

If he no longer has 'man bits' he's safe in women's spaces. If he wanted to compete in women's sports it's a no because he will still have a man's muscle mass.

Woman is not a costume, it's biological reality.

That's the essence of it.

I can see that the OP wants to be polite and kind, and believes that in this instance it wouldn't be very nice to tell a man who really really wants to be a woman that he is in fact a man.

But you can't alter the facts. All you can do is choose whether you are going to join in the game of pretend. You might choose to - others of us won't.

The simple truth is this: Mann is a man.

Why? Does every male with no testicles completely lose their desire for sex? Or just find other ways to get erotic?

Do you have any proof that all man without testicles and penises are not going to still attack women and children? Any proof at all? If so, please link it up.

And women deserve single sex spaces for privacy and dignity as well. Why is it ok for a male, knowing they are male to enter a space for female people?

When female people of all ages can detect male cues quite well, why should any female person be put in a position of being distressed by a person with male cues being in their single sex space? Removing someone’s cock and balls doesn’t remove male cues.

Just to clarify: I'm gender critical. I don't say in my post that Rachel Mann is a woman, should be called a woman, or that surgery can make a man into a woman.

What I'm trying to clarify in my own mind is whether there's such a thing as genuine gender dysphoria. And if a gender critical person concludes there is such a thing as genuine gender dysphoria, what difference it makes.

Most of you say it makes no difference at all. That sounds very absolute – but you may be right. I'm now reflecting on the reasons you give.

OF CATS AND MEN AND LITTER TRAYS

My cat is very much a boy,
despite the loss of balls.
He acts just like a boy cat would
when a female caterwauls.
He still scratches, and he hisses,
always tries to dominate,
despite the awful screams
that from the female emanate.
The female is no match for him,
despite his lack of skill,
if he chooses to, he can do,
and the female outright kill.

So if a cat can act just like a cat,
despite the loss of function,
why would we dare to presume a man
wouldn’t have the self-same gumption?

It’s not just the actual act,
but the fact it could occur.
Their very presence in our space
would lead us to infer
that a man is there for some misdeed,
as that has always been the way.
We go one way to the Ladies,
the men turn, and go the other way.

And as we don’t do genital inspections,
what would you suggest we do?
The easiest way to solve this issue…
KEEP ALL MALES OUT OF OUR LOO.

Boiledbeetle 7th June 2023

How am I going to ascertain whether the man in front of me genuinely identifies as a woman or not? In order to then work out the extent to which I should lie and enable him in a deception that hurts me and other women?

And why am I running around basing my actions and perceptions and permissions on what a man tells me is going on between his ears?

Have you read any Chumplady, OP? I recommend it.

'If he no longer has 'man bits' he's safe in women's spaces'

No. Sarah Jane Baker, kidnapper, torturer and attempted murderer, castrated himself in prison. He's a violent, dangerous and very disturbed man. He is thankfully housed in the male estate.

Any male risks frightening women who are in a vulnerable position, no matter if he has retained a penis or not. Many religious women cannot share intimate space with a man no matter if he has retained his penis or not. And further, many women just prefer not to, for privacy and dignity. Women's feelings matter just as much as men's.

I can't see what the C of E has to gain from investigating Brett, who has already left the church. The investigation is likely to attract more viewers to his YouTube channel which he uses to criticise the church, and I'm sure he'll welcome the attention.

The video talking about Rachel Mann is still there if anyone is interested:
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=6cIGtp8ABR4&pp=ygUYYnJldHQgbXVycGh5IFJhY2hlbCBtYW5u

rachel is clearly male and despite knowing males are not welcome in female spaces, uses them anyway. He wrote furiously on x when the government discussed the need for female only public loos as an example-no concern for excluded women . At church events he attends , misogyny in the cofe means rachel's demands and sense of entitlement are given priority over reality, with total disregard for women and girl's need for privacy and dignity from males. No woman can speak up . He pretends he is a lesbian and feminist with no concept of how offensive this is and he is supported ( as is his contempt for women) by church leadership.

Also noting that chemical castration as a treatment for paedophiles and rapists had some unintended consequences- namely that sadistic men who are unable to gratify themselves by sexually assaulting victims with their penis may choose to use more brutal and violent methods out of frustration.

Absolutely there’s such a thing. I know medics who have treated the genuinely, debilitatingly dysphoric. Their existence should no more be questioned than ours, and I wish them every accommodation possible…

…That doesn’t harm women in kind.

A sufficiently challenging societal dilemma even before No debate, militant activism & ideological capture made things, I fear, immeasurably more difficult for many of this minority, too.

The trans umbrella encompasses other very real phenomena, too. But can make it difficult to draw the necessary distinctions between these to research & address(/treat/support/accommodate etc.), as needed, them, too. For example, transient gender dysphoria in adolescents, cross-dressing in adult men, & other possible contraindications & issues.

It’s a mess.

The ONLY reason for allowing a male into women's spaces - whether he has put on a skirt, had plastic surgery, or is wearing make up - is to prioritise his feelings over those of women. There is no other explanation.

I don't actually think its a mess, or even that complicated- if we give women's voices and wants and rights equal weighting to those of men.

If a man feels he can't use men's spaces he can campaign for a third space.

There is no logical way that he can use a woman's space without turning it into a mixed sex space and destroying what he claims to want in the first place - a male free space.

Unless you think a male can change sex. Or unless you think a woman's desire matters less than a man's.

And in a society that saw us as equal, you’re right, Arthurbella - there would be no/less “mess”. But - awful through this is - I genuinely believe we’re decades, centuries from such a society (if one is, indeed, even possible). And in this context - in the messy fug of a flawed, misogynistic democracy - the less clarity we have on these issues, the fewer people understand (or even feel able to countenance) that pretty simple argument. There is a mess that is obscuring the misogyny. Partly maybe the inevitable product of a flawed, misogynistic democracy! Partly cynically engineered. Partly, yes, because the genuinely dysphoric do need accommodating in some way - just not the ways we reject that are being imposed on us regardless…

Gender dysphoria is undoubtedly real, and I’m sure it causes genuine suffering.
However, I don’t think pretending people with gender dysphoria can change sex helps that suffering at all. Because they know, and everyone around them knows, it is just a pretence.

I am offended when men are called women. Even if the man is very, very sad that he is a man.

On the other side, progressives inside and outside the Church are outraged at what they see as disrespect and bigotry.
Are you calling them progressive so you see them as in the right, or do they call themselves that?

Rachel Mann is a man, whatever he has done to his body, and however he feels about it.

Yes. I remember reading a peer reviewed article about this. It didn’t mean that they were all ‘sexless’ at all.

This is a misconception that is fucking dangerous.

Progressive is a neutral term, meaning somebody who advocates social reform and change. It's often used as the opposite of traditionalist.

Rachel (still a) Mann.

I'm with pp on using pronouns. Their all too frequent use as a gotcha - you accept us as women, THEREFORE.. - makes it very hard to go back to a naive "be kind" stance.

Chrortling though. I just read the article on archive, and that archdeacon truly is something else. Looks like he's one of the separate-but-equal numpties vehemently opposed to women priests (they call it "complementarianism.") So Rachel should be a-OK with him, right? Turns out no - relinquishing masculinity is even worse than being born with the wrong bits for their Jesus-had-a penis theology.

"The Rev Murphy, in a 32-minute-long YouTube video, criticised the CofE for putting “a radical rainbow activist” in a “position of high authority in a diocese”....“You may roll your eyes, if you are a complementarian, that another feminist is getting a prominent high-ranking position in the CofE, but this is worse than that.
“The Rev Rachel Mann is in fact, biologically, a bloke, who identifies and lives as a woman.”
He goes on to question whether the appointment is “positioning” the Rev Mann to become the CofE’s first transsexual bishop and questions how she would deal with a member of her congregation who sees her lifestyle as in “complete rebellion against God’s word”.

So you're supportive of the change of telling people we need to accept people's feelz or be a bigot?

The genuinely dysphoric don’t need ‘accommodating’, they need proper psychotherapy to explore the reasons for their dysphoria, and to enable them to reconcile themselves with the reality of their sex.

It's definitely not 'traditionalist' for women to say no to men.

It is very traditionalist to pressure women to submit to and prioritize men over themselves at the expense of their own feelings and equality.

The whole idea of 'be kind' and 'be sympathetic' and 'be understanding' means, woman pretend for this man to make him happy because poor feelings needing soothing.

What interest does the man - or anyone involved in this agenda - have in my feelings? Where is the reciprocation of how it feels to me to have to say something I do not believe and openly subordinate myself, my reality, my feelings to someone with a penis who is just a more important kind of person?

Its plain sexism OP. Good old traditional male supremacism, and that's it. That's all that there is in trying to compel and shame and nitpick and wangle women into performing a lie for the benefit of a male ego. A male who has no fucks to give about them. I'm not being complicit in my own abuse. Repeatedly trying to coerce my co operation by telling me how very distressed and sad this man is, or calling me names is not going to do much to convince me I'm wrong either: merely that I was right to think the ideology behind the name calling is in fact abusive, and sees women as tools, resources and NPCs in male lives.