Page 3 | Trans archdeacon story in the Telegraph – and my dilemma

RevUlsion · 2023-12-17T15:09:56+00:00

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

Original poster

RevUlsion · 17/12/2023 19:04

WhereIsBebèsChambre · 17/12/2023 18:56

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

Show quote history

No. I'm gender critical. I don't support it at all. I was just using a neutral term used in politics, sociology and everyday speech, to refer to that particular group of people and their views. I profoundly disagree with them.

OP posts:

MargotBamborough · 17/12/2023 19:04

Catiette · 17/12/2023 16:03

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.

This.

Some people have the right not to be offended, but not others.

It's not OK to call a male person a bloke, but fine to call women "expectant assholes".

I'll start caring who I offend with my views when they start caring about who they offend with theirs.

Catiette · 17/12/2023 19:07

@Didoreththeterf, my understanding is that that’s not possible in most cases, but I’m not a medic. Are you?

Melroses · 17/12/2023 19:07

as Rachel has, instinctively seems to me quite different from men with penises and wigs demanding access to women’s spaces.

You didn't see the poetry before it was deleted it off You Tube then.

MargotBamborough · 17/12/2023 19:12

Silverbirchtwo · 17/12/2023 18:02

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.

So how do we enforce a law that says only men who no longer have man bits can use women's spaces then?

Original poster

RevUlsion · 17/12/2023 19:13

Froodwithatowel · 17/12/2023 19:02

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.

Edited

I never said it was traditionalist for women to say yes or no to men! I was just giving a dictionary definition of the word progressive.

(If you did want to relate the word traditionalist to my train of thought, it would be be something like: 'Self-proclaimed progressives, who see themselves as opposing traditionalists in the church, say...')

OP posts:

FlirtsWithRhinos · 17/12/2023 19:16

RevUlsion · 17/12/2023 18:16

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.

There absolutely is such a thing as gender dysphoria. It is not the same thing as in any way being the opposite sex.

The issue is not that people with gender dysphoria exist, nor that society such wish to support and protect them as society should do for any vulnerable or marginalised group. The issue is that TRAs are pushing the fallacious belief that the feeling of gender dysphoria is somehow an indication that someone is "really" the opposite sex, and based on that demanding that such people be treated in all ways as the opposite sex - including single sex opportunities and protections, and having the right to have their voice heard as a representative of that sex.

Original poster

RevUlsion · 17/12/2023 19:16

Melroses · 17/12/2023 19:07

as Rachel has, instinctively seems to me quite different from men with penises and wigs demanding access to women’s spaces.

You didn't see the poetry before it was deleted it off You Tube then.

Please say more...

OP posts:

Topofthemountain · 17/12/2023 19:18

I really don't agree with progressive being a neutral term, it is no less neutral than traditionalist.

RebelliousCow · 17/12/2023 19:21

RevUlsion · 17/12/2023 18:16

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.

What I've come to realise is that most men who say they've been "dysphoric" since childhood, or have " known they were female" since childhood - what that really means is they've been cross dressing and fantasising about being a girl since then. Cross dressing is actually quite a prevalent male fetish; this is becoming ever more clear.

Eddie Izzard used to be very overt and up-front about his cross dressing; now he's reinvented the story to say he's "been trans since childhood". If you read the transwidows thread you will gain a lot of insight into what motivates many of these men; how their path towards transition develops ( especially those now calling themselves lesbians)

MargotBamborough · 17/12/2023 19:22

RevUlsion · 17/12/2023 18:16

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.

I believe there is such a thing as gender dysphoria.

I don't believe it should make a difference to how we define women and men or who is entitled to use which spaces in society.

A male person with gender dysphoria is not the same as a female person without gender dysphoria. They have two important differences and zero things in common.

It's not possible to make or enforce a rule which says that only people with gender dysphoria can access single sex spaces for the opposite sex. Even if you maintained the requirement for a formal diagnosis of gender dysphoria to get a gender recognition certificate and made the rule that only people with gender recognition certificates could use single sex spaces for the opposite sex, who's checking?

No one is standing at the door of the changing rooms in M&S waiting to check the gender recognition certificate of a clearly male person who turns up wanting to try on bras.

So as soon as you accept that some male people should be allowed into women's spaces you have to let them all in.

And even if we all knew and all agreed that the male person currently getting undressed in the changing rooms at the gym has genuine dysphoria, what does that change for the Muslim women, the rape survivors and all the other women who still don't feel comfortable sharing a single sex space with that person?

Nothing.

We can recognise that gender dysphoria exists without believing that the whole of society needs to be reorganised to accommodate it, to the detriment of others.

Sometimes life just sucks. Sometimes you have cancer. Sometimes you have rheumatoid arthritis. Sometimes you have gender dysphoria. None of the other horrible conditions that people are living with require the rest of society to either participate in a falsehood or compromise their own rights, safety and dignity. So why should gender dysphoria?

WomenShouldStillWinWomensSports · 17/12/2023 19:28

I would have a lot more truck for this sort of thing if the C of E wasn't one of the most hypocritically misogynistic organisations going who like to benefit from women doing voluntary or woefully underpaid work when needed but like to put them back in their boxes between times and don't properly promote them upwards by their culture despite claiming they do to try and keep hold of all the "progressive" and "moderate" Christians. At least most of the other misogynistic faiths don't try and pretend otherwise.

It feels like even in their moment of trying to show they hire women, they had to hire a man to do the job of being hired as a woman.

Original poster

RevUlsion · 17/12/2023 19:39

WomenShouldStillWinWomensSports · 17/12/2023 19:28

I would have a lot more truck for this sort of thing if the C of E wasn't one of the most hypocritically misogynistic organisations going who like to benefit from women doing voluntary or woefully underpaid work when needed but like to put them back in their boxes between times and don't properly promote them upwards by their culture despite claiming they do to try and keep hold of all the "progressive" and "moderate" Christians. At least most of the other misogynistic faiths don't try and pretend otherwise.

It feels like even in their moment of trying to show they hire women, they had to hire a man to do the job of being hired as a woman.

Interesting. Can you be specific? What roles do you think women are excluded from, or discouraged from applying for, in today's C of E?

OP posts:

JellySaurus · 17/12/2023 19:56

TrainedByCats · 17/12/2023 17:18

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

Magdalen Burns

Trans archdeacon story in the Telegraph – and my dilemma

JellySaurus · 17/12/2023 19:57

Magdalen Berns

Didoreththeterf · 17/12/2023 19:57

Catiette

@Didoreththeterf, my understanding is that that’s not possible in most cases, but I’m not a medic. Are you?

Yes.
A doctor who is appalled by the damage being done to young bodies by members of my profession who are basing treatments on sexist nonsense, rather than scientific evidence.

There is little to no solid evidence on treatments for gender dysphoria. It is not true that psychotherapy cannot help. When Dr Az Hakeem ran therapy groups at the Portman Hospital, he found most of his patients desisted. As did most children with gender dysphoria prior to the use of puberty blockers.

Str8talkin · 17/12/2023 20:04

This reply has been deleted

This was started by a persistent troll.

IcakethereforeIam · 17/12/2023 20:07

It's an unfalsifiable catch-all used by, mostly, men who may be genuinely mentally ill or who may be, in the deathless prose of Humza Yousaf, 'at it'.

TWETMIRF · 17/12/2023 20:11

Silverbirchtwo · 17/12/2023 18:02

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.

I agree completely, he is very likely to be safe in women's spaces. The women on the other hand would not be safe from him

anyolddinosaur · 17/12/2023 20:22

@RevUlsion You said "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." Actually I dont think anyone has said it makes no difference except you and I dont think anyone said there is no gender dysphoria either.

Gender dysphoria is a difference between very traditional (I'd say outdated) .ideas of how man and women should behave and how the individual wishes to behave. . Many people grow out of it when they realise they dont have to comply with outdated ideas of gender. For a variety of reasons some people persist in saying they have gender dysphoria. They need help and if they dont get it and physically harm their bodies then most people would feel pity for them. Of course it makes a difference - but not to pretending they are female or thinking they belong in areas reserved for women.

Those who want "social change" that involves reverting to the attitudes of the 1950s are not progressive since progress implies moving forward not backwards.

Karensalright · 17/12/2023 20:27

If i am reading this correctly the C of E are getting all exorcised ( no pun intended )about calling a genetical male with bits removed “a bloke”, whilst at the same time refusing to marry gay people, because they are committing a sin? Am i correct? So in effect the C of E approve of conversion therapy. What a fucking suprise.

TinselAngel · 17/12/2023 20:30

Is he the one who wrote a poem about a young girl's arse on the bus, or is that somebody else?

HagoftheNorth · 17/12/2023 20:31

To agree with several pp, a man with gender dysphoria is not a woman. My experience is that he is generally unable to describe what he means by ‘woman’ in this context (indeed asking for a definition is described as a dogwhistle). In my opinion, anyone in mental distress should be treated (medically and socially) with compassion, but colluding with them is unlikely to be the best approach

Fififafa · 17/12/2023 20:39

”A man with the deep belief 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.”

Well said @FlirtsWithRhinos !

We as women need to stop colluding in this falsehood, it’s damaging us!

StrongerThanYouTh1nk · 17/12/2023 20:40

Genuine and persistent gender dysphoria means that a person (let's say a man) wants to be a woman very strongly, and for a very long time, possibly to such a degree that some cosmetic or surgical procedures have been done to make it easier to live with these thoughts. People like this deserve respect and compassion. It doesn't make them women though.