Church Times article by Paul Vallely

[AlexandraLeaving]

Has anyone else read this article in Church Times and, if so, what do you think about it? https://www.churchtimes.co.uk/articles/2026/2-january/comment/columnists/paul-vallely-are-trans-and-women-s-rights-opposed

CT is not my usual read but it came up in my timeline.

I found the analysis a bit confusing and am not quite sure what I think about it, though that may be brain fog. It seems to be trying to distinguish between a logical argument about 'what is the truth of the matter' and a political argument about 'how to balance two sets of competing and at times conflicting rights'. I can't decide whether this means 'whatever is true, the problem of how to balance competing rights will still remain, so focus on the practicality rather than the theory' or 'truth doesn't matter'. What do others think?

I guess it is good that the issue is being discussed in language that does not paint GC feminists as right wing bigots, but I appreciate that is a low bar.

I think that he is perhaps saying that where you have a society with pluralistic beliefs, and particularly where it is a democracy, there will always be groups who disagree on what counts as "truth". So sometimes we really deciding how to leave space for people's different perspectives and beliefs in practice.

The state is not always in a position to judge which perspective is true or false.

I think this is an important distinction, practically. Ideally, for example, I would like to see gender ideology discredited throughout society, and people no longer influenced to believe it. To do that most people will have to be convinced that it is incorrect.

But that's not really the job of the state. The job of the state is to mediate between different factions of society.

It only goes so far though. As a model, it works fairly well when most people believe in a basic similar reality. Arguably, if there are groups with massively entrenched different perspectives, it may be impossible to find a way to exist together pragmatically.

The SCJ did the 'balance'.

It said 'you should have provisions, you just cannot deprive women of THEIR rights and provisions. You can have things of your own: but you cannot remove from others as they are equal to you in rights'.

That is what is causing all the howls, wails and drama. 'Balance' has become a word as deceptive and manipulative as 'woman' and 'kind'.

The starting point for those using that weaselly, filthy word, is that women should lose their rights for some men. Women should be deprived of privacy and equality for some men. The starting point of negotiation isn't equality, it's how much can reasonably be taken off women for men with very questionable attitudes towards women and their humanity.

And fuck that. No decent person would believe in this.

Women are over 50% of the population. Those who do not wish to be known by the sex they were born with are under 1%(?).

Any rights and responsibilities are not equally weighted.

"Most men are not rapists but most rapists are men" it says.

No. All rapists are men.

We do hear a hell of a lot about these men's rights.

What responsibilities do those men have to ensure that their desires and self expression does not make a space wholly unusable, unpleasant and aversive for many women?

Quite. Despite attempts to appear neutral I think Paul Vallely is showing which side he is on.

He also says:
The slippage is over whether “woman” is defined by biology, psychology, sociology, or law.
"Woman" can be defined by psychology or sociology? No, and the SCJ says no. It's only biology.

And then: When one side insists that only one meaning can be legitimate in all contexts, conflict becomes inevitable.
See above, only biology, only 1 meaning. So is Paul excusing trans rage?

It sounds like he tried so hard to keep an open mind, it fell out of his head. 🤮

I just used up my other free article for this month to read what Church Times published by Nicholas Reed Langen in May after FWS SCJ (https://www.churchtimes.co.uk/articles/2025/2-may/comment/analysis/analysis-woman-defined-within-limits) and reminded yet again that the Church of England is another captured institution alongside the NHS, Civil Service, W.I., GG...

Totally agree. That word 'balance' might sound nice and reasonable, but in practice means that everyone's protections are compromised.

The fact is that gender ideology is an extremist and uncompromising ideology. It seeks not 'to balance' or 'to share'...it seeks to radically overhaul, as well as undermine all existing references, understandings, categories, protections and rights as they relate to sex.

Thank you all. You’re giving voice to the things that were swirling around in the brain fog of my head. I think the other thing that was troubling me is that clear definitions are needed for rights to be protected. We need to know who falls into the categories “woman” and “non-woman” (or indeed “gender reassigned” and “non-gender-reassigned”) so we can show whether unlawful discrimination has taken place. And if a definition is based solely on stereotypes, that is no good. So perhaps not “truth” in the purest sense, but “accuracy” and “objectivity” matter. A male person who has never been in a disadvantaged or minority position might not feel that as viscerally as those of us who have or do.

At least he was anti men in women’s changing rooms. A small blessing I know, but still a blessing.

I don't think this is a helpful argument as it implies that in any situation, the majority view is to be upheld, whatever the moral or practical issues.

In this case, the practical issues are clear as nobody is being denied access to services (just use the ones appropriate to your sex) and the moral issue is clear too: the protection and safeguarding of women and girls

My immediate thought.

Exactly. 'It's a small group and it doesn't matter' is a lousy excuse and paves the way to nowhere good at all, it's reversing the progress of the last fifty years.

But it's exactly what is being used every time a woman says 'but I'm all right and don't mind mixed sex spaces' or an activist says 'it's only old stupid women and most lesbians love straight sex/hardly any women complain'. This is never challenged by the establishment or politicians.

And it's also exactly what the government are about to use in severely limiting SEND provision for children and their parents. The majority provision is all that will be available, as it's too expensive to cater for more specialised provision.

There needs to be clear explanation of why this group of men are so very special and important and to be given special better treatment that the massive majority can't expect.