Thread: Mystery re CofE LGBT and marriage situation Board: Oblivion / Ship of Fools.
To visit this thread, use this URL:
http://forum.ship-of-fools.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=70;t=028579
Posted by amber. (# 11142) on
:
I'm more puzzled than usual ![[Paranoid]](graemlins/paranoid.gif)
(which takes some doing). I'm trying to understand the current CofE policy on LGBT relationships, and failing.
By way of example...
If I am in a lesbian relationship with another woman in England, I'm able to join with her in a Civil Partnership, but not a marriage in a church.
If however my lesbian partner decides to undergo a gender reassignment and finally gets their certificate of this from the government, we are then able to marry in church (though individual clergy are able to refuse to take the service on grounds of conscience - they still have to permit us to use a church and find a vicar to do the service I think).
Several Bishops have recently said "Marriage is between and man and a woman and for the purposes of procreation". In neither case would natural procreation be possible (barring other possibilities that could lead to a child in the family e.g. surrogacy, AI, adoption)
So, same two people...and it's still an LGBT relationship, but very different outcome re marriage.
Is it supposed to make sense? If so, how?
Posted by FooloftheShip (# 15579) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by amber.:
Is it supposed to make sense? If so, how?
Since it came from the C of E, I very much doubt it. I suspect it's called "how to be as pastorally sensitive as possible without causing complete riots at HTB"
Posted by Curiosity killed ... (# 11770) on
:
It's a typical Anglican fudge. For example, Bishop John Gladwin (was Chelmsford) and several other bishops are patrons of Changing Attitudes but other churches are adamantly, as they would see it, upholding the Gospel* values of saying that homosexuality is a sin, so any policy has to be vague enough for both groups to be able to agree to it.
* yes, I do know that there's nothing about homosexuality in the Gospels, it's all the Epistles and Leviticus ...
Posted by amber. (# 11142) on
:
So as long as one party has dangly bits (no matter how late in life these were sewn into place) and the other one doesn't, that's the compromise?
I guess it's a position of some sort.
For example I'm trying to make sense of the questions in the consultation exercise on whether to allow Civil Partnerships to take place in religious buildings that's going on at the moment Equalities Dept Consultation link
It feels like I haven't got the foggiest idea how we got to the position we're in now, or where we might be heading next.
Posted by mrs whibley (# 4798) on
:
Makes sense to me, I'm afraid (although I don't necessarily agree that it is right).
Homosexuality and transsexuality are not at all the same thing, although they may co-exist. I think most gay men and women are quite happy with their birth gender identities and would be offended if it was suggested that they were really transsexuals in denial.
AIUI, trans people are born with contradictory mental and physical genders, and undergo a rigorous psychological assessment to demonstrate that this is the case before undergoing reassignment. They may be attracted to people of either gender (or both, of course). The church, along with everyone else, is legally required to recognise a post-operative transexual person as belonging to their 'new' gender - this being in fact the 'correct' gender for them. There should therefore be no bar to marrying them off to someone of the opposite sex just like everyone else. The position is not so simple if an opposite-sex couple decide to stay married despite one of them switching genders mid-marriage, as it were, but that might be a headache for another time.
The 'for the purposes of procreation' thing is a total red herring, as if the church took it seriously they would have to refuse to marry couples who were infertile, or elderly, or who admitted to not wanting children.
Posted by Honest Ron Bacardi (# 38) on
:
To some extent, amber, I think that part of your confusion lies in taking GLBT as a natural grouping to which all such external considerations - such as the one you mention in the OP - can be applied equally.
But GLBT is a kind of associative grouping. Considerations such as marriage, civil partnerships, gender reassignment surgery etc. etc. will affect different people in different ways according to which sexual minority they see themselves as being a member of.
Posted by Anglican_Brat (# 12349) on
:
quote:
I'm more puzzled than usual (which takes some doing). I'm trying to understand the current CofE policy on LGBT relationships, and failing.
If you feel the policy seems like ![[brick wall]](graemlins/brick_wall.gif)
, it's not you, it's the policy. The policy doesn't make sense. Issues of Human Sexuality stated that same-sex relationships for lay people are fine...as in they will be tolerated, but not celebrated through the Sacrament of Marriage. Same-sex relationships between clergy are fine...as long as they don't engage in sexual activity. I should ask if shaking hands and hugs are acceptable or if that falls under the Levitical prohibition.
Posted by amber. (# 11142) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by mrs whibley:
... I think most gay men and women are quite happy with their birth gender identities ....AIUI, trans people are born with contradictory mental and physical genders, and undergo a rigorous psychological assessment to demonstrate that this is the case before undergoing reassignment. They may be attracted to people of either gender (or both, of course). ... The position is not so simple if an opposite-sex couple decide to stay married despite one of them switching genders mid-marriage, as it were, but that might be a headache for another time.
The 'for the purposes of procreation' thing is a total red herring, as if the church took it seriously they would have to refuse to marry couples who were infertile, or elderly, or who admitted to not wanting children.
Blimey, yes, much to think about. So if we consider the example above and suggest instead that if I were to end up in a relationship with a woman who identified as male transgender.... but decided to stay female...we couldn't marry in church.
But if she decided to change genders, we then could.
Good point re the infertility/elderly thing etc.
Posted by Honest Ron Bacardi (# 38) on
:
Hang on. Did anyone actually say "for the purposes of procreation"? Even the Catholic church is more careful on that one, having a formulation something akin to being open to the possibility of procreation, that being amongst the other things a marriage is for.
I think it would be a foolish statement indeed, but can we just check the facts first pls?
Posted by amber. (# 11142) on
:
Yes, absolutely. For example the new Bishop of Reading (who is taking a service at an Inclusive Church today) is quoted online on this, e.g. BBC media link . I checked with the senior Bishop on this as well and he confirmed it was accurate as a statement, and I found out that other Bishops (not all) held the same viewpoint. As I say, puzzling.
Posted by amber. (# 11142) on
:
Apologies for the double post - apparently the procreation thing is part of the original Book of Common Prayer section on marriage.
one article about procreation and marriage
The actual wording
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by mrs whibley:
The position is not so simple if an opposite-sex couple decide to stay married despite one of them switching genders mid-marriage, as it were, but that might be a headache for another time.
It's a headache that Australian law already struggles to grapple with. Married people have a much harder time changing their gender, simply because the authorities want to avoid us having a same-sex marriage that's legally recognised. ![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
I seem to remember it's happened once anyway, with a tribunal ruling that someone's gender on their passport should be changed - so that the passport matched their actual appearance to the world and the person didn't have to deal with nightmarish questioning. But the government fought it tooth and nail.
Posted by Ricardus (# 8757) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Honest Ron Bacardi:
To some extent, amber, I think that part of your confusion lies in taking GLBT as a natural grouping to which all such external considerations - such as the one you mention in the OP - can be applied equally.
But GLBT is a kind of associative grouping. Considerations such as marriage, civil partnerships, gender reassignment surgery etc. etc. will affect different people in different ways according to which sexual minority they see themselves as being a member of.
Indeed. The argument can be made (though I have never seen it made in practice) that the Bible condemns homosexual sex but not gender reassignment, therefore only the former is sinful.
Actually it seems to me more logical that a conservative [on the Gay Issue] should support gender reassignment. Opposition to homosexual sex presupposes that the difference between genders is real and substantive. Opposition to gender reassigment suggests that gender differences aren't important, and the transgendered individual should just live with the sex they've got.
[ 24. April 2011, 18:17: Message edited by: Ricardus ]
Posted by leo (# 1458) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Ricardus:
The argument can be made (though I have never seen it made in practice) that the Bible condemns homosexual sex but not gender reassignment, therefore only the former is sinful.
I think evangelicals tend to argue from Leviticus - about people with crushed testicles not being allowed to be priests - if all Christians are part of the priesthood of all believers etc etc.
Posted by LQ (# 11596) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Ricardus:
quote:
Originally posted by Honest Ron Bacardi:
To some extent, amber, I think that part of your confusion lies in taking GLBT as a natural grouping to which all such external considerations - such as the one you mention in the OP - can be applied equally.
But GLBT is a kind of associative grouping. Considerations such as marriage, civil partnerships, gender reassignment surgery etc. etc. will affect different people in different ways according to which sexual minority they see themselves as being a member of.
Indeed. The argument can be made (though I have never seen it made in practice) that the Bible condemns homosexual sex but not gender reassignment, therefore only the former is sinful.
Actually it seems to me more logical that a conservative [on the Gay Issue] should support gender reassignment. Opposition to homosexual sex presupposes that the difference between genders is real and substantive. Opposition to gender reassigment suggests that gender differences aren't important, and the transgendered individual should just live with the sex they've got.
In fact, I cannot see how one can make a case that there is a Biblical doctrine on transgender one way or the other. Even David Virtue
has a sympathetic interview with an Anglican transwoman who deplores the trend toward blessing SSBs. Conservative evangelical or RC literature that insists that one's authentic gender necessarily corresponds to chromosomal sex has to go wayyy on a limb to make such a metaphysical claim compatible with Christian anthropology, much less a necessary consequence of it. It basically seems to take the position it already has with respect to homosexuality and try to back-read what it infers "the Biblical position" must be back onto itself.
The Holy Office's statement illustrates this well, that "the transsexual surgical operation is so superficial and external that it does not change the personality. If the person was a male, he remains male. If she was female, she remains female."
Although the author doesn't seem to be aware of the implications, he might be surprised to find that the transsexual is in agreement! A transman, for instance, would no doubt agree that he was born male, and remains male, and made only a "superficial and external" modification to reflect this reality. Surely this vindicates trans people's identities, unless th CDF means that we ought to defined ontological gender by the "superficial and external" measures!
[ 24. April 2011, 20:02: Message edited by: LQ ]
Posted by Bran Stark (# 15252) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Ricardus:
Actually it seems to me more logical that a conservative [on the Gay Issue] should support gender reassignment. Opposition to homosexual sex presupposes that the difference between genders is real and substantive. Opposition to gender reassigment suggests that gender differences aren't important, and the transgendered individual should just live with the sex they've got.
Huh? How does being conservative on homosexuality possibly lead to believing in "reassignment"?
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Bran Stark:
quote:
Originally posted by Ricardus:
Actually it seems to me more logical that a conservative [on the Gay Issue] should support gender reassignment. Opposition to homosexual sex presupposes that the difference between genders is real and substantive. Opposition to gender reassigment suggests that gender differences aren't important, and the transgendered individual should just live with the sex they've got.
Huh? How does being conservative on homosexuality possibly lead to believing in "reassignment"?
For starters, it helps some people stop being 'homosexual'.
Posted by Bran Stark (# 15252) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
For starters, it helps some people stop being 'homosexual'.
Only if you accept the notion that it's possible to change genders in the first pace. And a person who takes the traditional line on "thou shalt not lie with mankind as with womankind..." is also probably going to say that when God "made them male and female", He didn't make any mistakes.
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Bran Stark:
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
For starters, it helps some people stop being 'homosexual'.
Only if you accept the notion that it's possible to change genders in the first pace. And a person who takes the traditional line on "thou shalt not lie with mankind as with womankind..." is also probably going to say that when God "made them male and female", He didn't make any mistakes.
Yes, and then I'm going to point out to them the myriad other 'mistakes' that we accept people are born with. From Down's syndrome to spina bifida to a hare lip. If God didn't make any mistakes, why do any of those exist?
Posted by Bran Stark (# 15252) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
Yes, and then I'm going to point out to them the myriad other 'mistakes' that we accept people are born with. From Down's syndrome to spina bifida to a hare lip. If God didn't make any mistakes, why do any of those exist?
There's never any claim that God made us perfect. But we are told most emphatically that He made us male and female.
Posted by Beeswax Altar (# 11644) on
:
I assume you mean Genesis 1:27?
God made THEM male and female. Adam was male. Eve was female. Genesis 1:27 has nothing to say about gender reassignment.
Posted by iGeek (# 777) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
For starters, it helps some people stop being 'homosexual'.
Yes, some. Gender identity and sexual orientation are separate things.
Some change genders and remain attracted to their now, opposite gender so assuming the legal niceties get sorted, can enter into a conventional marriage.
Some change genders and remain attracted to others of their now same gender. So they're taking on more societal acceptance challenges than just gender re-assignment in that case. God bless 'em!
Posted by amber. (# 11142) on
:
Trans individuals certainly do account for a very wide variety
Those who stay in their birth gender and act/dress as the other gender
Those who choose partial difference e.g. hormone treatment but don't want surgery or legal recognition and effectively may end up with both sets of sexual physical characteristics
Those who choose full surgery (but what of the ones for whom surgery fails...?)
Those who are attracted to people of the opposite gender (which could apply to any trans person)
Those who are attracted to people of the same birth-gender (which could apply to any trans person)or indeed those who are only attracted to people with both options physically present
or those who were born with 'not sure' as their gender because they have both sets of physical features anyway.
etc etc
So, a future 'policy' on which ones count as Christianity-compliant and which don't might take a lot of writing, I guess. So might identifying which bits of the Bible apply to each set of people?
Posted by Ricardus (# 8757) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Bran Stark:
quote:
Originally posted by Ricardus:
Actually it seems to me more logical that a conservative [on the Gay Issue] should support gender reassignment. Opposition to homosexual sex presupposes that the difference between genders is real and substantive. Opposition to gender reassigment suggests that gender differences aren't important, and the transgendered individual should just live with the sex they've got.
Huh? How does being conservative on homosexuality possibly lead to believing in "reassignment"?
I wouldn't say it follows necessarily but I think it's more coherent.
Conservatives, with a spirit of licentiousness unknown to the Church Fathers, seem to have decided that male-female sex can actually be a good thing even when there's no intent to have children.
This raises the question: if male-female sex is actually a good thing (rather than, as St Paul would have it, at best a concession to human weakness), what's wrong with male-male sex, given that it's basically the same thing? The only way to get round this is to argue that actually it's totally different.
So what is the difference? The genitalia employed, obviously, but that's not relevant if you're not going to have children.
I think, in order to remain coherent, you have to say that there's some fundamental difference between male and female that goes beyond genitalia, which we can call "gender".
If there's a difference between gender and genitalia, it follows that it is at least conceivable to have male gender but female genitalia.
Since it is the distinction between gender, rather than genitalia, that is driving opposition to homosexuality, it also follows that gender is more important than genitalia in constructing someone's identity. quote:
Originally posted by Bran Stark:
And a person who takes the traditional line on "thou shalt not lie with mankind as with womankind..." is also probably going to say that when God "made them male and female", He didn't make any mistakes.
And intersex people don't exist?
Posted by Bran Stark (# 15252) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Ricardus:
Conservatives, with a spirit of licentiousness unknown to the Church Fathers, seem to have decided that male-female sex can actually be a good thing even when there's no intent to have children.
Haha I guess we're using "conservative" in different ways then.
Posted by Ricardus (# 8757) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Bran Stark:
quote:
Originally posted by Ricardus:
Conservatives, with a spirit of licentiousness unknown to the Church Fathers, seem to have decided that male-female sex can actually be a good thing even when there's no intent to have children.
Haha I guess we're using "conservative" in different ways then.
Could be. How many conservatives do you know who think it's licit to have sex only when it's for the purpose of procreation? Even the Catholics are allowed to use natural contraception.
[ 25. April 2011, 13:03: Message edited by: Ricardus ]
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by iGeek:
Some change genders and remain attracted to others of their now same gender. So they're taking on more societal acceptance challenges than just gender re-assignment in that case. God bless 'em!
Indeed. I was thinking about that very point today. The intersection between sexuality and gender identity can bring up a whole range of results, because they're two quite different things even though they get lumped together in 'LGBT'.
I know there's been some tension locally about transgender and intersex people feeling 'left out' of some LGBT events. Partly this is because of one person who is out to pick a fight with the world in general , but I do think it also occurs because there are such different issues. The one thing that we have in common, basically, is being uncommon - not fitting into the standard M + F equation. But the WAYS in which we don't fit in are quite distinct.
Posted by LQ (# 11596) on
:
It seems the confusion of sexual orientation and gender identity reaches the highest political levels.
quote:
Originally posted by Bran Stark:
There's never any claim that God made us perfect. But we are told most emphatically that He made us male and female.
But he didn't make "us" male-and-female. Some people are one and some the other (leaving aside, for the moment, the rare clinical exceptions already noted - although one cannot leave them aside indefinitely). Trans people are no exception to this. For the most part, they are either male or female like the rest of us. But the Bible tells us only that humanity was created with gender: it doesn't tell us with which gender any given individual human was created. And it certainly doesn't privilege genetics as the benchmark of choice.
Ricardus' point is one I had been pondering lately myself. Defendants of the taboo on sex between people of the same gender are typically anxious to salvage it (albeit with mixed success) from being simply a rule about what gets stuck in where and to insist that gender is substantial rather than accidental (again, theologically problematic cf. Haller but we'll leave it for now). The transgender phenomenon essentially pushes them to put their theological money where their mouths are: if gender is the all-encompassing ontological trait they make it out to be, then the mere failure of our fallen bodies to reflect it can hardly negate it. If however, the trans person is in denial because his or her chromosomes are truly what defines their gender then you have a feebler ("superficial and external" from the curial horse's own-goal-scoring mouth!) conception of gender on which to hang a distinction between the moral liceity of sexual union. Now, of course, I think that's the case anyway and am not advocating the "strong" conception but Bran and others who do should at least do so consistently.
Posted by Bran Stark (# 15252) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by LQ:
Defendants of the taboo on sex between people of the same gender are typically anxious to salvage it (albeit with mixed success) from being simply a rule about what gets stuck in where and to insist that gender is substantial rather than accidental...
Why? What's wrong with saying that the physical attributes of the sexes were ordained for a reason, as petty as it may seem to us? Just as Holy Baptism must use the particular chemical properties of water, so must Holy Matrimony use particular reproductive organs.
Why abandon the requirements of biological sex for some vague amorphous socially-defined idea of "gender"?
Posted by LQ (# 11596) on
:
Well, part of the problem is that gender *is* "socially-defined." Sex, as they say, is between the legs and gender between the ears. So when there is a disparity we can wring our hands about how it *ought* to be less vague and amorphous or we can make due as best we can with the wonderful, messy creation God has given us. We're still learning these things as through a mirror but it's clear that as a matter of fact the factors that go into determining one's gender identity are far more complicated than those constituting biological sex. Indeed, that is precisely why we treat transsexualism as a biological deformity and try to bring it in line with the psyche rather than trying to psychoanalyze the patient into psychological conformity to the gender they ostensibly "should" have by all appearances.
It isn't a matter of abandoning the biological properties, still less of placing them beyond the remit of God's plan (we are, after all, an incarnational faith!) so much as recognizing that they are not the extent of our identities. This shouldn't, from a Christian anthropological perspective, be controversial, but has a tendency to become suddenly so once transgender is under discussion.
As far as sexual orientation is concerned, what's "wrong" with simply shrugging our shoulders and saying the Lord works in mysterious ways is that those who do so are not same-gender families themselves. Rather, they shrug so on behalf of the families their shrugging condemns. It's a false piety of resignation offered third-hand. But whatever one thinks of all that, trying to get an endorsement of forcing people to live in incongruous bodies from Scripture is quite a reach.
Posted by Bran Stark (# 15252) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by LQ:
We're still learning these things as through a mirror but it's clear that as a matter of fact the factors that go into determining one's gender identity are far more complicated than those constituting biological sex.
That's true beyond a doubt. And so, I'm asking why Christian ethics should concern themselves with the fluid and mysterious concept of gender rather than the simple and immutable one of sex.
Posted by LQ (# 11596) on
:
I guess the short answer is that it's the most pertinent to human identity. The fact that, where there is disparity between the empirical and the ethereal we see ourselves in terms of the latter with respect to our self-definition tells us something. The "vague" dimension happens to be the one that shows itself to be crucial in forming our identities. Asking "why" that is so just kind of pushes the question back.
Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Bran Stark:
Why abandon the requirements of biological sex for some vague amorphous socially-defined idea of "gender"?
quote:
Originally posted by Bran Stark:
And so, I'm asking why Christian ethics should concern themselves with the fluid and mysterious concept of gender rather than the simple and immutable one of sex.
Ummm, aren't Christian ethics themselves fluid, mysterious, and socially-defined?
Posted by Alogon (# 5513) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Bran Stark:
But we are told most emphatically that He made us male and female.
Indeed; and Quentin Crisp, when challenged on that point, would reply, "male and female created he me." Does anyone want to differ with him about that? The verse does not preclude the possibility.
So David Virtue isn't necessarily against sex-change operations and then marriage in conformity with the reassignment? Hmm, this must be where a very conservative friend of mine got the same views. According to him, the correlation of gender dysphoria with pre-natal biochemical irregularities is too convincing to ignore. So there is a way to have acceptable sexual relations and marriage with another person of the same original physical sex-- but only after the operation, he warns. Go figure.
The question of what transgendered people were supposed to do in all those millennia before the invention of the sex change operation was, of course, left unaddressed.
Posted by Bran Stark (# 15252) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
Ummm, aren't Christian ethics themselves fluid, mysterious, and socially-defined?
Haha well they certainly are to non-Christians. But such people are not terribly qualified to make these theological arguments.
[ 26. April 2011, 00:03: Message edited by: Bran Stark ]
Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Bran Stark:
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
Ummm, aren't Christian ethics themselves fluid, mysterious, and socially-defined?
Haha well they certainly are to non-Christians. But such people are not terribly qualified to make these theological arguments.
Pitch-perfect Courtier's Reply!
Posted by Alogon (# 5513) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Bran Stark:
And so, I'm asking why Christian ethics should concern themselves with the fluid and mysterious concept of gender rather than the simple and immutable one of sex.
Because I think that Christ has equipped us to deal with the fullness of reality, rather than blocking some of it out of sight like an ostrich with its head in the sand.
When we find, for instance, a little boy who resolutely insists that he is a little girl, and we can see him becoming more and more miserable and terrified at puberty, what do we accomplish by telling him/her that he is just imagining things and he should grin and bear it-- especially given the biochemical evidence already cited?
When people tell their stories as honestly as they can, Christians listen.
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Bran Stark:
quote:
Originally posted by LQ:
We're still learning these things as through a mirror but it's clear that as a matter of fact the factors that go into determining one's gender identity are far more complicated than those constituting biological sex.
That's true beyond a doubt. And so, I'm asking why Christian ethics should concern themselves with the fluid and mysterious concept of gender rather than the simple and immutable one of sex.
Sex 'simple' and 'immutable'??
You do realise, don't you, that there are women out there with Y chromosomes? It's a recognised syndrome, where the Y doesn't 'turn on' during development.
Nothing to do with social constructs, it's pure science. Visual inspection says 'female'. Chromosomes say 'male'.
Posted by LutheranChik (# 9826) on
:
Going back to the OP...some of you who are aware of the ELCA's Churchwide Assembly decision a couple of years ago to accept partnered gay and lesbian pastors and rostered lay leaders may think that we're more progressive than the C of E...but there's a Catch-22 in the ELCA decision. As I remember the resolution, it encourages these partnered people to have their relationships solemnized in some way. Which seems reasonable, right? Except that the ELCA also discourages ELCA pastors from either conducting or participating in either marriage ceremonies or blessings of same-sex relationships.
Now, more than a few ELCA (and ELCIC, across the border) pastors are nonetheless conducting such ceremonies surreptitiously...but the situation just underscores the hypocrisy encouraged by such mushy, equivocal institutional acknowledgements of same-sex couples.
Posted by amber. (# 11142) on
:
Yes, that does sound like a mess.
I've been trying to think about what is or isn't 'gender'. Much to contemplate in the posts so far: Is gender about genetics? Is it about physical features? Is it about how male or female someone's brain is? Is it static in the case of the brain, or can it change over time? Is it a combination of these things?
Does God disapprove of someone who is born with a brain wired to the opposite gender's pattern of thought about sexuality, when He created them in the first place and doesn't make mistakes?
Think I need a cup of tea with all of this.
Posted by Amorya (# 2652) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by amber.:
[QUOTE] So if we consider the example above and suggest instead that if I were to end up in a relationship with a woman who identified as male transgender.... but decided to stay female...we couldn't marry in church.
But if she decided to change genders, we then could.
In the UK, the point at which you legally count as having changed gender is when you get a letter from a psychiatrist that says "X intends to transition, and this change is likely to be permanent". You can get that letter long before they give you any hormone tablets and years before you go to see a surgeon. At that point you can get a new passport with your correct gender on it, and by law nobody can disclose that you are transgendered (with a couple of exceptions). The church is allowed an exception when considering who to hire for a worship-leading position, but not anything else. A year or so after that point, you can request a new birth certificate which confirms that you have always been your correct gender.
Now, as a transgendered person, I obviously like the law. It's lovely to see Britain leading the way in civil rights. Trans people are lucky in this respect because it's simple to make hard-fast rules about discrimination: I get the same rights as any other woman, or someone is breaking the law. Many other minority groups don't have a simple legal binary switch that can make their rights unambiguous like that. In that sense I don't think it's that trans equality is treated differently than (say) gay equality, it's just a hell of a lot easier to legislate in few words.
In terms of God making us male or female (and without wishing to get into the debate about genderqueer identities), God most definitely made me female. Sadly my body needs a bit of adjustment before it's the same as a normal girl's. To argue that I should stick with my broken body without using medical science to fix it is just the same as saying someone with an ugly disfigurement shouldn't accept surgery to get it corrected: both are cosmetic problems that can cause severe problems associating with people, and lead to the associated mental stress.
Regarding the Church marriage debate, even aside from the legal argument, the Church would have to decide one way or another. If they told a trans-woman that she could only marry another woman, suddenly they'd have a marriage in their register between two females (as both people would have legal documentation saying they are female). That would open a whole other can of worms…
quote:
Originally posted by amber.:
I've been trying to think about what is or isn't 'gender'. Much to contemplate in the posts so far: Is gender about genetics? Is it about physical features? Is it about how male or female someone's brain is? Is it static in the case of the brain, or can it change over time? Is it a combination of these things?
A thought experiment: you have a female name, and tend to be referred to with female pronouns. I ask you: are you a woman? How do you know?
If someone gave you a magic wand, which could be used to make you completely resemble a man (including modifying society's perception and changing history a bit, so nobody would think anything amiss), would you wave it? You only have one go if you do, no going back, so it's a big decision.
I would guess most people would respond "Hell no!" or "Erm... I might be curious but that sounds a bit worrying/risky, so I guess not". If your response is "Yes, yes, oh please God let this be true!" then you are probably transgendered.
That doesn't actually answer your question about what is gender, except to say that someone's gender is what they feel it is. What I'm trying to say is, if someone has a mismatch between the gender they feel they are and that which other people label them as, it's a big deal. It is an issue that's at the core of their self concept. I don't know why some people are made this way, but I do know (from my own experiences and from people I've spoken to) that it's not some trivial detail of self-concept like which football team you support or which peer group you hang around with. For me it's more like the most important issue in my life, and somehow I don't know why.
quote:
Does God disapprove of someone who is born with a brain wired to the opposite gender's pattern of thought about sexuality, when He created them in the first place and doesn't make mistakes?
God made me who I am. If he doesn't want me to be true to myself, then he's only got himself to blame, and I'm quite prepared to tell him so on judgement day!
Posted by Bran Stark (# 15252) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Amorya:
Does God disapprove of someone who is born with a brain wired to the opposite gender's pattern of thought about sexuality...
And so it seems to me that being born with a brain which does that is a mental problem, not a physical one. Why do we say we ought to change the body not the mind in such a case?
Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Bran Stark:
quote:
Originally posted by Amorya:
Does God disapprove of someone who is born with a brain wired to the opposite gender's pattern of thought about sexuality...
And so it seems to me that being born with a brain which does that is a mental problem, not a physical one. Why do we say we ought to change the body not the mind in such a case?
Probably because current medical technology allows us to change the body with relatively few side effects, whereas attempts to re-wire the mind almost always end disasterously
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on
:
What Croesos said. There's two possible solutions in theory, but one solution is a lot more practical than the other.
And it IS a problem. Because the rate of transgender suicide is extremely high.
Most of the data proving that transgender people have a brain structure matching their claimed gender is derived from autopsies after they've killed themselves.
Also, it's not simply their 'mind', it's their brain. Part of their body. See above paragraph.
Posted by amber. (# 11142) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Amorya:
Originally posted by amber.:
I've been trying to think about what is or isn't 'gender'. Much to contemplate in the posts so far: Is gender about genetics? Is it about physical features? Is it about how male or female someone's brain is? Is it static in the case of the brain, or can it change over time? Is it a combination of these things? A thought experiment: you have a female name, and tend to be referred to with female pronouns. I ask you: are you a woman? How do you know?
If someone gave you a magic wand, which could be used to make you completely resemble a man (including modifying society's perception and changing history a bit, so nobody would think anything amiss), would you wave it? You only have one go if you do, no going back, so it's a big decision.
Amorya, thank you for your thoughts on this.
Am I a woman and how do I know this? That's an interesting question indeed. On all 'do you have a male or female brain' tests, mine comes out as more male than a male. And of course I'm lesbian by innate sexuality. Would I be happy in a man's body? Probably. But I very much like being in a female one and adopting a female way of being. I have enough operations and things medical in my life as it is. But that means of course that the option to marry a woman is nil. Whereas if I went for gender reassignment, I could. So I have to risk my health and safety in operations in order to comply with the church's requirements.
Either way I'd still be me, so it's a puzzle that the church would view the same thing between the same two people so very differently.
[edited because it turns out I can't spell...]
[ 27. April 2011, 08:21: Message edited by: amber. ]
Posted by Amorya (# 2652) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Bran Stark:
quote:
Originally posted by Amorya:
Does God disapprove of someone who is born with a brain wired to the opposite gender's pattern of thought about sexuality...
And so it seems to me that being born with a brain which does that is a mental problem, not a physical one. Why do we say we ought to change the body not the mind in such a case?
I'd just like to point out that you quoted Amber and attributed me there.
Amorya
Posted by Alogon (# 5513) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Bran Stark:
And so it seems to me that being born with a brain which does that is a mental problem, not a physical one. Why do we say we ought to change the body not the mind in such a case?
Ah yes. Changing her mind is a woman's prerogative... ![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
Seriously, I understand that they try to do in every case what is likely to work best, after due consideration. Before any irrevocable operation, the patient must spend months living as the desired gender to ensure that it fits. Sometimes the mind is changed, as you say. Sometimes it is not.
I have to think that the suffering of transgendered people is beyond the capacity of a mere gay person to imagine, although evidently our lot conduces to a modicum of empathy. Is theirs a situation on which someone who has no idea whatsoever of what they endure to impose blanket a priori prescriptions issuing from heaven-only-knows where? "There be eunuchs, which have made themselves eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven's sake." (Matt. 19:12) If you'd like to provide us a disquisition on those dominical words, go ahead. Meanwhile, not pretending to understand them, I can only suggest that they sound gravely cautionary against our judging such cases.
I once had a male-to-female transsexual in my choir. She was very nice. Although I never knew her before the change, another choir member who did told me that he "didn't want to give him the time of day" as a guy. The physical and life-style change also produced a dramatic personality change, for the better.
[ 27. April 2011, 17:27: Message edited by: Alogon ]
© Ship of Fools 2016
UBB.classicTM
6.5.0