The Church of England has said that there is “no official definition” of a woman. The Telegraph has the story.
Senior bishops have insisted that until recently, the answer to questions such as what constitutes a woman “were thought to be self-evident”. However, now “additional care” is needed.
The stance comes as the institution struggles to remain relevant and progressive amid declining congregant numbers and in an increasingly secular society.
However, while it has been welcomed by liberal wings of the Church, the comments, from the Bishop in Europe, have provoked criticism – with gender-critical campaigners claiming “whether your starting point is biology or the Bible”, the answer to the question remains the same…
The issue of defining what a woman is emerged in written questions to the General Synod, the Church’s legislative body, in which Adam Kendry, a lay member of the Synod and a representative of the Royal Navy, asked: “What is the Church of England’s definition of a woman?”
In response, Dr. Robert Innes, the Bishop in Europe, said that “there is no official definition”.
The Bishop in Europe, who was also replying in his role as chairman of the Faith and Order Commission, said in his written response: “There is no official definition, which reflects the fact that until fairly recently definitions of this kind were thought to be self-evident, as reflected in the marriage liturgy.
“The LLF project however has begun to explore the marriage complexities associated with gender identity and points to the need for additional care and thought to be given in understanding our commonalities and differences as people made in the image of God.”…
Maya Forstater, executive director of the Sex Matters campaign group, described the Bishop’s answer as “shocking”, saying that “the concepts of male and female did not need to have a formal official definition” because “they are older than human life itself”.
She added: “When the Government redefined women through the Gender Recognition Act, the Church of England could have stuck with its long-established understanding, which makes sense whether your starting point is biology or the Bible.
“It is shocking that they so readily gave up the definition of man or woman for the state to amend, as if this fundamental truth did not matter.”
LGBT campaigners continued their longstanding policy of pretending not to understand what all the fuss is about, with Dr. Jane Hamlin, president of transgender charity Beaumont Society, saying: “I am puzzled why some people are so obsessed with defining ‘woman’. Why might this be an issue for the Church of England? Is it that women should be treated more favourably or less favourably? Why does it matter to the Church of England whether someone is a woman or not a woman? Surely it only matters to the individual themselves.”
Since we can assume Dr. Hamlin is actually following the very public, very heated debate on this topic over the past several years, the only puzzling thing is why she still hasn’t got her head around why many women and men think it matters greatly. Perhaps the trustees of Beaumont Society should find a president who can actually understand the opposing point of view in the central public debate in which their organisation is currently engaged.
For the Church of England, the puzzle is how an organisation which believes God created human beings “male and female” and still (for now) restricts marriage to a man and a woman has not yet managed to work out the difference between them. One wonders what bishops were doing while their school biology lessons were happening.
Worth reading in full.
To join in with the discussion please make a donation to The Daily Sceptic.
Profanity and abuse will be removed and may lead to a permanent ban.
Better get cracking re writing the creation story.
And lots of other bits of the bible.
LOL! Comment of the day award.
It’ll take them centuries! And spawn thousands more branches of Christianity, as if any more were needed!
The Great Schism of 1054 will not be a patch on it.
Adam and Eve both claimed to be gender-fluid and Eve especially couldn’t decide whether she was a woman or not, so procreation was out of the question. And so they went forth and failed to multiply, living confused, celibate lives. Ultimately the human race never came to be and the World came to be dominated by an advanced lizard race instead.
I bet they wouldn’t have the same problem if you asked what a man is. This, to me, is all designed, by some men, to denigrate and belittle women. It’s almost as if a certain section of society has found a way, they think, to fight back against emancipation ( 100 years too late) and womens lib of the 70s and 80s – a way of ‘putting us back in the box’. Kind of, if you can’t beat them, join them. It sickens me to the core. I have a great problem with writing this post without swearing, it makes me so angry.
Feminists have created the problem they now abhor. Successive waves of increasingly narcissistic behaviour amongst feminists has led to this problem. You wanted men to be women and women to be men. This is a perfect example of the snake eating its tail. I’m afraid you made the bed that you now lay in.
What a load of absolute twaddle. We wanted men to be women and women to be men? Eh? So it’s all our fault is it? Your reply, to me, rather proves my point.
Btw, how do you define a man? I know how I do.
II know how some people would define them…
Edmund’s Bastardy | Jeffrey R. Wilson (harvard.edu)
With all due respect…
No, it’s not all your ‘fault’, but feminists have played a pivotal role in the society we now find ourselves in. What do you think will be the result of a sustained campaign, waged over a number of decades, of telling men that they are worthless and need to be more like women, and telling women that they are not only equal, but far superior to men? In an age of emotion and disconnect with logic (driven to a large degree by feminist ideology), which sex would you choose to be?
We’ll agree to disagree… while we still can
Worth referencing the latest EE advertising campaign, highlighting ‘male sexist hate’ for women’s football. (I presume they mean misogynist, but aren’t confident that their demographic will understand…) No, Gareth Southgate, we don’t need a discussion about ‘Male Privilege’, not that you mean ‘discussion’, you mean ‘lecture’. No-one is hating women’s football, stopping women playing and enjoying the game if they choose. We might grumble that it is being force down our throats by the media in the name of equality, but nothing new about that, is there.? The most bizarre example is the call of ‘Toxic Masculinity’ by Boris about the Ukraine War. As with all wars, its men doing the fighting and dying. Not much room for sensitive feelings when you have had an AK47 put in your hands.
I’m struggling to see much overlap between people who regret the extent of women’s emancipation, i.e. very socially conservative people, and those who push the trans agenda, i.e. very socially liberal people.
You do raise an interesting point though. Why isn’t the question ever how do you define a man. It always seems to be a woman. I guess it must relate to the matter of giving birth to a child and the insane idea that not only women give birth to children.
I am not sure that the people who push the trans agenda could be called truly liberal. They’re just nasty and probably disturbed themselves, imho.
But then terms like liberal have become completely mangled, recently.
Some of them will certainly be disturbed.
It is, of course, ridiculous; more than ridiculous actually, it’s deeply disturbing. But we’re here on DS because we KNOW that. It’s so obviously wrong to us that we cannot possibly fathom why others cannot see the problem. The big question for us, surely, is why has this happened? What ills in society has led most people to distort what is reasonable? Personally, I believe the answer to that goes back at least four decades, possibly more.
Most people seem unable to think beyond the now, unable to consider what the now might become. I think this has always been true, but in an age of instant gratification that narcissistic attitude is now accepted as perfectly fine – normal actually. Just my opinion of course.
In my opinion it is this. Trans is gender dysphoria which is a mental illness. Wanting to be mutilated to look like the thing you are not is not brave and courageous. It is a sign that you are not well and need psychological help. I’m okay with people cross dressing and calling themselves Fifi if they choose, but that’s not what this is about. It is an industry pushing a political ideology and too many people are getting rich off the back of un-necessary treatments and surgeries..
Im not surprised by the CoE jumping on the woke band wagon now that Christianity is fading in popularity, after all as Voltaire stated ‘If God didn’t exsit we would need to invent him’. As most people are weak, there is a need to cling to hope, be it false or not. If you think about it, Wokeness and Christianity have a lot in common, anti science, illogical, anti free thought and dogmatic.
Christians invented the branches of modern science. Having looked at some of the science and politics around it, it seems to me more a case of the heirs of French revolutionary ideology (particularly in the 19th century) having latched on to certain scientific ideas to support philosophical and political views that they already had, and dogmatically and rigidly holding onto these ideas even when numerous problems turned up with them. A bit like the lockdowns and “vaccines” really. Plus ca change, as those French revolutionaries might say.
I think my use of Voltaire’s phrase has sent you off in the wrong direction Hugh.If you think religion is not dogmatic, like most, if not all ideologies, including those views pushed to the fore during the French revolution, you need to give your head a wobble.
Don’t worry, the dogma lives in me (to borrow a phrase)!
My point is that the Christianity I believe in is utterly reasonable, and a creator of science rather than opposed to science.
Hmm. “Christians invented the branches of modern science”.
Not sure the fact they were Christians has anything to do with it. I mean, it’s a bit like saying that maths was invented by people who believed vegetables are edible.
This comment was an allusion to the jibe sometimes made about Christians trying to cloak themselves in science, when it could just as well be said that this is what the atheistic (and indeed some theistic) proponents of rationalism, liberalism, modernism etc. have done. The atheist woke mob don’t own or have a monopoly on science and reason.
Few terms evoke a sense of dogmatism and intolerance like the term “anti-science”, only to be surpassed by “the science”.
“Science” is quickly becoming the cult of those who see themselves as intellectually superior, but don’t actually realise how much of scientific knowledge is based on faith (or what scientists refer to as assumptions).
The biggest act of faith by the science worshippers is of course the firm conviction that what isn’t known or understood will eventually be uncovered or revealed by science. That’s an act.of faith if ever there was one.
Not too different to the idea that faith in God will bring about light and reveal all.
Is the CofE even still a Christian church in any meaningful sense? “Male and female He created them”. Not just clerics at Durham cathedral rejecting key tenets of Christianity. Whatever would C.S. Lewis have made of it?
Are they just looking for a new audience?
They are losing christians. So go woke go broke refers to the Church of England too.
I stopped going to their churches during covid masking and now I will not go back.
They are masquerading as Christians.
I will only go to mass not the woke church one and where they know what a woman is.
Reminds me of the church I went to in May last year where, for the first time in many months I saw a church with not a single mask wearer. God bless the brave real Christians who made a stand against the “covid” nonsense
One of the few real Christians speaking out: Rob Slane (theblogmire.com)
Priests in certain Christian churches seem to understand the difference between boys and girls well enough.
The Church of England doesn’t know who God is.
****
‘Fit note’ Britain – a population groomed to stay at home
https://www.conservativewoman.co.uk/fit-note-britain-a-population-groomed-to-stay-at-home/
Dr Tom Goodfellow
**
Yellow Boards By The Road Stand for Freedom
Blind trust in authority is the greatest enemy of the Truth
**
Monday 11th July 3pm to 4pm
Yellow Boards
Junction A321 Sandhurst Rd &
Nine Mile Ride Finchampstead
Wokingham RG40 3LT
****
Stand in the Park Sundays 10.30am to 11.30am make friends & keep sane
Wokingham
Howard Palmer Gardens Sturges Rd RG40 2HD
Telegram http://t.me/astandintheparkbracknell
‘Bishop in Europe, Faith and Order Commission’, sounds like Faith is being written out by people who have none in the church and want people to turn to their state for guidance and control.
Could the C of E possibly get any more ridiculous?
If they don’t know what a woman is, then a large element of teachings in The Bible become completely meaningless. But then, it seems the vast majority of C of E clerics don’t believe a word of it anyway.
The Mirriam-Webster definition works for me:
woman: noun
wom·an | \ ˈwu̇-mən , especially Southern ˈwō- or ˈwə- \
plural women\ ˈwi-mən \
Definition of woman
a: an adult female person
b: a woman belonging to a particular category (as by birth, residence, membership, or occupation) —usually used in combination
eg. councilwoman
This is borne out in my personal experience: I recognize a woman. I know many women and refer to them as such. I am familiar with the concept of “woman”. A man cannot be a woman. A man may change into a woman – at which point she is a WOMAN! (And vice versa). It really is as simple as that.