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.
That should provide enough pollution to offset all the so-called benefits of the buses.
That doesn’t look like it will be helping the air quality in the area – quick double the ULEZ charge!
Oh, joy!
Another nail in the Carbonocracy coffin.
Presumably every ebus will now be grounded?
Like airliners, they should have escape chutes fitted with the proviso all the passengers must be able to escape within 90 secs even if half the exits are blocked.
Overreaction – there are far more fires on diesel buses. I mean which of us can’t remember having to jump off a bus to avoid the flames at some stage during our lives? Or, come to that, having to jump off their bicycle when it caught fire?
I almost bit
It would be interesting to know what caused this, many bus fires start due to heat soak from the air brake compressor due to insufficient thermal isolation. Of course an electric bus can also have air brakes and a compressor.
Don’t electric buses usually have regenerative braking to store the energy from the momentum back into the batteries?
Edited for clarity (I hope).
They will have, but also conventional friction brakes as well for low speed, heavy braking, or when the traction battery is full.
there are far more fires on diesel buses
There used to be – when we were allowed to smoke on the upper deck.
Nah, I don’t really miss smoking with my schoolmates on the upper deck of the 362 or 363 bus.
I don’t know about busses but it is true that there are vastly more fires per 100,000 vehicles started by diesel/petrol vehicles than electric vehicles.
https://spectrum.ieee.org/lithium-ion-battery-fires
I wonder if that’s true if we take into account the ages of these vehicles? Per 100,000 vehicles less than 5 years old?
I haven’t read your linked item yet – perhaps it addresses that.
A reasonable point but we are talking about fires being over 20 times more common in petrol/diesel than electric so age would have to make an enormous difference.
The point being, petrol/diesel fires are easy and quick to extinguish, battery fires not so as they are runaway thermal reactions.
Also the sample size ICE v BEVs are not comparable.
The diesel/petrol fires are two-part exothermic chemical reactions. The fuel and the air. Block out the air and cool the fuel and the reaction (fire) stops.
A lithium ion battery ‘fire’ is not combustion (though it can set light to other stuff around it). The energy is stored in the chemicals inside with no air required. Once the energy is being released in an uncontrolled way it will continue. You can try to dilute it with water but the best bet is to isolate and cover the chemicals with something non-combustible like sand and wait for the reaction and heat to die down.
I saw a video from Australia, where several e-bikes caught fire at night in a residential property. The fire brigade doused them and helpfully left them outside the property, where the morning sun prompted another explosive flare-up.
As I understand, the only sure way to extinguish these fires is to flood the battery with salt-water, thus shorting out the individual cells.
Both these points are addressed in the reference:
Another aspect is the speed at which the fire proceeds, making it very difficult to get the vehicle away from other flammable objects and abandon it without injury. In some cases this is a major risk to people.
Your reference’s reference separates out hybrid vehicles from electric vehicles:
‘Hybrid vehicles actually come in number one with the most fires per 100K sales.’
Hmmm…….
Odd isn’t it? Maybe there is something about the design of hybrid vehicles.
Hybrid vehicles are constantly charging and discharging the battery. It is under greater stress and hence inherent faults are exposed more rapidly.
A fire in an EV cement mixer lorry in Australia was diagnosed as being caused by a single faulty cell among thousands. Nearly all of which combusted eventually after 10 minutes or so.
Not really.
‘This interesting blend of power sources, although innovative and efficient, unintentionally generates a significant amount of heat. While this heat is crucial for the operation of hybrid cars, it also poses a potential threat to the integrity of the lithium-ion battery.
When a cell of this Lithium-ion battery overheats, it can enter a process called ‘thermal runaway’ ……when heat and gases fuel even higher temperatures and still more gases, including hydrogen and oxygen, in a self-fulfilling loop until the cells begin to burn and burst. A toxic vapour cloud develops, bringing with it the risk of deflagration. Once thermal runaway has started, no battery management system or circuit breaker can stop it. “A battery fire can be controlled but it cannot be extinguished,”
Autocar Nov 2023
‘Combustion vehicles catch fire for a number of reasons, but the biggest is a collision. According to data from the National Fire Prevention Association, an estimated 560 people died in car fires in 2018, with the majority of these fatal fires caused by collisions.
You’re more likely to see a gas car fire after a collision than an electric car fire, simply because electric vehicles aren’t as common on the roads as gas vehicles. However, this doesn’t necessarily mean that electric vehicles are less likely to catch fire.
Electric vehicles and hybrids tend to catch fire because of their batteries. Battery fires are dangerous and harder to put out than gas fires.’
Autoinsurance: Gas vs. Electric Car Fires Dec 2023
Field Marshal Haig knew a thing or two:
‘I feel sure that as time goes on you will find just as much use for the horse—the well bred horse—as you have ever done in the past.’ (1926)
Lasagne?
Updated to add: That Monty Python sketch…
You can’t cook a piston engine!
You can’t eat it raw.
Should be excellent but you’ll have to be quick:
‘In fact, Mr Leban is the French capital’s last remaining horse butcher and his establishment is on its last legs. “You can find horse meat in markets sometimes but I’m the capital’s last horse butcher,” says Mr Leban, a “cheval extra” label behind him beside rows of red wine.’
DT 28 Dec 2023
I was thinking more about the horse meat scandal.
The scandal being that the makers of the processed foods didn’t know what was going into them – not that it was horse meat.
I’ve never (knowingly) tried it although I had my suspicions about some of the tinned (known as ggg: gopping green) goat meat in certain overseas ration packs.
Italians clearly prefer the combustion engine:
https://myitalian.recipes/recipe/horse-meat-with-mustard-and-thyme
I am intrigued by the down arrows. Is it because readers don’t believe the figures or because they simply don’t like reading anything that conflicts with their prior beliefs? Or maybe they just automatically click down on anything I write?
We don’t do that, and the figures should stand for themselves. Mind you I watched an interesting video where a Chinese BYD EV in China was fired 5m vertically when its traction battery exploded. It also blew the doors off
What is it you don’t do?
I don’t automatically down vote you, although some of what you write I don’t think is properly evidenced. I’m this case I think the figures may be correct, although as ever statistics can be impenetrable.
In the China video, there was a Chinese guy asking why BYD cars often burn or explode after a crash. He pointed out that Teslas rarely do this and expressed concern that the Chinese-made vehicles seem to do it in a noticeable proportion of crashes.
So when you wrote “we don’t do that” you meant “I don’t do that”? (Which is entirely reasonable).
I was hoping that others share my sense of fair play.
More seriously – I imagine that most readers here think of themselves as not being misled by alarmist MSM stories and making judgements based on data and evidence. It seems to me that in the case of EV fires the reverse is true – even Will Jones has fallen for the MSM stories.
I think we should ask why vehicle fires are reported so much these days, when they were not until the last decade or so. And then why is it that those same reports shy away from mentioning battery fires even when they definitely are EV or hybrid fires.
For example?
A combination of EV and Hybrid stats (and bicycles, scooters etc.) for fires make scary reading; both spontaneously combust as a consequence of battery technology.
Petrol and diesel cars mainly catch fire due to pilot error: collision.
References above.
So what? A combination of fossil fuel and hybrid would be even scarier.
But that would be just plain silly because petrol cars are not combusting due to battery fires.
Hybrids and EVs are combusting for similar reasons.
Why assume that hybrids are combusting for similar reasons to EVs when they combust at a rate like petrol cars?
Because that is where the evidence leads:
‘Both hybrid and electric vehicle recalls were all related to battery issues. This is a stark difference from the gas recalls, which were recalled for issues with fuel leaks, electrical shorts, and anti-lock braking systems (ABS).”
https://www.autoinsuranceez.com/gas-vs-electric-car-fires/
Recalls are not the same as fires. The number of recalls for the hybrid models was minute. So even if they were all for battery issues it doesn’t explain the large number of hybrid fires. After all if they were down to joyrides and collisions that would not feature in the recall data. The article draws quite unjustified conclusions from the recall data.
Errrr…….the reason that the vehicles were recalled was because so many of them were catching fire when new…….
The recalls simply indicate the problem area: the battery.
Hybrids catch fire most frequently because hybrid batteries have a higher duty cycle than EV batteries, which leads to cells failing due to an internal short circuit.
The problem for EV proponents is that most people prefer hybrids to EVs, but hybrid technology is still high risk, expensive to insure.
Also statistical sample sizes in this area are still too small.
There are quite a few Australians on here.
For a moment I actually thought you meant 5 miles…
Please don’t fall for the evangelist 20 / 1 ratio nonsense!
The biggest causes of vehicle fires are 1: arson 2: crashes
Youths who like to joyride with other people’s cars usually set them on fire afterwards, they have not and do not normally joyride electric vehicles!
More ice cars on the road = more ice crashes hence -fires
Petrol and diesel does not combust on its own for no reason, vehicle fires are usually the result of electrical or hot mechanicals problems not the fuel, are easy to put out and don’t poison the air or ground water with toxic chemicals!
The key word in the report you linked too is ‘involved’ not spontaneous combustion!
You seem desperate that there should be bad news about electric vehicles!
The 20 to 1 was for Sweden, the US figures are more like 60 to 1. Are you claiming that these figures are wrong or simply that they are explained by the propensity for electric vehicles not to be stolen for joy rides or crash?
There is no shortage.
Mr Dinger64 makes a good point. Joyride fires in petrol vehicles will account for a good percentage of those figures (and close to if not zero for EV/hybrids).
But isn’t that an advantage of EVs – less likely to attract joyriders and get into collisions (according to Dinger64) and therefore less likely to catch fire?
It would be if it wasn’t for the fact that they don’t attract joyriders because, frankly, they’re a bit rubbish.
Sorry mate but facts are facts! Cars in general do not combust on their own, there is always an ignition point and then the fuel and oxygen take over, the cause of the ignition doesn’t care which vehicle it takes place in!
And btw, wide use of electric vehicles will be bad news for everyone as these hotter (2500°C compared to ice fuels 900°C) more destructive fires (fracturing reinforced concrete and melting structural steel) become more common place
I get that but are you disputing that fires are far more frequent in petrol/diesel vehicles than EV vehicles?
No need to dispute, its irrelevant, fire is fire, however, consequences of fire differ, ev fire are worse no matter the cause, if evs are involved the consequences will be worse!
The difference is that petrol/diesel vehicle fires are much easier to extinguish. If you catch the fire early you can put it out yourself with a fire extinguisher. With EVs, if the fire involved the battery, then it takes vast quantities of water to put the it out and the fire can re-ignite hours, days, or even weeks later. The fumes and water run-off are usually contaminated with toxic chemicals from the battery which can be a serious pollution issue. The batteries also burn a lot hotter than fossil fuels (over 2000 degrees Celsius) increasing the risk of the fire spreading to anything nearby. In short, an EV fire is a much more serious incident than an ICE vehicle fire and is a lot more costly for the emergency services to deal with.
That’s why it is important to extinguish electric fires properly (not using vast quantities of water). See my reference and also soundofreason’s comment.
There is no way to extinguish thermal runaway in a lithium-ion battery!
The official fire department advice is, let it burn itself out!
Hi, I’m in the habit of clicking through and reading sources. For what it’s worth I drive an EV. You’re right, and also:
Also worth noting the summary / op-ed you link to isn’t very clear on its sources. Instead of linking to the actual data table, it takes you to the data repository, from where it’s going to take time I don’t have to find it. Call me a cynic but I’m always suspicious of that….I have previously found it’s like “I’m going to misrepresent something in a slightly subtle way and I’m just going to make it a bit harder for anyone to call me out.”
That one lost the room!
Daily.
You got me, until I read the last sentence (although, isn’t magnesium used in some cycle frames – I hear that burns pretty well).
The oxide layer that forms on metallic magnesium inhibits burning quite effectively, The school (unless elfin safety has banned it) chemistry experiment where magnesium ribbon or powder burns bright white and gives off much white smoke only works with very thin metal. Of course, if you get a bar of it hot enough to break the oxide layer you’ll have an ‘interesting’ experiment – burning at 3,100 C.
I think it is a magnesium alloy not the pure stuff that was the delight of school kids.
I agree. Small fires occur approximately 3000x every second. Lethal.
Apparently there are more people killed by donkeys than Aeroplanes. But ofcourse if you are never near donkeys (which probably most of us are not) then this statistic is meaningless. ——-So how many diesel busses are there and how many electric busses are there?
You almost had me there, Garvey young fella mi lad
OK. A couple of odd things here:
Thing 1: ‘Part of a double-decker electric bus is alight‘. Very odd. Many years ago a neighbours VW Beetle burst into flames. We certainly didn’t ask ourselves ‘is that flame coming from the engine or the fuel tank?‘. If this LFB statement isn’t lining up to suggest that it wasn’t the battery that spontaneously combusted then I’ll be very surprised. Mrs SoR immediately suggested they’re going with ‘it was one of the motors, not the battery‘. So that’s OK then.
Thing 2: ‘spokeswoman‘? This makes me almost certain that the spokesperson was born with a penis
The bus in question has the electric motors in the wheel hubs, so the fire was either in the battery or something ancillary.
I know we can vote without being logged in but I wonder what the down tick is for?
My guess is that it’s for ‘Thing 2’.
Spokesman is a neutral term but it has effectively been banned and replaced with the clumsy made-up portmanteau neutral term spokesperson. I can think of two reasons why the report uses the almost equally clumsy term spokeswoman instead:
Possibility 1: The LFB spokesman is actually a woman and the report writer has inadvertently used the non-neutral term.
Possibility 2: The spokesman ‘identifies’ as a woman and the reporter has deliberately chosen the non-neutral term to show how woke they are.
My guess is Possibility 2.
‘They all do that, sir’
BEVs – “Safe & Effective”™️
The way in which The Khant spins this should make for an interesting read.
Nice one! That will be interesting
Nasty fire with these batteries which is very difficult to put out. I think the whole thing is crazy. In a car you’re sitting on top of a giant battery. You are assured that there will never be a collsion because of ‘sensors’. This is cosetted thinking. The world is not going to be a smooth ride like it has been over the last few decades.In a few years time this battery technology will cease to exist along with many other things.You have to tune in to your spirit in order to find the sources of real and imminent danger and you can only do that when you have found your tribe. There will be no answers coming from the materium.
I’ve been waiting for this to happen to a London bus. Maybe they could channel the flames coming from the rear to give the bus extra propulsion.
No point, 20mph zone!
Half an hour later and this could have been very serious. This bus is used by Kings College boys to get them up to school from Wimbledon station. Happened just the right side of 7.30am.
1000 EV busses over 10 years and one is at first sight sufficiently low to fob off. By 2020 consensus, we have 38m licenced vehicles on UK roads, suggesting (pro-rata) 3800 fires a year or 10 a day. Looking at NFCC, the estimate is 80,000 fires a year, though I have never heard of an ICE suddenly igniting unless in an accident. I think its the sudden combustion of EV without provocation that is a concern here.