Church of England: There is ‘no official definition’ of a woman

That's what I get for believing Newsweek.com . I need to get my head out of MSM and back to Epoch Times...

 

You haven't met my wife! But I can't complain; she at least has some sense of humor.

 

The Newsweek.com article wasn't incorrect. The reality is just far less monolithic than it is sometimes made to appear.

 

As, of course, Christ loved the Jewish church, even after it took his life.
.

 

Conversations like this make me feel senile and I’m not even 50 years old.

 

Stalwart, you're a smart guy. You understand what is being asked here. If you don't think there would be disagreement in ACNA on who a transgender person can marry you're in denial.

If a transgender woman is a man, then by extension you're saying they can marry other women. Which means you can have a couple, where both people appear to be women, both people have female sex organs, who assert they are in a loving lesbian relationship, married in a church.

You see how that could cause some discomfort right? You can see why some people within your own tradition might decide to come down on the other side of the fence right? You see why it might be a good idea to get everyone on the same page and set some definitions before it starts a fight, not after a fight has already begun and some Anglicans start refusing to acknowledge other Anglicans marriages, right?

This blanket statement of "it's obvious, we don't need to define anything, anyone who says so is clearly a post-modernist crazy" is not being helpful. Defining things that were previously thought to be self evident is necessary in today's times to avoid walking into the abyss of division. Lets have it out and sort out what we all think before it becomes a problem.

 

Is there an official definition of a man?

 

I would actually say the church should not marry such a person

 

Yes biological male

 

Up until about five minutes ago there was no need to have an “official definition” of a man or of a woman because from the dawn of man ( ha ha ha) until then we as a species weren’t so hopelessly confused so as to need one.

 

It’s not so much a matter of confusion, as a situation which the advance of medical technology has made possible.

 

This is all very much by design. Satan never sleeps.

This isn't really a new thing, though. There is nothing new under the sun. When Paul was writing of the malakoi in 1 Corinthians, he's not just referring to homosexuals who take the passive role in coitus, but to those who are soft, or effeminate, or take on the aspect of females. This was a common problem in many cities in Paul's time; many of the temple prostitutes were male but dressed in women's clothing. Some were even emasculated (either by force or by choice) to prevent secondary male characteristics from developing. It's a mistake to assume that transgenderism is a new fad -- historically, that's far from the case.

 

God save us from the ideologues.

 

I mean I see what you’re saying. We certainly always need new clarity in case of new emerging circumstances.

So I certainly wasn’t saying that we don’t need clarity. All I was saying was, can we stop pretending that there isn’t clarity on things that are already clear, and have been clear for thousands of years? Just because a mentally unstable neurotic proclaims those certainties are uncomfortable to him, and we must redefine them to accommodate him and his mental pathologies? No thank you.

Woman = adult human female. Is there anything unclear about that? All we need to know is how to apply that; here is where someone could help us have more clarity. What if a trans woman (ie. just a mutilated man) asks to marry a woman in the church, in a pseudo-lesbian ceremony, what is an innocent priest to do?

The Church can and should have pastoral resources of what to do; what are the purposes of marriage? What is a woman? But the latter is not a question for scripture, it is a question for the dictionaries.

We already have that definition. Perhaps the Church could cite it from the dictionaries, but it’s not a question that needs to be “figured out”.

 

She is just humouring you because she can't be bothered trying to make you more sensitive.

It isn't humour if it isn't funny.

 

Yes: A geezer from Wales.

 

See the documentary film by Matt Walsh "What is a Woman?"

 

I believe the summary by @ZachT above clarifies the crux of the matter well.

 

What is the definition of a cat?

 

To be fair, that’s not really an answer for individuals who lead the church, but for genetics. And that verdict is clear, concise and unanimous.