Two reviews that have now appeared of the book More Perfect Union:
Andrew Goddard on Fulcrum Review of “More Perfect Union?: Understanding Same-Sex Marriage” by Bishop Alan Wilson
As the Church of England begins two years of Shared Conversations focussed on sexuality, probably the most vocal episcopal critic of current teaching and practice, Alan Wilson, Bishop of Buckingham, has set out his case for change in More Perfect Union?: Understanding Same-Sex Marriage (DLT). For those still unclear about the substance and tone of Anglican arguments for same-sex marriage this is a short, readable guide. Although helpful in giving a sense of much revisionist rhetoric and argument it suffers the fatal flaw he levels against his opponents (40) – preaching to the choir and cutting almost no ice with anyone else…
Ian Paul on Psephizo More Perfect Union?
I’ve had quite a few interactions with Alan Wilson, Bishop of Buckingham, mostly on line and (once) in person. On some occasions he has been reasonable, thoughtful and well-informed; on others, belligerent and polemical. So when I received this book for review, I was intrigued to know which way it would go. Unfortunately, it is the latter.
Reading the first couple of chapters was a very odd experience, and I could not work out why—until I realised I had entered a parallel universe—Wilson’s World, if you will. In this World, all sorts of odd things happen…
Update book launch event cancelled
Those who want to read the book for themselves may be interested in this event at Church House Bookshop: Book Launch: More Perfect Union?
And Alan Wilson wrote this piece for Comment is free earlier in the week: Any ‘biblical’ objection to gay marriage is nonsense. The C of E must admit this.
Andrew Goddard appears to contradict himself.
If, as he says, for those still unclear about the substance of Anglican arguments, this is a readable guide, then it clearly does more than preach to the converted.
It should cut a lot of ice with a lot of people who aren’t yet completely entrenched in this debate.
Sorry, comments accidentally got disabled on this article last night. Now fixed.
Ian Paul writes of ‘the serious medical reservations about gender dysphoria and the effectiveness of, or even the logic behind, the use of sex reassignment surgery’ but I am not aware of these medical reservations. Whatever the appropriateness of the inclusion of Gender Dysphoria in the Diagnostic & Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders Version V – and the term gender identity disorder was replaced with gender dysphoria in this edition to remove stigma – it remains, for good or ill, a medical condition, and all the evidence I have seen indicates that gender reassignment surgery has one of the highest… Read more »
Christina, some time ago Johns Hopkins stopped gender reassignment therapy. They may have resumed them, but (I think it was within last decade) they said the clinical evidence was weighing heavily, or maybe significantly, against reassignment.
The Johns Hopkins closure was a long time ago now (1979), based on flawed research and instigated by the chief clinician who had never supported SRS in the first place. Later research confirms high patient satisfaction with this procedure. In any case, there was an emphasis on surgery as the goal of transition in the past which is not the case today where qualitative material tends to confirm the benefits of gender transition with or without hormones and/or surgery. The point here though, in relation to Ian’s critique of Alan’s book, is the notion that if there are intellectual reservations… Read more »
“The Johns Hopkins closure was a long time ago now (1979), based on flawed research and instigated by the chief clinician who had never supported SRS in the first place. Later research confirms high patient satisfaction with this procedure.”
Ah! So, someone who dislikes someone of a different sexuality decided to dig for outdated and disproved “data” and manipulate its presentation in such a way as to appear both contemporary and well-supported.
Yes, we glbt have *never* seen this tactic from the right-wing before.
Perhaps we need to clarify. The surgery long ago abandoned at Johns Hopkins was performed on infants for gender *assignment*. It was advised at the time for a few children born with physical characteristics of both sexes. It was not the choice of adults (or younger persons with the capacity to express gender identity) coping with gender dysphoria.
Marshall, you could be thinking of the discrediting of John Money’s theories about gender which did involve infant surgeries, most tragically in the case of David Reimer. The ending of SRS for adults at John Hopkins is well-documented and the closure of its Gender Identity Clinic has often been quoted – unfairly – to suggest that gender transition doesn’t work.
http://www.tsroadmap.com/info/paul-mchugh-transsexual.html
For the record, I wasn’t arguing a point. As a lay person taking in other arguments and positions I was simply recalling that an institution known for researching these issues had stopped doing reassignment surgery on, the point raised, the basis of science. In this past year, I will note, the head or maybe he was the previous head cites a Swedish study he claims to be the most long-term study of adult reassignment backing the decision Johns Hopkins made. Again, as a layman in these matters, it is difficult to know what to think as the reply to “studies… Read more »
Thanks wmPaul. Good to know that you weren’t arguing a point on the basis of the Johns Hopkins story which is such an old chestnut in the anti-trans narrative. Ian was certainly making one by casting doubt on the appropriateness or logic of SRS. In 2003 the Church of England HOB agreed that in response to ‘profound and persistent’ indications ‘medical intervention … was legitimate and that the result could properly be termed a change of gender.’ It also agreed that the view taken by Ian is equally acceptable theologically! Rather than arguing over the studies to prove which is… Read more »
I’ve had an email suggesting that the book launch is cancelled …
Yes, I can confirm that it has been cancelled. Article amended now. The reason is simply that insufficient replies have been received.
Advertised the book launch with words to the effect that ‘space is limited’ is hardly an incentive to attending.
I for one thought, ‘oh, well i’ll not be able to get a place’.
Though in the event I was ill.