Updated again Sunday morning (scroll down)
There have been strong conservative responses to the recent announcement from the Church of England’s House of Bishops.
Christian Concern has published this: New CofE guidance on gender transition services follows “devastating trajectory”.
Lee Gatiss of Church Society has written Transitioning a Liturgy which helpfully includes links to previous materials from that source on this topic.
Ian Paul has written Wisdom and folly: the bishops’ guidance on transgender welcome.
Anglican Mainstream has published a more comprehensive roundup of conservative reactions, also including links to earlier articles. In addition there is this contribution from Andrew Symes: The secular, postmodern re-shaping of church and society (the relevant part comes towards the end).
Updates
GAFCON UK has published this Statement from Bishop Andy Lines following the Church of England’s guidance on liturgies to celebrate gender transition.
CEEC has published this: A response to the House of Bishops’ “Pastoral Guidance for use in conjunction with the Affirmation of Baptismal Faith in the context of gender transition”.
It is disappointing (once again) to read the misrepresentation of contemporary science regarding transgender from conservative Christians like Ian Paul. “Why the complete absence of reference to biological reality?” he asks in his blog, before going on to claim that “the medical journal The Lancet just this week made an impassioned appeal for proper engagement with biological reality.” That would be notable, if it were true. But in fact the editorial in the Lancet makes no such claim, as is easily verifiable by any one who follows the link Ian Paul provides to it. Written by a group of four… Read more »
For more on the dodgy representation of science shown by conservatives when it comes to transgender (e.g. Ian Paul’s comments in his piece regarding “the poor success of transition” or to “continued mental health issues” post-transition, or the claim by Lee Gatis that “the scientific basis… of medical intervention or social transition in response to gender dysphoria is far from established”), readers might be interested in comments I (and Tina Beardsley) have made in the past on this website, at https://www.thinkinganglicans.org.uk/7777-2/#comments .
https://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://www.gires.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2014/08/AIAUSatisfactionAuditJune2008.pdf&ved=2ahUKEwinyrLJ053fAhW7UBUIHS0LBF4QFjAIegQIBBAB&usg=AOvVaw2m1v9GcMZc-oqipiHxMiIy&cshid=1544733211377
There might be newer, but the NHS reports that 98% are happy with gender surgery outcomes. That is consistent with a large scale Swedish study http://sciencenordic.com/few-swedes-regret-sex-reassignment-surgery
The New York Times also published a decent article on the subject https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.nytimes.com/2018/04/09/opinion/pentagon-transgender.amp.html
Thank you, Kate. Couldn’t agree with you more. As it happens, Cecilia Dhejne (the Swedish author whose work you cite) is the author of the study so blatantly misrepresented by Martin Davie (referenced in the Thinking Anglicans link I mention above), which appears subsequently to have influenced Ian Paul’s comments.
There is a point where we need to recognise that so-called ‘conservative’ christians have as much credibility in terms of science of transgender as those who (like Trump) deny the science on climate change.
The issue’s much wider than “conservative” Christians: being a passionate supporter of women’s ministry and taking a nuanced approach to biblical interpretation, Ian Paul’s not close to being a con-evo, but is as open as evangelicals get before they cross over into the outer darkness of Steve Chalk / Rob Bell “unsound” territory. If even he’s taking this position, then it’s endemic to evangelicalism, not just the conservative branch.
The letter opposing the view of biology expressed by Paul. Trump etc has now been signed by over 2,600 scientists https://not-binary.org/statement/
Whatever its value… It is diminished by the number of “PhD candidates” and “ecology” “cosmology”. Is it as much against Trump (which I quite understand) as anything else? It could have been entitled “some American scientists”… out of far more thousands
The recent Lancet article linked is in fact not an editorial but a letter to the editor, which is commenting on an editorial article published on 30 June.
Thank you, Simon, for pointing this out. This was not clear (to me) from the internet link provided by Ian Paul. But if true, it further undermines the implicit suggestion by Ian Paul that this was somehow an authoritative view from ‘the Lancet’. If indeed it was only a letter (and from doctors who, as I note, have no specialism in the area, and no record of peer reviewed publications), then Ian Paul’s comment that “the medical journal The Lancet just this week made an impassioned appeal for proper engagement with biological reality” is even more questionable as statement of… Read more »
Following comment on his own blog about this point, from Jonathan Tallon, Ian Paul has accepted this was an error, and has amended his original article accordingly.
Some of those links lead to quite upsetting material. They should carry a health warning.