I am confused. Tina Beattie’s main point is about ‘what Bishop Mariann Edgar Budde did not say’. Beattie says Budde ‘did not use any version of that vacuous slogan, LGBTQ+’ and ‘chose her words carefully. She referred to “gay, lesbian and transgender children”’. Beattie criticises the misreporting of Budde’s sermon. Fine, agreed, I get that. But while we may all agree that ‘to speak of LGBTQ+ children is to promulgate an ideology that has little purchase on reality’, is it actually any better to speak of lesbian, gay and trans children?
When Beattie writes that to ‘speak of lesbian, gay and trans children is to speak up for identifiable groups of people who are now at risk in American society’, I am not so sure.
Are children actually lesbian or gay – or straight for that matter? Speaking as a cis-het bloke, I want to ask, to what extent do children have a sexuality at all. Surely, childhood is the time of life that is pre-sexual, an age of innocence before adolescent hormones kick in and puberty turns the child into an adult, in other words, from a human being who has no interest in sexual activity (apart from childhood games of curiosity like Doctors and Nurses, perhaps) into one who becomes passionately interested in sexual activity (apart from alleged ‘Aces’ or asexual people).
As for transgender children, I’m not so sure either. I see confident comments on this page like the one by MarkS that ‘There are no transgender children. There is no diagnostic for such a condition’, and a deliciously self-contradictory one by The Haeft that ‘There are no trans children or at least the number is so tiny that it should not dictate policy about anything’.
I don't share their confidence. I’m sure that there are and always have been children who have wondered whether they are really boys or girls – or dinosaurs, mermaids, steam locomotives, or whatever. In the case of 'trans', or maybe 'non-binary' is the better term, that can and should be acknowledged. These childhood perceptions are real for the child and deserve respect, empathy and attention - without this entailing so-called ‘affirmative’ care that leads to puberty blockers and the like.
I mostly agree with this, and certainly share your lack of absolute confidence on these issues. As a grandmother it strikes me how young children are when they start talking of their boyfriends and girlfriends, from about the age of six. To say this is not to sexualise children, but to acknowledge that culture and nature intertwine in complex ways from birth and even before (cf gender reveal parties)! Some of my gay friends tell me they knew they were gay from childhood, and if that is the case, then I want children to be free to speak of same-sex girlfriends and boyfriends, but I repeat, without the inappropriate projection of adult sexuality onto childhood. Either way, I think we hae a duty to protect children, and in these days of trans ideology that is a complex and challenging task for those who have been persuaded to believe that they are trans. I don't think condemning those children is the way to go.
Tina, thanks for engaging with my comment. I recognise what you are describing in, for example, God Bless Love (1972) by Nanette Newman, which is a collection of profound and intuitive remarks and pictures by children as they explore the versatile meaning of love and Relationships with a capital R and marriage and so forth: remarks like ‘I would like to marry my dog but it isn't allowed, is it?’ by Bruce, aged 6.
These show that children hold this awareness in a pre-sexualised way. I suggest that even applies to the gay people who say they knew they were gay from childhood.
Lived experience is held in such high regard these days that I’ll share a personal recollection from my pre-sexualised childhood to make this point. Around the age of 7 to 9, I used to feel emotionally drawn to some women presenters on children’s TV because they were so beautiful but I never felt the same about any of the men, however good-looking they were. I thought I loved them or adored them or, if I had known the term at the time, had a crush on them. I guess I could look back and say I always knew I was het from childhood. But it was in such a pre-sexualised way as to have almost nothing to do with sex as I came to understand it after puberty.
Yes to all this, but I also think that even after puberty, sexual desire is often fluid - something pre-modern theologians and Freud saw very clearly! But your comments about children are interesting. Thank you.
I was hoping "Have Mercy" might have a similar effect.
Welch was stunned. As he struggled to maintain his composure, he looked at McCarthy and declared, “Until this moment, Senator, I think I never really gauged your cruelty or your recklessness.” It was then McCarthy’s turn to be stunned into silence, as Welch asked, “Have you no sense of decency, sir, at long last?” https://www.history.com/this-day-in-history/joseph-mccarthy-meets-his-match
Tina, it was a good rhetorical performance (and I mean that in a positive sense) but I think you are too easily letting her off the hook. The idea that gay, lesbian and transgender people are 'fearing for their lives' was studiedly resonant with the bad rhetoric that trans children will commit suicide if they don't have their trans identities affirmed. And although the Republican Party tends to be socially conservative on issues of human sexuality, I have not registered anything to suggest that gay and lesbian people are at greater risk with a Trump presidency. Budde has form with Trump. She was a visceral opponent in Trump's first term, and in her address she delivered an ad hominem attack which was unworthy, and I might add disrespectful of the majority who did vote for Trump - the kind of people to whom Budde would probably be disinclined to send Christmas cards. At the end it was politically partisan, and she abused her position in being so.
I don't think there was any allusion to the bogus claims that trans children are at high risk of suicide, and I think Trump is taking the lid off many prejudices and hatreds that simmer beneath the surface. I'm not a trans activist, but there is rampant homophobia, Islamophobia, racism and anti-Semitism in the American Far Right, and he is preying on that to feed his own lust for power.
The fact that the fallout has broken down along partisan political lines, shows that you are 100% right. Her role should have been to say something that would have made both side of the aisle think, and elicit some kind of mutual recognition. I rather think Bishop Barron would have done a much better job.
Ah yes, the “both sides now” argument that doesn’t ruffle anyone’s feathers. Silence is consent. I understand perfectly why she chose her words this way and admire her courage tremendously.
This is giving you notice: I'm going to delete this nasty comment and I'm going to block you if you don't contribute in a respectful and intelligent way to this discussion.
I’m going to have to respectfully disagree. History has shown that it takes little encouragement to foment violence against those who are not decidedly heterosexual. Matthew Shepard comes to mind. You make a lot of assumptions, sir, about Budde and her presumed attitude toward certain others. I expect that she would walk her talk and treat them in exactly the manner that she has asked Trump to do. How sad that these words which reflect Christ’s very instructions about how His people are to live in this world could ever be considered offensive. Bless Bishop Budde for speaking truth to power no matter how uncomfortable that truth may be for those who would not hear it.
I don't remember anything in the Gospels about denying the male and female Imago Dei, nor any injunction to allow encourage self-mutilation, nor to put male rapists in jail with female victims of sexual violence....And the idea that people are being targeted and are at risk is an out an out lie- just dishonest.....and as far as I know, Jesus was big on telling the truth. There was nothing healing or bipartisan or even religious about what she said,. It was ill considered posturing - pretty offensive. The thing about 'truth' to power is the truth bit....And the power bit....because activists like her have controlled every school and hospital board, funding council, corporate HR department, every university....for decades. She is the power. And she lied,
With my own ears, all the way through - and then all the very predictable commentary, which she predicted and still went ahead, because she’s an activist. She’s not a priest
Language does matter and so does voice. The voice of Mariann Budde at the post-inaugural prayer service would probably have been very well received with just her sermon on unity through honoring our inherent dignity, honesty in private conversation and public discourse and the humility of admitting our fallibility as humans. But like the ‘shot heard round the world’ in 1776, her ending plea to the president went forth and has created a ruckus of both disdain and adulation.
In yesterday’s Gospel in the Church’s lectionary which ended with Jesus’ reading from Isaiah and proclamation of its fulfillment “in their hearing” was initially well received. “All spoke well of him and were amazed at the gracious words that came from his lips. “ But his following words of clarifying his mission infuriated them and they were ready to back him off a cliff. So human response still becomes today, who is God’s mercy for, us or them? How about for all…not neglecting those most “scared” and vulnerable to the changing political environment. I’ve been searching for a better understand of Mercy and found this on patheos.com: “In the biblical Hebrew language, the word for “mercy” (רחם; racham) shares the exact same three-letter root as the word for “womb” (רחם; rechem). Based on the close linguistic connection between these terms, God’s “mercy” toward humanity denotes the same kind of divine protection that a baby has in its mother’s womb.”
The Original Hebrew Meaning Of “Mercy”
How natural for a woman’s voice to speak forth a plea for Mercy, a feminine quality and likeness of God, even from a pulpit.
Well said, thanks especially for the intersex topic link to Differently Normal, best I've read on the topic.
Great point that there was no LGBTQIA2S+ in the sermon but that's how the media spins.
To me every sermon should be for every heart, and not aimed at one - so I'm glad to have the whole sermon to balance the soundbyte.
I've been praying for those who are victims of SA perpetrators and for potential predators who see his example. I can pray that aloud in my faith community, but I doubt even God knows what a BTQ child is...
I have blocked The Haeft. I welcome robust, intelligent and respectful debate and disagreement, but if bigots and racists want to use Substack, they are quite free to start their own conversations without invading mine.
There are no "transgender" children. There is no diagnostic for such a condition. Not only is there not a researched and vetted diagnostic, there is not even a proposed diagnostic. The current practice is to affirm, affirm, affirm.
This is pure medical quackery. And it has done immense harm. Many thousands of children (most of whom would have grown up to be same-sex attracted adults) have been mutilated, sterilized, permanently desexed.
Trump is attempting to do something about it, as are Republicans in red states who have passed laws banning this awful quackery.
Yes, language matters. And the language of "transgenderism" was pushed forward yet again by Bishop Budde, perpetuating the harm, helping to continue this ongoing crime against humanity.
First, I don't think Trump cares about children, for the suffering his policies will cause to migrant children are immense. I am against the diagnosis and medicalisation of children with mental health struggles as trans, but given that so many have fallen prey to this ideology, I think they need care and compassion, not condemnation. There are children who believe they are trans, so we are talking about an identifiable group even if we think they're misled. I think Bishop Budde was trying to navigate a way through a hugely polarised culture, and I think the language she used did that in a more effective way than if she had just parroted the LGBTQIA+ mumbo jumbo.
There are no trans children or at least the number is so tiny that it should not dictate policy about anything. All the young teen girls, last year would have had anorexia. The 'trans children' in question are at risk from gullible virtue signalling middle class (most often women) out of misplaced kindness, valorising an ideology that tries to normalize child abuse and self harm. The country has spoken. HIs message on this resonate with ordinary people outside the media bubble all over the western world. If she had been in the Church of England we would have had a lecture on 'not demonizing Muslim men' for the hundreds of mainly Muslim rape gangs that have raped and tortured (in many documented cases) tens of thousands of girls over decades. The tone-deafness is extraordinary. I didn't hear any compassion for Rhonda Fleming - a vulnerable black woman, repeatedly made to share a cell with two men. She was raped and sexually abused. I did see Joy Reid and company making the same point the Bishop made....over and over again, without any reference at all to the situation of people like Rhonda, or the thousands of detransitioning girls and boys sacrificed and lives destroyed at the altar of woke virtue signalling - and she (Reid) and others used this sermon as cover. Just awful.
I agree with some of this, but it is so mixed in with your own pet hates that I don't know where to begin. The problem with rape is about men, not about those belonging to any particular race or religion. But I agree with you about men claiming to be trans in women's prison, and about detransitioning. Bishop Budde had 15 minutes in which to navigate a path through hugely toxic issues. I think she did that well, and my main point is about the false reporting in the media.
The fact that all human cultures qua human are sinful - and that sexual violence is common, only makes the astonishing uniqueness of Judeo Christianity more noteworthy. There is some thing systemic in Muslim culture and ideology. These are almost 100% Muslim let me finish thi and mostly Pakistani men - tens of thousands of white and Sikh girls ….. but not a word from an Anglican female priest. Same with this woman in America. What she chooses to focus on is indicative not of love but politics
The Haeft: I won't have posts here that spread toxic hate about Muslims or anybody else. I've worked closely with Muslim men and women for many years. How many do you know? Sexual violence is common because so many men of all colours, races and religions are sexually violent. Very few women are guilty of crimes of sexual abuse. I'd remind you of the Catholic sex abuse crisis, of Dominique Pelicot, of the multitude of white Christian men who rape their wives, daughters, parishioners, etc. I don't like censoring intelligent and respectful dialogue, but I don't want your vitriol here. Use your own site to spread your poison please. Any more of this, and I'm deleting you from here.
Thank you for your own virtue signaling. This is a red herring. A prayer for mercy and kindness towards those who have been told that they will be targeted by the government has nothing to do with your trans rant, nor was it intended to.
That's totally disingenuous. The choice of which victim groups to highlight, which to ignore and the choice - in that time on that occasion - to give vent to a political position in the culture war, was woke virtue signalling. And the fact that you view a reality check about the politics of trans-activists shows just how fallen you are.. And BTW activists are being targeted - because they groom and target children.
Tina...I read your thoughts on Bishop Budde's homily. In fact, I read it more than once because after all this time dealing with headlines, news reports, social media, etc...I still find myself woefully ignorant on the LGBTQ+ issue. I really am trying to understand all that has been said/written but, in vain. I simply cannot grasp the many ways that this topic has been discussed. I did find some solace in your piece. You are a deep thinker, authentic, theologically engaged, and perhaps in my eyes, most importantly, trustworthy. But I still find much of the discussion on this topic from others far too ideological and far too little theological. I just re-read what I wrote and I am not sure if it would make sense to any reader but I felt compelled to let my confusion out there. I will continue to try and develop a meaningful grasp of the topic. Thank you for your thoughts on this matter. Maureen
I appreciated your piece, and it did nudge me into seeking out the full text, which I wouldn’t otherwise have done. But having immersed myself in material on both sides of this non-debate over the past two years I have to say that my interpretation was the same as Mark Bratton’s and Robbie Spence’s respecting the message being sent about “trans kids”. At that point she was playing to her own gallery, and if she’d exercised a little restraint perhaps her broader message would have been reported.
I feel conflicted about this. People who don't follow gender politics, including many political commentators, under-estimated the emotive power of Trump's anti-trans rhetoric. I felt convinced he would win because the Democrats had been so totally hijacked by trans activism. So given that this was one of the key issues he focused on before and after election, could Bishop Budde have ignored it? Maybe. She didn't mention his disastrous environmental policies, for example. I've given her the benefit of the doubt, but her reference to trans children was relatively subdued compared to the wildly unconstrained rhetoric of LGBTQA+ activists. It is such a neuralgic issue, but I mourn for the children who have become victims of trans ideology. I hope they sue big pharma and the "therapists" and doctors who pushed them down that road when they are old enough to realize what they've done, but all the lawsuits in the world won't give them back their healthy sexual bodies.
Absolutely! I was going to add a remark about the environment after the "little restraint" comment, but was typing on the phone and couldn't edit! Trump has declared open war on nature, and it's hard to see how that will end with a winner (perhaps he has a thought about moving the population of California to Canada or Greenland...!).
I am confused. Tina Beattie’s main point is about ‘what Bishop Mariann Edgar Budde did not say’. Beattie says Budde ‘did not use any version of that vacuous slogan, LGBTQ+’ and ‘chose her words carefully. She referred to “gay, lesbian and transgender children”’. Beattie criticises the misreporting of Budde’s sermon. Fine, agreed, I get that. But while we may all agree that ‘to speak of LGBTQ+ children is to promulgate an ideology that has little purchase on reality’, is it actually any better to speak of lesbian, gay and trans children?
When Beattie writes that to ‘speak of lesbian, gay and trans children is to speak up for identifiable groups of people who are now at risk in American society’, I am not so sure.
Are children actually lesbian or gay – or straight for that matter? Speaking as a cis-het bloke, I want to ask, to what extent do children have a sexuality at all. Surely, childhood is the time of life that is pre-sexual, an age of innocence before adolescent hormones kick in and puberty turns the child into an adult, in other words, from a human being who has no interest in sexual activity (apart from childhood games of curiosity like Doctors and Nurses, perhaps) into one who becomes passionately interested in sexual activity (apart from alleged ‘Aces’ or asexual people).
As for transgender children, I’m not so sure either. I see confident comments on this page like the one by MarkS that ‘There are no transgender children. There is no diagnostic for such a condition’, and a deliciously self-contradictory one by The Haeft that ‘There are no trans children or at least the number is so tiny that it should not dictate policy about anything’.
I don't share their confidence. I’m sure that there are and always have been children who have wondered whether they are really boys or girls – or dinosaurs, mermaids, steam locomotives, or whatever. In the case of 'trans', or maybe 'non-binary' is the better term, that can and should be acknowledged. These childhood perceptions are real for the child and deserve respect, empathy and attention - without this entailing so-called ‘affirmative’ care that leads to puberty blockers and the like.
I mostly agree with this, and certainly share your lack of absolute confidence on these issues. As a grandmother it strikes me how young children are when they start talking of their boyfriends and girlfriends, from about the age of six. To say this is not to sexualise children, but to acknowledge that culture and nature intertwine in complex ways from birth and even before (cf gender reveal parties)! Some of my gay friends tell me they knew they were gay from childhood, and if that is the case, then I want children to be free to speak of same-sex girlfriends and boyfriends, but I repeat, without the inappropriate projection of adult sexuality onto childhood. Either way, I think we hae a duty to protect children, and in these days of trans ideology that is a complex and challenging task for those who have been persuaded to believe that they are trans. I don't think condemning those children is the way to go.
Tina, thanks for engaging with my comment. I recognise what you are describing in, for example, God Bless Love (1972) by Nanette Newman, which is a collection of profound and intuitive remarks and pictures by children as they explore the versatile meaning of love and Relationships with a capital R and marriage and so forth: remarks like ‘I would like to marry my dog but it isn't allowed, is it?’ by Bruce, aged 6.
These show that children hold this awareness in a pre-sexualised way. I suggest that even applies to the gay people who say they knew they were gay from childhood.
Lived experience is held in such high regard these days that I’ll share a personal recollection from my pre-sexualised childhood to make this point. Around the age of 7 to 9, I used to feel emotionally drawn to some women presenters on children’s TV because they were so beautiful but I never felt the same about any of the men, however good-looking they were. I thought I loved them or adored them or, if I had known the term at the time, had a crush on them. I guess I could look back and say I always knew I was het from childhood. But it was in such a pre-sexualised way as to have almost nothing to do with sex as I came to understand it after puberty.
Yes to all this, but I also think that even after puberty, sexual desire is often fluid - something pre-modern theologians and Freud saw very clearly! But your comments about children are interesting. Thank you.
I was hoping "Have Mercy" might have a similar effect.
Welch was stunned. As he struggled to maintain his composure, he looked at McCarthy and declared, “Until this moment, Senator, I think I never really gauged your cruelty or your recklessness.” It was then McCarthy’s turn to be stunned into silence, as Welch asked, “Have you no sense of decency, sir, at long last?” https://www.history.com/this-day-in-history/joseph-mccarthy-meets-his-match
Thank you for sharing that. The resonances are powerful indeed. We can only hope and pray that the impact is too!
Tina, it was a good rhetorical performance (and I mean that in a positive sense) but I think you are too easily letting her off the hook. The idea that gay, lesbian and transgender people are 'fearing for their lives' was studiedly resonant with the bad rhetoric that trans children will commit suicide if they don't have their trans identities affirmed. And although the Republican Party tends to be socially conservative on issues of human sexuality, I have not registered anything to suggest that gay and lesbian people are at greater risk with a Trump presidency. Budde has form with Trump. She was a visceral opponent in Trump's first term, and in her address she delivered an ad hominem attack which was unworthy, and I might add disrespectful of the majority who did vote for Trump - the kind of people to whom Budde would probably be disinclined to send Christmas cards. At the end it was politically partisan, and she abused her position in being so.
I don't think there was any allusion to the bogus claims that trans children are at high risk of suicide, and I think Trump is taking the lid off many prejudices and hatreds that simmer beneath the surface. I'm not a trans activist, but there is rampant homophobia, Islamophobia, racism and anti-Semitism in the American Far Right, and he is preying on that to feed his own lust for power.
The fact that the fallout has broken down along partisan political lines, shows that you are 100% right. Her role should have been to say something that would have made both side of the aisle think, and elicit some kind of mutual recognition. I rather think Bishop Barron would have done a much better job.
Ah yes, the “both sides now” argument that doesn’t ruffle anyone’s feathers. Silence is consent. I understand perfectly why she chose her words this way and admire her courage tremendously.
She is supposed to be a priest….though clearly not.
This is giving you notice: I'm going to delete this nasty comment and I'm going to block you if you don't contribute in a respectful and intelligent way to this discussion.
We must agree to disagree on both Budde and Barron.
I agree. The remarks about “fearing for their lives” was inappropriate, both with regard to occasion and content.
I’m going to have to respectfully disagree. History has shown that it takes little encouragement to foment violence against those who are not decidedly heterosexual. Matthew Shepard comes to mind. You make a lot of assumptions, sir, about Budde and her presumed attitude toward certain others. I expect that she would walk her talk and treat them in exactly the manner that she has asked Trump to do. How sad that these words which reflect Christ’s very instructions about how His people are to live in this world could ever be considered offensive. Bless Bishop Budde for speaking truth to power no matter how uncomfortable that truth may be for those who would not hear it.
Jan, I'm not making assumptions. Her visceral dislike of Trump is well-documented.
Don’t confuse a strong moral stance with a “visceral dislike”. Absolutely anyone with a moral compass rejects Trump in the strongest possible terms.
Anyone who embraces Ms budde has no moral compass
Do you really assume the Trump supporters have no moral compass? Having worked with Trumpsters for years I think you have a very bad read of them.
I suggest you charitably assume they not every Christian views the world through a progressive lens as do you.
Yes
That there is the problem
I don't remember anything in the Gospels about denying the male and female Imago Dei, nor any injunction to allow encourage self-mutilation, nor to put male rapists in jail with female victims of sexual violence....And the idea that people are being targeted and are at risk is an out an out lie- just dishonest.....and as far as I know, Jesus was big on telling the truth. There was nothing healing or bipartisan or even religious about what she said,. It was ill considered posturing - pretty offensive. The thing about 'truth' to power is the truth bit....And the power bit....because activists like her have controlled every school and hospital board, funding council, corporate HR department, every university....for decades. She is the power. And she lied,
Did you listen to her?
With my own ears, all the way through - and then all the very predictable commentary, which she predicted and still went ahead, because she’s an activist. She’s not a priest
This is a strawman argument. Totally irrelevant, but clearly a hobby horse of yours.
What is the straw man ? Exactly ?
GOOGLE is your friend.
'The' straw man. I didn’t ask for a definition …
So glad you said it, my friend.
Language does matter and so does voice. The voice of Mariann Budde at the post-inaugural prayer service would probably have been very well received with just her sermon on unity through honoring our inherent dignity, honesty in private conversation and public discourse and the humility of admitting our fallibility as humans. But like the ‘shot heard round the world’ in 1776, her ending plea to the president went forth and has created a ruckus of both disdain and adulation.
In yesterday’s Gospel in the Church’s lectionary which ended with Jesus’ reading from Isaiah and proclamation of its fulfillment “in their hearing” was initially well received. “All spoke well of him and were amazed at the gracious words that came from his lips. “ But his following words of clarifying his mission infuriated them and they were ready to back him off a cliff. So human response still becomes today, who is God’s mercy for, us or them? How about for all…not neglecting those most “scared” and vulnerable to the changing political environment. I’ve been searching for a better understand of Mercy and found this on patheos.com: “In the biblical Hebrew language, the word for “mercy” (רחם; racham) shares the exact same three-letter root as the word for “womb” (רחם; rechem). Based on the close linguistic connection between these terms, God’s “mercy” toward humanity denotes the same kind of divine protection that a baby has in its mother’s womb.”
The Original Hebrew Meaning Of “Mercy”
How natural for a woman’s voice to speak forth a plea for Mercy, a feminine quality and likeness of God, even from a pulpit.
◦
Thank you. This is rich food for thought.
Well said, thanks especially for the intersex topic link to Differently Normal, best I've read on the topic.
Great point that there was no LGBTQIA2S+ in the sermon but that's how the media spins.
To me every sermon should be for every heart, and not aimed at one - so I'm glad to have the whole sermon to balance the soundbyte.
I've been praying for those who are victims of SA perpetrators and for potential predators who see his example. I can pray that aloud in my faith community, but I doubt even God knows what a BTQ child is...
You’ve threaded a fine needle and done so with wit and grace. I hope at least JD Vance winced at the spray Trump gave the good Bishop.
Thank you - this so needed saying.
I have blocked The Haeft. I welcome robust, intelligent and respectful debate and disagreement, but if bigots and racists want to use Substack, they are quite free to start their own conversations without invading mine.
I am baffled and dismayed. Why??
There are no "transgender" children. There is no diagnostic for such a condition. Not only is there not a researched and vetted diagnostic, there is not even a proposed diagnostic. The current practice is to affirm, affirm, affirm.
This is pure medical quackery. And it has done immense harm. Many thousands of children (most of whom would have grown up to be same-sex attracted adults) have been mutilated, sterilized, permanently desexed.
Trump is attempting to do something about it, as are Republicans in red states who have passed laws banning this awful quackery.
Yes, language matters. And the language of "transgenderism" was pushed forward yet again by Bishop Budde, perpetuating the harm, helping to continue this ongoing crime against humanity.
First, I don't think Trump cares about children, for the suffering his policies will cause to migrant children are immense. I am against the diagnosis and medicalisation of children with mental health struggles as trans, but given that so many have fallen prey to this ideology, I think they need care and compassion, not condemnation. There are children who believe they are trans, so we are talking about an identifiable group even if we think they're misled. I think Bishop Budde was trying to navigate a way through a hugely polarised culture, and I think the language she used did that in a more effective way than if she had just parroted the LGBTQIA+ mumbo jumbo.
Amen to that
There are no trans children or at least the number is so tiny that it should not dictate policy about anything. All the young teen girls, last year would have had anorexia. The 'trans children' in question are at risk from gullible virtue signalling middle class (most often women) out of misplaced kindness, valorising an ideology that tries to normalize child abuse and self harm. The country has spoken. HIs message on this resonate with ordinary people outside the media bubble all over the western world. If she had been in the Church of England we would have had a lecture on 'not demonizing Muslim men' for the hundreds of mainly Muslim rape gangs that have raped and tortured (in many documented cases) tens of thousands of girls over decades. The tone-deafness is extraordinary. I didn't hear any compassion for Rhonda Fleming - a vulnerable black woman, repeatedly made to share a cell with two men. She was raped and sexually abused. I did see Joy Reid and company making the same point the Bishop made....over and over again, without any reference at all to the situation of people like Rhonda, or the thousands of detransitioning girls and boys sacrificed and lives destroyed at the altar of woke virtue signalling - and she (Reid) and others used this sermon as cover. Just awful.
I agree with some of this, but it is so mixed in with your own pet hates that I don't know where to begin. The problem with rape is about men, not about those belonging to any particular race or religion. But I agree with you about men claiming to be trans in women's prison, and about detransitioning. Bishop Budde had 15 minutes in which to navigate a path through hugely toxic issues. I think she did that well, and my main point is about the false reporting in the media.
The fact that all human cultures qua human are sinful - and that sexual violence is common, only makes the astonishing uniqueness of Judeo Christianity more noteworthy. There is some thing systemic in Muslim culture and ideology. These are almost 100% Muslim let me finish thi and mostly Pakistani men - tens of thousands of white and Sikh girls ….. but not a word from an Anglican female priest. Same with this woman in America. What she chooses to focus on is indicative not of love but politics
The Haeft: I won't have posts here that spread toxic hate about Muslims or anybody else. I've worked closely with Muslim men and women for many years. How many do you know? Sexual violence is common because so many men of all colours, races and religions are sexually violent. Very few women are guilty of crimes of sexual abuse. I'd remind you of the Catholic sex abuse crisis, of Dominique Pelicot, of the multitude of white Christian men who rape their wives, daughters, parishioners, etc. I don't like censoring intelligent and respectful dialogue, but I don't want your vitriol here. Use your own site to spread your poison please. Any more of this, and I'm deleting you from here.
Thank you for your own virtue signaling. This is a red herring. A prayer for mercy and kindness towards those who have been told that they will be targeted by the government has nothing to do with your trans rant, nor was it intended to.
That's totally disingenuous. The choice of which victim groups to highlight, which to ignore and the choice - in that time on that occasion - to give vent to a political position in the culture war, was woke virtue signalling. And the fact that you view a reality check about the politics of trans-activists shows just how fallen you are.. And BTW activists are being targeted - because they groom and target children.
Did you listen to her sermon? She referred to most of the groups targeted by Trump.
Tina...I read your thoughts on Bishop Budde's homily. In fact, I read it more than once because after all this time dealing with headlines, news reports, social media, etc...I still find myself woefully ignorant on the LGBTQ+ issue. I really am trying to understand all that has been said/written but, in vain. I simply cannot grasp the many ways that this topic has been discussed. I did find some solace in your piece. You are a deep thinker, authentic, theologically engaged, and perhaps in my eyes, most importantly, trustworthy. But I still find much of the discussion on this topic from others far too ideological and far too little theological. I just re-read what I wrote and I am not sure if it would make sense to any reader but I felt compelled to let my confusion out there. I will continue to try and develop a meaningful grasp of the topic. Thank you for your thoughts on this matter. Maureen
I appreciated your piece, and it did nudge me into seeking out the full text, which I wouldn’t otherwise have done. But having immersed myself in material on both sides of this non-debate over the past two years I have to say that my interpretation was the same as Mark Bratton’s and Robbie Spence’s respecting the message being sent about “trans kids”. At that point she was playing to her own gallery, and if she’d exercised a little restraint perhaps her broader message would have been reported.
I feel conflicted about this. People who don't follow gender politics, including many political commentators, under-estimated the emotive power of Trump's anti-trans rhetoric. I felt convinced he would win because the Democrats had been so totally hijacked by trans activism. So given that this was one of the key issues he focused on before and after election, could Bishop Budde have ignored it? Maybe. She didn't mention his disastrous environmental policies, for example. I've given her the benefit of the doubt, but her reference to trans children was relatively subdued compared to the wildly unconstrained rhetoric of LGBTQA+ activists. It is such a neuralgic issue, but I mourn for the children who have become victims of trans ideology. I hope they sue big pharma and the "therapists" and doctors who pushed them down that road when they are old enough to realize what they've done, but all the lawsuits in the world won't give them back their healthy sexual bodies.
Absolutely! I was going to add a remark about the environment after the "little restraint" comment, but was typing on the phone and couldn't edit! Trump has declared open war on nature, and it's hard to see how that will end with a winner (perhaps he has a thought about moving the population of California to Canada or Greenland...!).
Trent Horn is I think right. She is not a priest. And there is a good argument why women are not priests https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7Oeyw75pM0M
Why am I bothering to engage at all? You don't need to be here you know.
All the same listen to what he says. You could be mistaken
Getting to the heart of things as always Tina - thank you!
Thank you Marie.
So well parsed and analysed, thank you Tina.
Thank you Ursula, for your constancy and support. x