Tina Beardsley contributes another guest blog. Tina is a Church of England priest, was the first trans trustee of the former Changing Attitude England, and is now a member of the current Changing Attitude England’s steering group.
The Church of England’s press release for the House of Bishops’ meeting held on Monday 17th and Tuesday 18th May, informs us that ‘The House discussed additional working groups related to the LLF process and agreed in principle to the formation of a working group on gender identity and transition under the auspices of the LLF Next Steps Group, details of which will be announced in due course.’
Many people, including me, are wondering why such a working group should be necessary.
The LLF process began nearly four years ago. Its four working groups – Biblical Studies, Theology, History, and the Social and Biological Sciences – worked independently for fifteen months examining many aspects of identity, sexuality, gender, marriage and relationships – including gender identity and transition – before commencing an intensive inter-disciplinary stage that lasted another eighteen months.
The LLF Library, available via the LLF Hub, contains links to more than 300 relevant resources, including over 60 unpublished papers produced by the scholars involved in LLF.
Gender identity is mentioned 95 times in the Living in Love & Faith book. In Chapter 5 Society (pages 92-97) there are sections on ‘Gender Identity’, ‘Gender & sex’, ‘History of trans identities’ and ‘Transgender: statistics.’ In Chapter 6 Science (pages 109-112, 115-116, 118-120) there are sections on ‘The science of gender identity’ covering the ‘Origins of gender identity’, ‘Gender transition’, ‘Transgender and gender diverse (TGD) children and adolescents’, ‘Sexual orientation and gender identity as diagnoses’, ‘Sexual orientation and gender identity change efforts’, and ‘Gender transition procedures.’ In Part 5 of the book (pages 397-404) there is a ‘Conversation about gender identity and transition’.
The LLF course also includes trans people and the subject of gender identity, but like the book it is inconclusive, intentionally so. As the Bishops explain at the end of the book (page 422), the discussions it contains have ‘exposed the depth of disagreement between Christians’, including the Bishops themselves, in terms of opposite sex relationships, gender and pastoral provisions for transgender people, and ‘most pressing ... around same sex relationships.’
Trans people are also represented in LLF’s film stories, controversially so, as we noted last week when several of us complained about the negative impact of one of the LLF Course videos which contained a section of film story of a trans person widely known for disseminating anti-trans views (not expressed in the video). For some people the use of this person’s film story in the LLF Course raises serious safeguarding concerns.
If the proposed working group on gender identity and transition is intended to address these particular concerns then Changing Attitude England welcomes this development while regretting that gender identity and transition were not fully addressed when I and later, Alex Clare-Young, were members of the Coordinating Group. As Alex notes below, neither he nor I were consulted about the proposed new working group, despite our previous involvement as LLF consultants. Changing Attitude England also shares Alex’s apprehension about the purpose, and likely composition of the group, given that lobby groups have tried to frustrate trans people’s full inclusion in the Church of England.
To give two recent examples of the latter. The original General Synod Motion on Conversion Therapy of 2017 was amended, following push back from evangelicals, who argued that because the Royal College of Psychiatrists had not endorsed Version 2 of the Memorandum of Understanding (MOU V2) on Conversion Therapy – which included gender identity – neither should the Church of England. Yet, the Royal College of Psychiatrists not only subsequently endorsed MOU V2 it issued its own equally strong Position Statement on transgender and gender diverse people. There was also considerable push back, including a petition, when the House of Bishops decided not to consider the provision of a liturgy to mark gender transition, as General Synod had requested, but instead issued guidance, which trans people had been consulted about, advising clergy to adapt an existing rite, the Affirmation of Baptismal Faith, for that purpose. Both were attempts to side-line or problematise trans people. Yet our archbishops assured us, at the start of LLF, that no one is an issue or a problem.
It is vital, as Alex says, that the membership of the proposed working group should embrace a broad range of trans and gender variant people. It must also include people who are specialists in the field of gender identity and in overseeing people’s transitions according to the Standards of Care issued by the World Professional Association for Transgender Health. https://www.wpath.org/publications/soc
It should not include those who dismiss trans people’s experience as a mental illness, a fantasy, a sinful temptation, a gnostic claim to secret self-knowledge, or a symptom of the decadence of Western self-consciousness.
That trans people can be poorly treated in churches is well-documented and something those responsible for LLF should be well aware of following one campaign group’s deliberate misgendering of a participant who appeared in LLF’s launch video. Vulnerable in our churches, trans people are currently experiencing unprecedented attack in our society and need people to speak up on their behalf. A working group on gender identity and transition – properly informed about trans people’s lives and the medical and therapeutic consensus that supports our flourishing – would be an opportunity for the Church of England to do precisely that.
Alex Clare-Young, trans minister and former member of the LLF co-ordinating group, says that:
‘It is vital that churches listen to a wide range of trans and non-binary people to understand our identities and our experiences of church. I am concerned, however, that discussions about the need for a working group on gender identity and transition have not included consultation of either of the trans people who were members of the LLF co-ordinating group. There is an urgent need for clarity regarding the aims of this group and its membership. At the very least, the group should include a wide range of trans members, including transfeminine, transmasculine and non-binary people and must not be yet another source of polemical debate between those with lived experience of oppression due to gender identity and those who falsely equate theological opinion or position with said lived experience. Trans people are the current targets of misinformation, hatred and oppression in public, political, and ecclesial discourse. It is vital that organisations, including churches, begin to listen to trans people, instead of debating the validity of our authentic, God-given identities.’