What is in Kelvin's Head?

Transgender Visibility and the Church

31/03/2016

Today happens to be International Transgender Visibility Day of Visibility.

As yet, I’ve heard nothing today from anyone from a faith background. No bishops making statements either positive or negative, no-one threatening to leave a denomination over it, no statements at all really.

It seems to me that it is worth me going on record to say that St Mary’s is a church which has transgender people connected to it.

I suspect that wouldn’t particularly surprise anyone. Most people will shrug and say “oh, that’s just St Mary’s for you”

However, I think it is worth my while saying that each of the three church communities that I’ve been part of since ordination has had transgender people as members of their communities. I’ve also met trans men and trans women in both of my times working in university chaplaincy. This has made me conclude that being transgender is a more common thing than I used to presume and it really is surprising that the church has nothing much to say about it.

Members of the body of Christ are transgender.

I’ve had to learn a lot as I’ve listened to people with that experience tell me about their lives.

One of the things that I’ve learned is that some of the very common narratives that I have become used to hearing from lesbian and gay people of faith don’t really map onto transgender experience very well.

Many many times, I’ve heard stories from gay and lesbian people of alienation and frustration within church communities which I’ve met by saying, “Well, I don’t think God makes mistakes – God made you attracted to the people you are attracted to and God doesn’t make mistakes”.

However, that doesn’t really work for people who are on a trans journey. Not quite anyway. I’ve changed what I say a bit and now I think that I’d be more likely to say is that the essential truth is that God loves us as we really, truly are.

Transgender people and those who are close to them are welcome at St Mary’s. I’d like to think that people already know that but I guess that with the silence I hear from the wider church it is worth saying out loud. The fact that I’ve known people with this experience in very different religious communities to the one I now lead gives me some hope.

So – God bless all transgender people on this day of transgender visibility.

God blesses the whole church through them.

LGBT, transgender

52 responses to “Inclusive Language – again”

ryan

11/10/2010

Kelvin – that cracked me almost as much as your last tweet on the left of your blog ;-)!

Reply
Jimmy

11/10/2010

Ryan, although you address your comment to Kelvin like I am not there. I assume you are referring to my poem, I can assure you that it does not crack me up watching you making any opinion you may have untenable.

Reply
1. kelvin
  
  11/10/2010
  
  No Jimmy – I think Ryan was indeed referring to my last comment, above.
  
  Reply
Jimmy

11/10/2010

Thank you Kelvin and Sorry Ryan.

Reply
ryan

11/10/2010

No worries! Was indeed referring to the v.amusing coming out day tweets at the side.

I’m not sure there’s ever existed anyone, anywhere,at any time, of whom it could be said that *all* their opinions are ‘untenable’, so such rhetoric is dehumanising at best. Apropos nothing, I was moved to google the poetic stylings of the great David Brent. Who needs Auden? 😉
http://murfinsandburglars.com/2009/04/14/bad-poetry-for-tuesday-david-brent-edition/

Reply
Peter

12/10/2010

Kelvin; no, I think it distracts. It simp;ly reminds us that this is how your mind works: you make connections and delight in that sort of word-play. However, to sharpen up my point. Thank you for helping me to realise that, for some, ‘family’ is not a positive word in the way in which I experience it. For my part, this willl mean that I will be more careful about its use when others might feel excluded (and therefore hurt). Mutatis mutandi can you accept that I feel offended by what seems to be merely a casual linking between family and the f word? These are sensitive areas, but sensibilities are by no means confined to those who find family a painful or unhelpful concept.

Reply
Simon

29/10/2010

I am slightly nervous aboaut the alternatives to the 1982 Liturgy, not because I don’t share the inclusive sentiments expressed above (I do). I fear that, as so often in the history of the church, the steps we take to avoid one kind of mistake in the way we talk about God can lead us into another. The avoidance of pronouns as a measure to achieve inclusivity produces inelegant, strained and stilted English. How would it be if one were to use it in day-to-day speech? ‘I saw John this morning. I asked John’s how John’s health was. John said that John was over his flu, and hoped to be back at work on Monday’. This may not in itself seem to be a problem. But in fact, what very quickly happens when we adopt this idiom in addressing/expressing God, is that the very idea of a personal God begins to recede. My basic instinct is that the church’s language of pulbic prayer is properly anchored in that of the scriptures. There are dangers in departing from this. The perceived problem (rightly perceived) is perhaps better tackled by good teaching about the nature of God, than by linguistic contortions that produce stilted prayers, and possibly a less real and vivid idea of God.

Reply
Melissa

15/11/2013

About the family imagery – another reason to drop it in church is for the sake ones who, like me, do actually have the signifying family relationships.

There is too much pressure on day to day life with children when that life is forced to serve as some kind of example or testimony or witness to the world – or more likely one’s church friends – about the nature of God.

I think it sours love because in that kind of scheme loving children is more fundamentally a means to an end.

Reply