What is in Kelvin's Head?

Statement on Transgender Day of Remembrance 2019

20/11/2019

Earlier this year, someone was convicted in Glasgow Sheriff Court of sending me threatening and abusive messages. The offence was found to be aggravated by prejudice related to both sexual orientation and transgender identity. Someone had threatened my life, and my own association and support for trans people was one of the reasons for the prejudice and one of the reasons that the court and the police took the offence as seriously as they did.

Whilst it was unpleasant having to deal with that incident, I’m well aware that it was the one time in my life when I’ve seriously suffered myself from prejudice against people with a trans identity. Those who are trans have to deal with this prejudice every day as they make their way through life. Such prejudice seems to have become more vocal and confident recently.

My own limited and partial experience of dealing with this is one factor in why I am prepared to stand alongside those who mark today as the Transgender Day of Remembrance. Violence and prejudice against people is wrong. Trans people are simply people. Prejudice and violence against trans people is simply wrong.

However, in stating that I stand alongside trans people in remembering that they suffer from violence and prejudice, I also am reminded that as I stand alongside trans people I stand alongside people whom I’ve known to be creative, brave, funny, interesting and whole. I know and have worked with trans priests and admire them. My own congregation includes trans people with all kinds of diverse experience who are not simply defined by their trans identity. When I think of them, I think of people who make the world a better place.

The world will be a better place when violence against anyone because of their identity is eliminated.

Remembering trans people whose lives have been taken from them, I lament their loss and pray that they may rest in peace and rise to make heaven more glorious.

Remembering trans people who are alive, I thank God for them and pray that their lives may be filled with joy.

[Comments on this post will be moderated]

trans, 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