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

10 responses to “So, let me get this right…”

Andrew Page

16/02/2013

I think you have understood if correctly (or at least as fully as it can be understood).

This just shows how confused the church has become, or how keen it is to tie itself into the proverbial knots to appease both progressives and traditionalists.

Either way, this position is both absurd and intellectually unsustainable.

Reply
Kirstin

16/02/2013

Kelvin can I ask what submissions you are referring to, is there a new one?

Reply
Joan H Craig

16/02/2013

I think that, once marriage law is passed, current civil partnerships can convert to marriage by filling form, etc. Don’t think they said what happens if the couple want a religious marriage – or did I miss that?
If our churches persist in saying no to marriage, wouldn’t it be better to do the blessing after they’ve converted their civil status – as in some countries where every marriage is a civil ceremony, and any religious service is done afterwards
I hope everyone has completed the most recent consultation paper

Reply
Rhea

16/02/2013

I think that the church wants to have its cake and eat it too. It wants everyone to be happy, and this is probably the best way that it knows to do this.

Is it ridiculous? Of course.

Reply
Kelvin Holdsworth

16/02/2013

There is to be a new one. I’ve not seen it. I understand that the position that the Faith and Order Board is holding to is that “church teaching” is what Canon 31 says – that and nothing else and therefore we are doctrinally against change.

Is that not the case?

Reply
1. kelvin
  
  16/02/2013
  
  So far as I understand it, the SEC has not moved in its position since the first response at all.
  
  The first response included this:
  Question 10: Do you agree that the law in Scotland should be changed to allow same sex marriage?
  The Canons of the Scottish Episcopal Church (Canon 31) state that the doctrine of the Church is that marriage is â€˜a physical, spiritual and mystical union of one man and one woman created by their mutual consent of heart, mind and will thereto, and as a holy and lifelong estate instituted of Godâ€™. In the light of that Canon, there is no current basis for agreeing that the law should be changed to view marriage as possible between two people of the same sex.
  
  Reply
2. Kirstin
  
  16/02/2013
  
  The SEC’s last response was in line with what the current law was, indeed still is, this consultation asks a very different question. To which the answer ‘well it isn’t legal, so we can’t say’, (I paraphrase) can’t be the answer this time, can it?
  Of course Canon 31 also states it is a “lifelong estate” but had clause 4 added at a later date to allow for divorce and remarriage.
  
  Reply
Rev David Coleman

16/02/2013

I was watching the evidence to the Westminster parliamentary committees the other day. In all these things, even from churches which are prepared to be tentatively in favour, or declining to be opposed, what is missing from all the evidence is the human experience of joy and delight that actually characterises a true and good wedding, of any combination of partners. How can we get across the compelling and converting happiness when processes take the form they do?

Reply
Rosemary Hannah

17/02/2013

Is there any way of getting hold of the board – of ordinary church members getting hold of it and making it listen?? I mean I know my approach tends to lack in subtlety what it makes up for in directness, but then, well, it is very direct.

Reply
Kimberly

17/02/2013

Rosemary, of all the many beautiful sentences you have written, that is the very very best.

Reply