Monday, October 3, 2016
First do no harm
A recent blog post celebrated the publication of a letter in the Anglican Diocese of Sydney monthly magazine Southern Cross.
Correspondence directed to the author of an article on transgenderism is yet to be met with a response. I believe that harm could arise from the article.
Can anyone answer this correspondence? Are we happy that such dilemmas could arise in our churches?
I refer the following text “Don’t have rigid gender stereotypes, especially for children” (hereinafter “advice”).
I now ask that you consider a case example - being one not dissimilar to one that I have tackled. I ask you only whether the church can possibly do harm by following your advice:
- ABC is a single parent
- XYZ is ABC’s teen child
- ABC has noticed that XYZ is showing signs of being uncertain as to sexuality
- ABC decides that attending church may help XYZ. At church, ABC expects that there will be role models of XYZ’z biological gender. At church, ABC expects that these roles models will assist ABC’s efforts to assert to XYZ that XYZ should maintain a pattern in fitting with gender of birth.
- XYZ meets a number of parishioners and becomes fondly acquainted with QRS (a person of same birth gender)
- QRS, having read the advice in September SC, gives XYZ the message that XYZ need not be rigid in belief of sexuality
- XYZ pursues a transgender lifestyle
- ABC is absolutely devastated and never turns to the church again.