The Anglican Church of Canada is looking for a “female identified or non-binary” individual to take part in a UN Commission on the status of women. That means men who, in defiance of their genetic underpinnings, claim to be women can apply. They may even be given preferential treatment.
Just when you think the Anglican Church of Canada cannot become more daft – it does just that.
From here:
Delegate to the United Nations Commission on the Status of Women – Expression of Interest
The Anglican Church of Canada has been asked to nominate one young woman (female identified or non-binary), age 18-30 years old to take part in the Anglican Communion delegation to the sixty-fourth session of the United Nations Commission on the Status of Women in New York City, March 9th-20th, 2020.The main focus of UNCSW64 will be on the review of the implementation of the Beijing Declaration and Platform for Action to assess current challenges that affect the implementation of the Platform for Action and the achievement of gender equality and the empowerment of women.
Some time back I sent this to NDP headquarters (they were asking what they could do to get my electoral support):–
“Jagmeet, Please, for me in Vancouver, start with your bizarre choice of a militant transvestite as a candidate for public office. As I have written to NDP Federal Headquarters, I regard it as quite wrong and counterproductive for the Party to put forward as a candidate in a federal riding an individual who having begotten children now thinks himself, or claims to be, a woman. He is either deluded or untruthful. I cannot contemplate voting for any such individual.
In over 50 years in this country I have not infrequently voted NDP, but never knowingly for a liar or a lunatic.
Mine is a very highly-trained intelligence. I come out of one of the handful of original famous girls’ schools, and am a member of each of the two oldest women’s colleges in the world’s two most highly-rated universities. To extend privilege to other women has been a main aim of my adult life. My feminist and social justice credentials are impeccable. I myself suffered as a female in the Oxford Theology faculty a life-changing injustice: it took that great and ancient university a quarter of a century to appoint competent and fair examiners for my highly original doctoral dissertation, so that I got my D.Phil. not in 1971 but in 1996. I am committed to justice, especially for my own sex. I constantly advocate for that, locally and internationally.
I am 81, and have conceived, carried, borne and even breastfed children, actually not notionally; these children were in every case begotten by a man, actually not notionally. I therefore believe that the decision to put forward as a woman candidate an individual who has begotten children is profoundly misguided and effectively an insult to the electorate. It is unconscionable on ethical grounds, not to mention a move based on a bizarre misconception which makes one local individual unique in all human history: women do not beget children. This individual includes in his baggage the repudiation of his marriage vows, the desertion of his children and their mother, the defunding of the women’s Shelter in this city and the impoverishment by $55,000.00 of an innocent and hardworking Canadian who refused to subscribe to fashionable opinion about his psychological condition. He is at the very least profoundly disturbed emotionally, a phenomenon from which women who must deal with such men suffer daily adverse, sometimes fatal, effects.”
Mercifully my protest and that of others appears to have had its effect: the prospective candidate failed to get the nomination. Perhaps our Church would do well to take warning. How to empty out your support in one easy lesson.
Far too exclusive the requirements posted:
Would not the Inspector General for inclusive language for other Hymnals that meet not the broad scope of ‘Songs for the Holy Other: Hymns Affirming the LGBTQIAS2+ Community’ ( hot off the July 16, 2019 ‘Hymn Society’ Press in wake of the failed GS vote on the marriage Canon to assuage the inconsolable grief of all concerned),
who SELF (there’s the rub!) identifies as “a gender-non-conforming, queer and asexual”, fill the bill?