In response to the question “What is the Church of England’s definition of a woman?” Bishop Robert Innes, on behalf of the Church's governing body, said:
“There is no official definition [but that] the “Living In Love and Faith” project ... has begun to explore the complexities associated with gender identity and points to the need for additional care and thought to be given in understanding our commonalities and differences as people made in the image of God.”
Which is absurd.
A woman was, is and always will a human able to produce an ovum, and to host a fertilized ovum until the moment of parturition.
Accordingly, a woman possesses ovaries, a womb, and a vagina permitting both impregnation and child delivery.
Yes, in both women and in men, there can be anatomical or physiological abnormalities that may prevent an individual expressing the reproductive potential of their sex. Nevertheless, in the majority of cases, sex is clearly defined in the genome: a woman has two X chromosomes but no Y chromosome, whereas a man has a Y chromosome, but only one X chromosome.
Again, there can be abnormalities. Some women have three X chromosomes, and some men have an X and two Y chromosomes. But still the presence or absence of the Y chromosome dictates whether the anatomy is functionally male or female.
It should be added that there are genetic abnormalities affecting sexual characteristics more subtle than the presence of extra chromosomes. For example, a gene coding for the hormone testosterone, the masculinizing hormone, may be transposed from the Y chromosome to the X chromosome, with the result that a person without a Y chromosome, though functionally female, may be more or less masculinized in such features as muscularity and the production of the feminizing hormone estrogen.
But whatever the physical determinants of gender, it may be claimed that a person without a Y chromosome may have a male mentality and thus a wish to dress, live and behave like a man, while conversely, a person with a Y chromosome may have a female mentality and wish to dress, live and behave like a woman. Who, then, is to say that the presence or absence of particular features of the reproductive anatomy are more important than the presence or absence of particular features of the personality?
The answer to that question should surely be this: if a person who is functionally male wishes to live as a female, or a person who is functionally female wishes to live as a male, why should anyone object, provided only that, in the impersonation of the opposite sex, the transsexual individual does not hurt others who might be misled by the impersonation.
And yes, we know, that by transplantation of organs and glands and surgical removal or reconstruction of various parts of the anatomy, a man may give birth to a child. So is such a man actually a woman? Well, who but the individual concerned and those near and dear to them actually cares. Obviously, as a matter kindness and civility, why would one dispute the adopted sexual role and identity of such a person. But because a person has undergone an extreme surgical makeover, does not alter their original biology, or the facts that distinguish male from female. Or as the great Scotch poet Robbie Burns said, "A man's a man for a' that".
What is evil, immensely so, is propaganda directed at children by transgender advocates with the aim of persuading confused and inexperienced young people that they should undergo surgical and hormonal treatment to change their gender. Such advocacy should be criminalized and severely punished. Jordan Peterson explains why:
Jordan Peterson -- Doctors, Psychotherapists, Liars and Butchers:
