Responses to Scottish Govt GRA consultation now online

Fortunately for the future of Scottish law, the Faculty of Advocates wrote:

"No. The proposals, if enacted, will render ineffective the provision for divorce on issue of an interim gender recognition certificate, but will then leave a spouse who seeks immediate divorce having to rely on a claim that the transgendered spouse has behaved in such a way that they cannot reasonably be expected to continue to cohabit. Unless relying on that ground, and in the absence of consent, the spouse seeking divorce will have to wait for two years. There must be consideration as to how to provide a ground that is not critical of either spouse for not remaining in a marriage after one of them has transgendered. The solution may be simply to allow legal gender recognition to be a ground for divorce that is open to either party."

There are a couple of questions regarding divorce. The first is fair enough that spousal consent need not be required.

But, it also asks if legal gender recognition should stop being grounds for divorce. As an example, Amnesty responds :

"Current grounds for divorce where the ‘marriage has broken down irretrievably’ are broad and sufficient. To have legal gender recognition as a standalone reason for grounds for divorce would go against the spirit of equality; furthermore it may contravene the individuals right to privacy if individuals are required to disclose their personal circumstances in relation to their gender status."

I don't think it is about laziness, I think most of the population don't have a clue what's going on, or are so brow beaten as to not allow themselves a view. This was never about a grass roots movement building up influence and awareness, this has been paid for by powerful vested interests - powerful enough to silence every political party and almost every politician in this country, powerful enough to make sure everyone complies, whether they agree or not. I've never witnessed anything like it, the breath taking speed of implementation, the complete rolling over of fact for non fact, biology for feelings. This is going on across the world, not just the UK. This is a global agenda. They are redefining fact, redefining language, redefining women, redefining humanity. The future is looking feverish, the emperor is most definitely naked.

Thank you for all the lovely flowers. They're beautiful and much appreciated. I can't believe I'm alive in this world, right now. I cannot believe, after all that's been said and done, that a tiny group of men with a specific fetish have managed, somehow, to almost smother half of the population (actually, more than half, cos I need to include kids too), simply because everyone else is too lazy to challenge them.

In my response, I suggested they should have complete transparency about the funding requirements of the organisations who provided official responses.
I bet most of them saying they welcome transwomen are actually dependent on that position for a percentage of their funding.

Posted too soon for everyone else

sociopathsunited

I have to say, I (thankfully) don't know much about divorce rules.

So at the moment, Andrew can't become Andrea unless his wife says it's OK? I can see the issue with that, so Andrew should be allowed to transition even if his wife doesn't want him to. But then surely his wife should be able to use the fact he is now Andrea and she is unhappy with that as grounds for divorce?!

Sorry, I don't know anything about this area of the law.

That was 2 separate questions. So many on there saying that your husband deciding that he is now actually Delilah La Belle is no grounds (in itself) for a separation.

I read it that way, Mrbatmun

What ARE the divorce rules in England and Wales? I think in Scotland, you can divorce someone 2 years after separating, whether they want you to or not. Is it the same for the other countries?

Is not inclusive of women who are being gaslighted by abusive partners and now are being told that the gender change of a partner is not sufficient reason to divorce them.

Can I just clarify, is that what that 'spousal permission' thing means? It reads like it means that if someone wanted to change gender, their spouse would need to give permission. But does it also mean that that someone couldn't use their partner 'changing their gender' as grounds for divorce?

Yeah, for inclusive read "inclusive of the dominators and JUST STOP OBJECTING" :(

That's the thing when they say inclusive they only mean inclusive for them women can just fuck off and put up with it. The ones that are pro don't even mention it and I know its not because they don't know about it it just they don't care.

Funnily enough, the only people I have met in real life who have been pro self Id and agree that women can have willies (didn't ask if they thought a wan could become a man) have been trendy right-on Asian men. Can't see them dating or marrying a transvestite/sexually though.

Fekko, that's the thing, the myth of inclusivity.

It's not inclusive of disabled people who get their facilities appropriated by able bodied men to adjust their lippy.

It's not inclusive of abuse survivors who arre driven from the very shelters that are supposed to offer protection.

It's not inclusive of young girls at risk of sexual predators.

It's not inclusive of women who are prevented by religion or culture from dressing in spaces with men.

Is not inclusive of women who are being gaslighted by abusive partners and now are being told that the gender change of a partner is not sufficient reason to divorce them.

It's not inclusive of anyone who doesn't actually fit stupid, regressive stereotypes.

It's not concerned with lower socio-economic groups, the sick, the old, the young.

It doesn't care about the harm to young girls, especially those on the spectrum or lesbians.

But it does include white, heterosexual, middle-class, university educated men with fetishes. Which is the important thing.

My heart sinks when I read the cut 'n paste chuntering about peace and love, inclusivoty for everyone, rights for all and sparkly bloody rainbow unicorn vomit (they don't actually mean 'for all' though do they?) What about women?

I am going through each of the responses individually to see what we are up again. i have only looked at 11 so far but its not filling me with hope.

Did you see the Free Church of Scotland response?

Aren't they the ones who tie up the playground equipment on Sundays?

So reading the Edinburgh Rape Crisis Centre response, they have allowed trans women in for 10 years so self id wouldn't make a difference anyway? So if you were accessing the centre in Edinburgh, you could find yourself there with someone who is obviously male? And this has been the case for 10 years?

Bizarre.

It's complete madness. I'm so angry that vulnerable women - all women - are being sacrificed

Did you see the Free Church of Scotland response? I clicked on it as I used to know some people from a local church.

They are having no truck with it whatsoever. Many mentions of biology...

I also filled this in with comments so it'll be interesting to see the individual responses.

Oh God Socio! It's disgusting that a rape crisis shelter should be prioritising the feelings of men over the safety of women. I think that was the one that depressed me the most.

I also note the glee which councils are suggesting named person could get involved with young children. We need to get No2NP on this!

Ouch, Socio

It's short-sighted in the extreme. Very few women will access these centres once it becomes common-place to find men in them.

I honestly don't understand how a rape crisis centre can be ok with making survivors share a space with penises? What's their justification? I don't get it, surely it defeats so much of the objective of a rape crisis centre?

This is when I need a nice padded, soundproof room, where I can scream until my ears and eyes bleed. Fucking hell. What in the name of all that's holy and unholy is happening?