Please or to access all these features

Feminism: Sex and gender discussions

Genuinely don't understand this

30 replies

Belonger · 13/10/2018 07:06

Can anyone help me make sense of this? This trans person says that the proposed legislation will enable them to get married. This is the explanation of why they can't at the moment.

Genuinely don't understand this
OP posts:
MissSusanSays · 13/10/2018 07:49

Can I also point out that there is a poverty relief exception to reduce the cost of the GRC. So pleading poverty is nonsense. Anyone can get a GRC- so long as they are committed to permanently living as their new gender and have started (free on the NHS) medical transition.

Cwenthryth · 13/10/2018 07:45

Lily has a female partner, so would always have been able to marry them even before same-sex marriage was legalised.

Lily has also previously claimed to already have a GRC.

A GRC does not require any medical or surgical treatment at all. And costs £140 (plus any charges the 2 medical practitioners may make for reports etc).

Lily is as per usual is talking out of Lily’s arse.....HOW is the Labour Party cheerfully allowing this person to go about constantly publicly talking complete bullshit in their name? It reflects really poorly on them.

FekkoTheLawyer · 13/10/2018 07:40

I though the person who said this has said that they have a GRC.

Get married. In a zoo. Dress like tree frogs and eat bug cake. Call yourself Mr and Mr, or Ms and Ms, or Mx and Mx.

I DON'T CARE. Stop looking for issues that done exist.

VickyEadie · 13/10/2018 07:34

LM has a girlfriend, I believe - not a potential 'husband'.

MissSusanSays · 13/10/2018 07:15

None of that is true. Lily has gotten it wrong, again.

She can get married but not under her chosen ‘gender’. The GRA was originally introduced to get around that fact that there wasn’t legal gay marriage at the time it was introduced. There is now. I can’t remember who did it but there is a great Twitter thread with all the comments from the government documents discussing in detail the introduction of the GRA as a way to not have to also introduce gay marriage.

The second bit about her husband being able to take away her ‘identify’ is also wrong. Spouses can currently use transition as grounds for divorce. This is also because there is no such thing as a no fault divorce in this country. Removing this would leave spouses open to having to remain in marriages that they don’t wish to remain in.

Spouses can also currently object to a GRC application and delay it. This should probably be scrapped. But once someone has a GRC (as Lily claims to) there is nothing a spouse could do about that.

Lastly, the GRC does not require any evidence of full medical translation. It does however require that you are undergoing treatment for dysphoria and are living full time as your chosen gender. Which is the big thing that activists are objecting to. They want people who are casually trans to be able to have legal access to single sex spaces and be able to change their birth certificate.