Lib Dems actively deterring GC women

Yeah, heard enough on this one. Gay man gives no shits about women and would delight in 'destroying' anyone trying to put forward pro-woman viewpoints.

Hope everyone's clear what the position of Facts?Don't care is. Callous disregard for women, but a really thoughtful personal note that he'd definitely fuck a trans man. I'm sure it's won you all over.

I've been saying for years that "GC" people should put forward a motion to Libdem conference to show they would be "listened to", and I would take great joy in speaking against and destroying it

Have you not considered that their arguments might be persuasive and you may no longer wish to destroy their motion? If you're not considering that possibility you are not intending to listen to them, so we'd be no further forward.

I am totally unconcerned with younger people starting transition.

So the LibDems stand against FGM & breast ironing, but have no problem with young people’s healthy genitals being operated on or their healthy breasts being crushed / amputated if those young people identify as trans?

@Factsdontcare

Ok, fine not annulment. But at least a divorce in which the transitioning person has no interest in slowing it down and indeed wants it to happen. LD policy is for quick no fault divorce to be available, but as far as I understand it, doesn't go as far as saying one person can initiate it without any consent from the other, so if transitioning person wants to transition and stay married, no fault divorce may not help the spouse if they need cooperation for it to move quickly.

Do you think that it would be objectionable for the process for getting a GRC to be that the marriage would automatically be ended (so no delay to GRC - would be treated as if never existed for legal purposes, just like the person who transitioned), unless spouse opts in?

I wouldn't structure it in terms of opt in, but I wouldn't oppose having an expididated divorce process attached for partners who don't want to continue the marriage. But the ability for a spouse to block the application until they get a lengthy and costly divorce has to end

I entered into a marriage with my husband, let's call him Fred.

Fred decides he is now Francesca, and is going to apply for a GRC.

I am not gay. I did not consent to marry Francesca. I consented to marry Fred.

As the entire nature of my marriage is being changed, I no longer consent to be married. I wish to divorce, BEFORE my husband becomes my wife. I did not agree to have a wife. I do not consent to being married to a woman as I did not choose to marry a woman.

Fred doesn't want to delay * transition to Francesca. I don't want to delay my divorce to Fred.

The Lib Dem position is that my consent is meaningless, my wants are inconsequential, but Fred must get everything Fred wants?

Hmm. I wonder why the person born with a penis is so much more important than the one born with a vagina? Could it be... misogyny??

Nice bit of casual homophobia there

It's about removing the mandated delays, cost, medical recognition. It's about shortening the time, not making it instant.

A bit like applying for a passport as far as I can gather. So a few weeks then. Not much time in there for his poor wife who has to come to terms with what her husband wants to do and decide on her best strategy. With all the emotional load that comes with that and people like @Factsdontcare lauding her husband for being 'brave and stunning' while she watches her whole life collapse and is told to be 'supportive'.

Can you please show some consideration for women for once?

And please tell me about the 'medical recognition'.

@Factsdontcare

Do you think that it would be objectionable for the process for getting a GRC to be that the marriage would automatically be ended (so no delay to GRC - would be treated as if never existed for legal purposes, just like the person who transitioned), unless spouse opts in?

@thetoddleratemyhomework Still far slower than just getting an annulment at the same time as a gender recognition certificate is issued I would imagine.

To be clear, and this is one of the incorrect facts that I came here to correct. This is not now the spousal veto works. Post-SSM there are no annulments, now the spouse is asked to consent, if they don't then the trans person has 6 months to get a divorce or their GRC application is voided.

@Factsdontcare

And we think you’re wrong and won’t be voting for you. Enjoy never being in Government

Luckily I have a local independent candidate to vote for

Newuser123123 having known trans people growing up, and knowing a number of trans men in my personal and work life outside the libdems, I am totally unconcerned with younger people starting transition.

"I'm not interested in women"

Yep, got that

But why won't the Lib Dems listen to women who say anything different

We do. I've spent an unhealthy amount of time reading Mumsnets to read up on what the other side thinks. I just don't agree with you. That's the issue you don't see to understand, we do listen to you, we know what your arguments are. We just think you are wrong.

DodoPatrol the best way I can probably show my mindset and thinking on this topic without droning on, is to say that I am a gay man who has had relationships with trans men. I wouldn't date a woman, I'm not interested in women. Trans men are men.

@Factsdontcare

But what if the self ID stuff passes before the no fault stuff, or in a coalition would you insist on both?! And how immediate would the divorce be?! Still far slower than just getting an annulment at the same time as a gender recognition certificate is issued I would imagine.

I've been saying for years that "GC" people should put forward a motion to Libdem conference to show they would be "listened to", and I would take great joy in speaking against and destroying it

Why?

Surely you would listen to it first, think about it, and then decide whether you agreed with all, parts, or none of it?

'Listening' involves slightly more than just 'having words spoken in your presence'.

Wow I can't believe that GC activists won't listen to women. Disgraceful.

@Factsdontcare I don't understand what you mean here.

Of course Helen Belcher's wife should be listened to. But why won't the Lib Dems listen to women who say anything different?

I'd like to throw that back at you with 'Wow I can't believe that Lib Dem activists won't listen to women', but sadly it's actually what I expect of the Lib Dems now.

Factsdontcare, as you are at least here and bothering to respond, and the issues are not solely about marriage:

Do you have any limits in your own mind as to the difference between men and women, or boys and girls, and when one jumps category to 'become' the opposite?

If you see a stranger, or hear a voice on the radio, do you ever assume 'man' or 'woman'? Or are you genuinely open-minded?

If you are walking home alone at night, say, and hear a voice or see a figure following you, does it alert you more if the voice or figure is male, or female?

In your view, is it ever justified for something to be single-sex rather than single-gender?

@facts what do you think about the rise in children transitioning? Many of us are worried about the speed at which this seems to be happening and the inreversible nature of the treatment?

@Thetoddleratemyhomework sure they would be two different pieces of legislation, but they would both be passed by a Libdem government/pushed by Libdem MPs.

Under the self-ID proposals, someone could do just that.

Reforming the GRA towards self id does not mean recognition overnight. There is still processing, and we all know how slow government bureaucracy can be. It's about removing the mandated delays, cost, medical recognition. It's about shortening the time, not making it instant.

Let's put it in a way the LDs will care about-men.
Two men are married. We'll call them Tim and Bob. They've been married for years but one day Bob decides that he is actually a woman and wants to obtain a GRC. Bob wants to remain married and considers himself a heterosexual woman. Tim does not want to stay married. Bob obtains a GRC quickly via self-ID. Tim is now, legally (according to the LDs) a heterosexual man married to a woman and in fact always has been. Tim loses his job a few weeks later-he suspects homophobia is the reason. Tim's boss shrugs and says "nope-you're married to a woman now aren't you?"

All OK according to the LDs?

Is there any political party that isn’t fucking women over on the most basic of levels?

The fact is they are already in a same sex marriage, even if it isnt legally such. Their position that they don't want to be in a SSM doesn't mean they should be able to block legal recognition, especially when they have literally any opportunity they want to end the marriage.

They are not in a same sex marriage in any way before the granting of a GRC. People cannot change sex, and the legal fiction that someone has changed sex only comes about at the point when that person obtains a GRC.

And please think about how anti-woman you are sounding. The vast majority of people who transition after marriage are men married to women. Many of them have children. I watched the video of Helen and Helen's wife (I realise now I don't even know her name) on Helen's website. They said that their children were very young (I think they said about 3 and 6) when Helen decided to transition. Do you really think a woman in that situation has 'literally any opportunity they want to end the marriage'?

You're sounding very callous about the reality of many women's lives.