Spousal veto

In terms of sex (biological not shagging) it would still be a heterosexual relationship but legally it wouldn't.

When someone "changes sex" then if it's in marriage it's no big deal, of no real significance, but when someone "changes sex" in other contexts it's vastly significant and the entire world must acknowledge this without question, without even the slightest of side-eye, otherwise woe betide them.

Yes. Goalposts changing all the damn time.

This is a good example of how the significance of things trans changes depending on the argument being advanced. When someone "changes sex" then if it's in marriage it's no big deal, of no real significance, but when someone "changes sex" in other contexts it's vastly significant and the entire world must acknowledge this without question, without even the slightest of side-eye, otherwise woe betide them.

Lesbian is a protected characteristic defined in The Equality Act. A lesbian is a woman - an adult human female - who is exclusivly attracted to other women.

I have read your thread but I am struggling to understand why you think women should be trapped in a marriage they did not sign up to, or why you are calling straight women homophobic for not wanting to be in a lesbian relationship.

You've made your point clear; you don't think men who transition become 'real' lesbians so as far as you're concerned it doesn't really count; and you cant see how this would be a problem for lesbians either.

Some trans widows are able to divorce on the grounds of unreasonable behaviour- the way late transitioners carry on, it's really not difficult to put a petition together, but the problem is it depends on the consent of the respondent, so isn't as reliable a means of getting out as if we had no fault divorce.

Noone is stopping them getting their GRC, it just takes a little longer.

You can get an interim one, can't you?

No one should be forced into a lesbian marriage ..which seems homophobic

Extraordinary.

Sexual orientation is a protected characteristic. And you are saying that not wanting to have it publicly renamed is homophobic??

They'd better get no fault divorce in first. Otherwise they've just campaigned their way to getting a GRC deemed unreasonable behaviour. Or what else would be the grounds for a retrospective divorce?
Even with - they're the ones saying a trans person is literally the other sex. If a person is supposedly literally not the person you thought they were when you married them, the marriage has to be void doesn't it. It's such a minor, administrative thing too. Noone is stopping them getting their GRC, it just takes a little longer.

It’s necessary for women who’s religion does not allow divorce…but that to me is a wider problem than just transition …what happens to those women in DV cases etc

This is never tied in with a wider reform of divorce law though.

Also these women you mention are usually trapped in abusive marriages or divorce but can never remarry. Why argue for a policy that would put more women in this bracket.

Apologies for spamming I'm on my phone, so can't post everything at once.

No one should be forced into a lesbian marriage ..which seems homophobic

Don't forget the lesbians being forced into straight marriages.

Not being a lesbian does not make me homophobic.

No one should be forced into a lesbian marriage ..which seems homophobic , like what’s wrong with lesbian marriage. I guess I also struggle here because whilst the words have changed once the legal process has completed, the person hasn’t

Yes, they always have changed, usually beyond all recognition. Again read the trans widows threads.

If we take out abuse, people changing beyond recognition, someone using the transition as a way to bully/taunt the other person, why should one legal process be dependent on the other?

Have you read the trans widows threads? How do you propose to take abuse out of a relationship?

So I have read various transwidow and spousal veto threads but am still struggling to understand why (rationally, not emotively)

Are you saying trans widows views should not be listened to because they are not rational?

WTF am I reading? OP in what other situations do you think people should be forced to be married to someone they don't want to be married to? And why on EARTH should anyone ever have to pretend to have a sexuality they don't actually have??

Jess Phillip's championing the removal of asking the consent of a woman before her marriage changes. www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/3787357-Jess-Phillips-championing-the-removal-of-asking-the-consent-of-a-woman-before-her-marriage-changes

Most recent thread showing a heartening amount of support for trans widows

It's probably hopelessly vain to quote yourself but I'm going to do it to save time:

The arguments around this issue boil down to this: Which is the greater evil, a heterosexual woman being trapped in a same sex marriage against her will, or her husband having his Gender Recognition Certificate delayed while his wife leaves the marriage.

It is a prime example of the strength of male entitlement and of society’s unquestioning acceptance of it, that so far it is the “Spousal Veto” narrative that is entirely framing the debate. Males must have complete agency and females must serve.

Previous thread:

www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/3717872-Trans-Widows-the-Liberal-Democrats-and-the-Spousal-Veto

Having had to wait out the bog standard 2 year agreed separation which was really hard even though he'd moved out and wasn't transitioning to anything other than more of a cock, I can see having to wait that long, possibly longer if they don't want to divorce, with a a "differently gendered" stranger essentially in your house still potentially, would be really traumatic.

If transitioning is as fundamentally profoundly significant as we are required to think, then its affect on a marriage must be seen to be similarly significant.

Having done a great deal of research on this, this sets out my position (again).

makemorenoisemanc.wixsite.com/mysite/post/trans-widows-and-the-spousal-veto-a-modern-fable-of-male-entitlement

The so-called ‘spousal veto’ just means someone seeking to change sex has to divorce first if his/her partner does not wish to be married to someone who has changed sex. Why is that so terrible? A marriage is meant to be a partnership of equals so why does one party get to drastically change the whole nature of the marriage without the other party having any say?

If two people where in a business partnership running a cafe and one party decided they would rather make porn then surely it would be reasonable to allow the other to say ‘no, I am not happy with porn if you want to do that you will have to leave our cafe partnership’ rather than them having to become part of the porn industry before being allowed to leave the business?

It’s not a spousal veto. No one can ‘veto’ anyone else’s transition - it’s a spousal exit clause. I think you need to do a bit more reading OP. Do you think people should have the right to easily exit a marriage if the terms of that marriage are fundamentally changed by the other party?

Would you say if someone says "I will never marry an Indian" that there might be an element of racism in there?

Would you have the same issue with a lesbian who said "I would never marry a man"?

Not that it's anything much to do with with removing an escape clause for women in marriages whose terms are being fundamentally and unilaterally changed, but the homophobia here is rebranding straight women as lesbians when they aren't lesbians. That is homophobic to actual lesbians.

I can't quite believe I'm reading this thread.

I may be misunderstanding this point but surely it’s not homophobic to say you would not marry a woman if you are heterosexual and a woman.