Spousal veto

Does the person going through transition have to wait endlessly until the spouse gives permission?

No permission is required for transition. But from your statement I think you’ve answered my earlier question (Hooves do you think a person should have to wait 5 years before they are able to transition?) in the negative.

So, you think a person should be able to transition asap, but because you also believe that there should be no special allowance made for the the non transitioning person to divorce or annul asap, they could be forced to remain in a marriage for up to 5 years, all the while unable to seperate finances, or possibly sell the family home so they can at least live separately.

For you the transitioning spouse takes absolute precedence and should have the rights to totally change a marriage contract and hold their spouse to that contract for another, possibly, 5 years.

Yikes.

But there is no contract for parenthood.

I don't think there is an agenda per se. I think this is just being seen as a reason for divorce, as any other reason is seen, and that the same process is followed.

Thinking about it I think I see this in the same way as I do about abortion. We all agree that a woman is the only person who decides whether she has an abortion or not, even though her decision affects the status of the father. She has an abortion and he does not become a father. She chooses to have the child and he becomes a father. In both scenarios the man might not want it to happen but none of us here would argue that he should have any rights over that decision. I feel the same here. The person choosing to transition should have the right to do that, without opposition from their spouse. What if the spouse refuses to engage in the divorce/annulment process? Does the person going through transition have to wait endlessly until the spouse gives permission? What if the couple were separated long before the trans process began? Possibly in other relationships but not divorced? Does the spouse still have the right to hold the process up?

I understand that it is painful for the spouse but then so are many other reasons for divorce but the legal process still has to be followed. I just can't see why this is a special case. A spouse may well do other very painful things that fundamentally change the nature of the marriage - go and get a vasectomy when they knew their wife wanted a child for example. The divorce process would still have to be followed though wouldn't it?

What I don't understand is when some posters are saying that they are being forced to stay in a marriage that they don't want to be in or that they should have the right to a divorce if their partner is trans. The law is not compelling people to stay married is it? Divorce is not banned in these circumstances.

The sticking point seems to be Hooves not quite following the logic that the spouse should be able to divorce PRIOR to being forced to be in a same sex marriage:

• That they should NOT FOR EVEN A SINGLE DAY be forced to be in same sex marriage.
• That the LEGAL ISSUES that come with divorce post GRA means that the spouse has more difficulty getting a divorce

Nobody wants to stop anyone getting a GRA, but nobody should be forced to stay in the subsequent marriage if they don't want to. Logic, and common courtesy, says therefore, that the couple should consensually divorce and then both go on their merry way. Why anyone should try to stop that happening has another agenda... maybe hooves you could wonder what that agenda might be!

Oh I see Hooves. Your issue is not with the Spousal Escape Clause itself, but rather with the way you think some posters have phrased their posts?

Hooves do you think a person should have to wait 5 years before they are able to transition?

I have read the thread. I understand the point that people are making about the nature of their marriage being changed against their will ie that the record is changed to say that it's a same sex marriage. I understand that.

What I don't understand is when some posters are saying that they are being forced to stay in a marriage that they don't want to be in or that they should have the right to a divorce if their partner is trans. The law is not compelling people to stay married is it? Divorce is not banned in these circumstances.

I understand that divorce is expensive, you might not want to get divorced etc. But that's the same for any spouse who finds that their marriage has broken down - a partner cheats, or leaves or decides that they want a divorce and you don't.

I understand all.of the feelings around this. The only thing I don't understand is posters saying that they should be allowed to divorce - you can, just as anyone can.

Hooves I wondered the same thing.

I read the thread carefully, and now I don't need to wonder any more because it's been explained.

It's worth mentioning that other trans widows have told me that it is much more difficult and expensive to get divorced and get a fair financial settlement, once the transitioner has changed their name and / or gender.

Because if all the bank accounts, pensions etc are in a different name it takes much more admin to sort out.

Of course this works in favour of the transitioner generally. Coincidence?

It's about the fundamental right of someone not to have their reality forcibly and unilaterally altered against their will.

Again: why are you against women retaining this veto? Who benefits by removing it?

No one is being made to stay in a relationship that they don't want to be in and of course they can divorce if that's what they choose to do.

Let's say my husband decides he's a woman. Under the self-ID proposal he would be able to go out tomorrow and sign a document which says he is a woman and obtain a GRC making his legal sex female.

As soon as I discover this I start divorce proceedings. Until the divorce is completed, I am married to a woman.

Now do you see the problem?

With the spousal consent requirement he tells me he wants to be legally female, I divorce him, he gets a GRC.

Show me where the plan is to prevent anyone from getting divorced because I do not for 1 second that anyone in the UK is being compelled, by law, to stay married against their will.

You've already been told several times. Re-read the thread slowly and carefully. Get a grown-up to help you with the difficult words.

But I made no comment about that. I was commenting on these points

Why should I not have the right to say “You are fundamentally changing everything about our relationship, and I do not want to be in this radically changed relationship”?

Should he have to accept this radical change to our marriage, and be forced to stay married to this new me, or should he have the right to say he wants a divorce?

Long story short - if one person changes the foundations of their marriage so completely, the other person should not be forced to accept their new role in the relationship if they don’t want to!

These points aren't correct. No one is being made to stay in a relationship that they don't want to be in and of course they can divorce if that's what they choose to do.

Why am I wrong to state this?

This is rather like when women are told 'instead of fussing about not wanting males in female only refuges, you should just focus on ending domestic violence'.

It's about 'don't look at that, look at this'. Which is intended to distract and put off females from defending existing provisions from making life ever freer for males at their expense.

Yes, it would be lovely if there was an instant no fault divorce available for anyone, at any time.

There isn't.

Removing this spousal exit clause will not make things better or easier for females caught in this situation. Why do you feel this should happen?

The point I was making about an analogy is that the two things being compared don't have to be exactly the same.

Glaceon, good to hear. All the best to you and partner, you sound sensible and realistic. Gender dysphoria is not an easy thing to live with so all credit to those who are getting on with dealing with it and still able to acknowledge reality. That way lies good self esteem. All the constantly depending on how other people see you and "validation" seems really unhealthy to me.

Thanks Tinsel, I know what an analogy is.

SDTG also said that she should be allowed to divorce if her husband became trans just as her DH should be allowed to divorce if she became polyamorous - who is proposing that people can't divorce in either of those situations?

Here's a definition of analogy Hooves, which is what SDTGisAnEvilWolefGenius
Is making here.

https://www.dictionary.com/browse/analogy

But you wouldn't be forced to stay in the marriage. Of course you could divorce.

or should he have the right to say he wants a divorce? - no one is taking this right away though are they?

@midgebabe - if my dh decided to transition, why would it be acceptable for them to unilaterally decide that I was no longer in a heterosexual marriage, but was now in a homosexual one? Why should I not have the right to say “You are fundamentally changing everything about our relationship, and I do not want to be in this radically changed relationship”?

Transitioning is a huge, life-changing decision, and it has huge impact on the life of the spouse and family of the person transitioning - and when that decision is taken unilaterally, with little or no consultation, it is utterly unreasonable to expect the spouse and family to accept the major changes to their lives, if they don’t want to.

To use a different analogy - let’s say I decide, without consulting dh, that I am becoming poly-amorous, and I want to have other husbands. Should he have to accept this radical change to our marriage, and be forced to stay married to this new me, or should he have the right to say he wants a divorce?

Long story short - if one person changes the foundations of their marriage so completely, the other person should not be forced to accept their new role in the relationship if they don’t want to!

Thanks for posting the link to the GRC guidance Penc. It was informative. New things that I learned:

1. You can get the £140 fee reduced if you're on benefits.

1. If you stay married and get a GRC you don't have to have a replacement marriage certificate but you can have one if you want one.

1. There is a central confidential register which records people's old identity.

1. Whilst you've got the right to not be outed as your previous gender, what this means is that anybody who obtains this information in the course of their official business has to keep it confidential. It's doesn't mean nobody is ever allowed to know/ ask. (This links to Spartacus's earlier question.

It really bought back to me how keen I was at the time of splitting from my ex, to divorce him for unreasonable behaviour rather than wait 2 years until he got a GRC and the marriage was annulled (this was pre same sex marriage). I'm really fortunate I was able to take that option.

"Triggering", as youngsters say.