Ruth Hunt uses maiden speech to make wildly misleading claims about the spousal veto

11th February 2020 James Kirkup Spectator article on the House of Lords 2nd debate 'Divorce, Dissolution and Separation Bill' which included discussion of the part of GRA described as 'spousal veto' by trans activists.

'The minister who politely refused to play the trans language game'

(extract)
"Lord Keen of Elie, the advocate general for Scotland and a justice minister. Before becoming a minister, Keen was a working QC at the English and Scottish bars. In other words, he’s a senior and serious lawyer.

And this is what he had to say on the ‘spousal veto’: there is no such thing.

Here’s the relevant bit of his speech:

‘The noble Baroness, Lady Burt of Solihull, raised the question of transgender people, or persons who wish to transition, which she acknowledged was outwith the scope of the Bill—which it certainly is. However, if and when we come to address that, I think that we would have carefully to approach her use of the unqualified term “veto” in respect of this matter. (continues)

One of the interesting characteristics of the transgender debate is how trans advocates have used language with care and deliberation and repetition to create an orthodoxy that few people in public life will analyse let alone question. Hence the phrase ‘transwomen are women’, a proposition that raises some big philosophical and legal questions but ones that are barely even acknowledged; anyone in politics who does not say those words is at risk of being accused of transphobic bigotry. And so an important issue goes without proper scrutiny or debate.

The ‘spousal veto’ is another example, or at least, an attempt to create another bit of the orthodoxy, and one that, for instance, the Lib Dems have signed up to in full (even though they were part of the Government that passed the relevant legislation).

And so the fact that Keen, a serving government minister, has – on the basis of fact and knowledge – very politely rejected that attempt to capture language and use it to misrepresent reality is, I think, quite important." (continues)
blogs.spectator.co.uk/2020/02/the-minister-who-politely-refused-to-play-the-trans-language-game/

This is all part of the misogyny that lis behind so much Trans activism. It is the wife who has to consent to her once and maybe long-married husband who now wants to be legally a woman. Of course she should be entitled to ask for a divorce and/or refuse to find she is now in a same sex marriage which is not what she bought or went into. It would be good to have some figures. How many women facing husbands who are transitioning and how many men who face wives who are transitioning have had spouses who want to be divorced first or who do not want to have to live in a same sex marriage whether it is the 'same' or not?

I agree tinsel, to me it sounds like muddying the waters for a specific reason. I know the no fault divorce bill is coming so I thought of that but perhaps it's something else.

Thinking about this further, maybe what Ruth Hunt is saying is actually nonsense anyway on a legal level. The provision for spousal consent is not a by product of there being two different marriage acts, it's a specific provision of the Gender Recognition Act, so how would changing the marriage acts affect it?

Interesting how words like 'you' in declarations like these quite obviously exclude women.

Can I define myself as an adult human female?
Can I reject the label 'cis'?
Can I define myself as a female homosexual?

Will the above be enthusiastically embraced with reminders to those who protest that they should be inclusive and kind?

No. Because it's a hypocritical lot of bollocks.

How the hell is it jelping tbe family?!?

If the wife or husband of some transitioning wishes to end the marriage prior to it changing beyond recognition then preventing them will do far more harm. This will impact on any children. The only person this benefits is the trans person. What a shocker their feelings are being put above the feelings and mental health of others!

Thanks Tinsel - appreciated. I'll read more.

@OldCrone

Thanks - all about Helen. No mention of support for Joanna. The children are lucky to have such a strong Mother.

Fascinating if head scratching memo by HB. JB seems to be in a passive stand off there. She wont refer to herself having a 'wife' but HB won't refer to herself as a 'husband'. I guess maybe they use spouse or partner. But it's a rather revealing glimpse.

Noone can change sex, so in fact there is no change in the nature of the marriage, it remains either single sex or same sex as it started. This is why the GRA had to include s legal ground for divorce in the first place, as otherwise 'transition' in itself could be labelled 'unreasonable behaviour' and that would never do.

I've started to call this "the pedantic feminist argument" as I encounter it reasonably frequently. Yes it is true that the marriage is not biologically same sex, but it becomes legally same sex. This is not what the wife signed up to and therefore is unfair.

When feminists make this argument I really wish they would think who they are benefitting by making it- it's not women.

Your point about "unreasonable behaviour" is not true. (See numerous threads passim).

The GRA doesn't provide grounds for divorce it provides grounds for annulment/ dissolution.

You can easily make the behaviour around transition grounds for an Unreasonable Behaviour petition
(I did), but this depends on:

1. The transitioner agreeing to divorce on these grounds.
2. You being part of a culture that allows divorce.

A lot of these misunderstandings could be cleared up by people reading the GRA, which is freely available and which anybody can do.

Other than your transitioning husband's right to define you as a lesbian, obvs

Which is curious as it seemed important for Layla Moran MP to describe herself & be described as 'pansexual' rather than lesbian or bisexual.

Anecdotally, I've heard older lesbians say that they know women their age who have decided to transition but I've no stats on it so I don't know how often it happens or whether many of them are married.

Layla Moran MP said: “You shouldn’t be defined by anyone else other than you

Other than your transitioning husband's right to define you as a lesbian, obvs

Sorry I do not believe even slightly that women are or ever have been abusive with this 'veto' thing. Its just not likely at all.

Controlling/abusive men will often accuse their partners of abuse when they cease to get their own way. Its entirely likely that a woman saying no to her husbands demands may be described by him as abusive /controlling.
Its the common abuse patterns of projection & DARVO.

Aargh 'wither on the legislative vine'

But now I'm going to throw a spanner in.

Noone can change sex, so in fact there is no change in the nature of the marriage, it remains either single sex or same sex as it started. This is why the GRA had to include s legal ground for divorce in the first place, as otherwise 'transition' in itself could be labelled 'unreasonable behaviour' and that would never do.

If no fault divorce is coming, no need for a specific legal ground for divorce, and that element of the GRA can be left to either on the legislative line anyway.

Surely this could be more easily and fairly resolved by making the gender reassignment of one party grounds for either spouse to apply for an annulment or divorce, with the full GRC granted once that process is completed.

That seems to be the case as things stand. From the WPUK article above, it quotes Women and Equalities report on Transgender Equality:

"The non-trans party must give their consent to the change of marriage status before a full GRC can be issued. If such consent is withheld, the marriage must be dissolved by divorce or annulled before a full GRC can be issued. In this circumstance, an interim GRC can be issued, on the basis of which either party to the marriage can apply to have it annulled.”

Jess Phillips & Layla Moran were/are both part of Women & Equalities committee. Its peculiar that they've been so comprehensively misdirected.

I think the other cohort of people who will be affected the most are older lesbians where one party transitions- but yes still women so of course of little importance.

Do these people exist though? I have never heard of older women suddenly deciding they are male and transitioning. I mean its possible it does happen, but..I have not read about it. Seems an entirely male phenomenon.

I do get a lot of lesbians are being convinced that they are actually male, rather than just GNC and lesbian though. Just figured this was mainly younger lesbians, like its mainly young girls in general.

Could be wrong, often am

1. It is phenomenally disingenuous of RH (Lady Hunt? Does RH use that title, in which case, GTF your Grace) to refer to the husband in the case of a late-transitioning 'trapped' wife as an example. Exactly how many cases of that happening are there? RH is using sex-based sympathy for women to talk about a situation where in reality the person pressing for a change is typically a man with greater cultural power than a woman.

1. It sounds like the next step will be to attach this issue to the no-fault divorce bill that is working its way through Parliament. That bill is desperately needed IMO and has been delayed by Brexit. Cynical and typical of how these bizarre laws are put through.

1. I'm sure I read a post here somewhere about a scenario where removing the forced marriage element of the GRA (I prefer this to the spousal veto) could actually work in trans widows favour. Could that be - I'm not sure how?

I would abolish the Lords just to get RH out of a job. I despise her. Lucky it's not up to me.

Surely this could be more easily and fairly resolved by making the gender reassignment of one party grounds for either spouse to apply for an annulment or divorce

Quite.

Sorry I do not believe even slightly that women are or ever have been abusive with this 'veto' thing. Its just not likely at all. Plus it doesn't stop the person transitioning anyway, just says they cannot 'legally' change sex until the marriage is dissolved. Mind, I think noone should be able to 'legally change sex' anyway..but if it has to be that way, then of course partners should get a say in a change in their own marriage ffs..

I think the other cohort of people who will be affected the most are older lesbians where one party transitions- but yes still women so of course of little importance.

We won’t have truly equal marriage until we get rid of the spousal veto

Utter rot.

We won't truly have equal marriage until women are forced into having same sex marriages, when the contract they signed was not that. Really?!

That its made out to be the person cannot transition without their wifes consent..its just utter stupidity and lies, yet claimed over and over again. Jess Phillips was apparently very focused on the spousal veto, yet still did not even understand what the hell it was

Why the hell should women not be able to have a say, when their husband massively changes the terms of their marriage?!

Note, I say husband, as older female transitioners appear nonexistant and it seems only young girls are 'trans', so most affected by this will be women (shock horror!). I guess gay men could be affected also, if their husbands decided to transition, but that will be much rarer I think, than it being women expected to fully support their spouse regardless of behaviour.

Some trans people have been forced through long, drawn-out divorce proceedings with no ability to resolve them. The legislation as currently drafted would hand the right of gender recognition solely to such an obstructive spouse, who may delay it, without good purpose, for many years and, potentially, indefinitely.

So the solution to the problem of the (probably fictitious) 'obstructive spouse' is to force numerous women to remain married to their (possibly abusive) husbands even after they have legally 'changed sex'.

Surely this could be more easily and fairly resolved by making the gender reassignment of one party grounds for either spouse to apply for an annulment or divorce, with the full GRC granted once that process is completed. I'd like to know why people like Ruth Hunt think this is so unfair.

This whole notion that it was Joanna Belcher’s responsibility to protect the family - seems like coercive control to me.

Scroll down this page to a video of Helen and Joanna having a chat. It's quite revealing.

helenbelcher.uk/en/

Joanna mentions how she had to 'walk on eggshells' before Helen's transition because Helen had 'a very short fuse'.