Lord Keen disputing the language of the spousal 'veto'

The article was great. Kirkup's a good writer, and he's exactly right to show how this thing is being played out in the realm of language. It's a really interesting (but scary) aspect of this whole thing. They have captured a language & v few people question it, and that means they don't question the world view. The words used seem innocent but they always have a particular world view embedded in them, so you can't actually express some opinions (or facts) at all using the the prescribed language. It's not possible because each word contains meanings, or implies a certain way of looking at the world, which you don't subscribe to - cis is a good example, assigned is another.

Also, this is what Ruth Hunt is going to do for the rest of her days. Genderwoo legislation through the Lords.

I agree Tinsel MPs must feel there would be worse consequences for not complying and promoting the cause even via dodgy arguments and statistics. Its shocking.

It might be a case of me not thoroughly paying attention to things not directly relevant to me though

To be fair, James Kirkup is a respected journalist and I'm a randomer on the Internet!

. Why are these groups not completely discredited by now?

In my view it's because politicians see this as a very easy way to virtue signal. Also they're frightened that the activists will witch hunt them next, if they don't comply.

I'm bewildered that there is anybody on MN who is surprised to hear it's not a veto given the amount I've banged on about it.

I think this just illustrates what an effective job the trans lobby have done and how hard it is to push back against their misinformation.

I’m really struggling with this. (I mean, not just this specific aspect but the way this whole massive lobby remains so influential) In my day Parliamentarians who were misled or lied to by a campaigning lobby group would just not deal with them ever again. MPs and Peers are quoted forever in Hansard and they did not want to be wrong or untruthful when supporting a cause, even if it was through no fault of their own. Campaigning groups and lobbyists would lose all credibility for being ‘economical with the truth’. Of course people often dealt with it by leaving out inconvenient facts and that kind of omission was kind of accepted- I’m not saying there was once some kind of upright moral Golden Age. But actively misleading the house used to be a serious thing. Making up lies- like claiming a veto which doesn’t exist- used to be a one strike and you’re out type of thing. Why are these groups not completely discredited by now?

Imagine a trans widow standing on a platform at a party conference and arguing for other trans widow's rights to be taken away? How would a woman end up in that position? Makes you think.

The short video on Helen Belcher's website, where Joanna Belcher talks about her marriage to Helen tells you all you need to know. Joanna talks of "walking on eggshells" and how Helen had "a very short fuse".

Imagine a trans widow standing on a platform at a party conference and arguing for other trans widow's rights to be taken away? How would a woman end up in that position? Makes you think.

Exactly Tinsel

Helen Belcher has been a Lib Dem activist for years & funnily enough they have pushed it hardest

It’s not a veto at all. Why lie about it?

Because they need to get rid of it because it stands in the way of self ID. A man can't self ID his way to a GRC if his wife still has a say.

Also male entitlement .

Also, the few activists who are been pushing this for years are trans women who are still married and have a vested interest.

It’s not a veto at all. Why lie about it?

James Kirkup addresses this. It's about the deliberately manipulative use of language. This lobby uses repetitive, simplistic slogans which are designed to silence debate before it starts The narrative is an assault on rational argument and external reality. This is just another example of it.

It’s not a veto at all. Why lie about it?

So the term ‘spousal veto’ is just campaigning language and not real. It is in fact describing a person’s right to end their marriage under specific circumstances.

Yes. It is in fact the spousal ability to exit a marriage in which the fundamental terms under which they entered into that marriage are being changed by the other party. It's the "you don't have to stay married to this person if you don't want to" clause. Which makes it very interesting indeed that so many people are determined to remove that ability to leave a marriage that one party no longer wants to be in.

Also I note that Baroness Hunt is attempting to spin this as "gender neutral". It isn't. How many marriages are there where it's the female partner transitioning in middle age? Not many. So again, it's interesting that Ruth chose to frame her comments as if that was not the case. Perhaps because what's actually being proposed would if obvious receive very little public support.

An excellent article by James Kirkup which highlights the manipulative language used by the trans lobby to misrepresent reality. The spousal 'veto' is nothing of the sort, despite Ruth Hunt's inflammatory rhetoric. It is great that Lord Keen has deconstructed the 'Jack and Jill ' example and made clear the inequity of changing the fundamental structure of marriage without consent.

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

Everyone should be paying attention to this issue. It's currently the one area of legislation where the genderists can push another change through on the sly, and it's not a coincidence that Ruth Hunt brought it up in her maiden speech.

I've done you a complete disservice Tinsel by not reading your threads properly - esp knowing a little of the context, sorry

Genuine question- and trying not to sound arsey- why did you only start to listen when a man said it?

I have a feeling James Kirkup has been following you Tinsel

Funnily enough I did email him about this before Christmas!

Removal of the 'veto' is effectively the same as forced marriage. No one should have to remain in marriage if they don't want to. Gay, straight, trans, not-trans. If you don't want to remain married you shouldn't have to.

I'm bewildered that there is anybody on MN who is surprised to hear it's not a veto given the amount I've banged on about it.

I have a feeling James Kirkup has been following you Tinsel

Interestingly, Lord Keen recently answered a written question in the HoL re trans prisoners, and sadly the answer does contain some burble about 'assigned sex'.

It's because it stands in the way of self ID so has to go before self ID can be pushed through.

Also male entitlement - see the Make More Noise article quoted by R0, above.

I cannot for the life of me understand how anyone, who is not a blatant supporter of domestic abuse, would be against a spouse’s right to consent.

Is it simply because the so-called ‘veto’ furthers the narrative of ‘the poor, oppressed trans people’?