Just when I think the guardian can’t go lower

The first couple seemed to be about to embark on a sexless marriage. Doesn't prohibit intimacy, holding hands etc but if a gay man is attracted to penises and male bodies and their partner no longer has a penis/is taking female hormones or has had top surgery, that's a disconnect right there. The transman/bisexual woman seemed to be happy enough although cynical side thinks the broadcasting on social media helps propagate that. I am pulling up my judgy pants as I speak.

I thought the stories were for the most part tinged with sadness. Lots of talk of "compromise". Most of them seemed to be living as friends/companions, rather than lovers. Apart from the first couple, they all seemed to be about the end of a romantic relationship and the beginning of a complicated friendship.

What the actual fuck is a straight trans woman?
Attracted to men rather than women but no longer identifies as a man who has sex with other men.
That is going to cause difficulty for her gay partner as he is sexually attracted to male bodies not facsimiles of women and objectively from the photos she has passing privilege.
No idea as to what surgeries have been had but given that her partner talks of sex not being important as he is 53, the implication is that it will not be plain sailing.

Fundamentally, if you are 'living a lie' you shouldn't involve somebody else in the lie by marrying them.

TinselAngel I am angry, as a card-carrying GC radfem - totally so. I was just observing that what I get from the article is that sense of suppressed misery and self-adjustment, from the people who are making it work". I was already angry; I take the point that this article is trying to airbrush and misrepresent the reality, but I think it fails and will just help people see how problematic the whole rigmarole is.

The article about the trans woman doctor gleefully boasting about giving intimate examinations to Muslim woman was a particular low

Which story was that? Can't see that in the link

The article about the trans woman doctor gleefully boasting about giving intimate examinations to Muslim woman was a particular low.

That one was particularly blatant. “It’s all about MEEEEEEEEE!”

I saw the subheading "5 people who stayed close" and a) noted the choice of words and b) realised it was only choosing people from the pool of those who didn't split up, so was expecting more boundless positivity.
I agree it wasn't representative but given the heading specifying the subset of affected people it was actually focusing on, i would not expect it to be. I'm sure others won't read between the lines in the same way though.

Male entitlement + women as support human.

Absolutely.

AND no acknowledgement about the wider impact on the erosion of women's rights, that it's not just about individual women 'standing by their man'. OK, and one token gay man who suffers from fairly obvious internalised homophobia.

Does anyone else see those adoring supportive wives holding up big smiley-face masks in front of their real faces, which they’re not allowed to show?

I thought it was interesting that the whole article left me with a sense of sadness, awkwardness and lowered expectations on the part of the partners.

I don't know about other trans widows but I don't want women to feel sorry for us, because feeling sorry for somebody is passive. I want women to feel angry that there are women still going through this in isolation and being lied to and gaslighted both by their husbands and by wider society, including the Guardian.

I can't read past the first couple to be honest.
What the actual fuck is a straight trans woman?

I don't think it's about being "grateful for crumbs", so much as noting with interest what happens when the Guardian try to do this. The reality behind "TWAW" etc can't actually be spun into anything like these people actually being 100% accepted as the other sex than what they are by their own partners, in the main.

I also thought it was less positive that it seemed, perhaps less positive than the Guardian might have hoped, but these were the couples who were willing to be interviewed.

One case I thought looked very much like a man who wanted to take over and shove into his wife's realm and psychological space, and she was being pressured into accepting it. I wondered how long she'd hold out. The others were varying degrees of acceptance, but they were mostly not a continuing, fully functioning relationship. There was a lot of adjusting of the "self" of the non-trans person to accommodate rather than be seen as a bigot.

The Guardian wouldn't go for the feminist view and interviews with really angry trans widows, of course but I thought it was interesting that the whole article left me with a sense of sadness, awkwardness and lowered expectations on the part of the partners.

Coincidentally this morning I've received a new trans widow's story for the website which counteracts the Guardian/ Beaumont Society propaganda perfectly. So watch this space.

As my friend Bewilderness, late of this parish often says

"Meet me in the middle, says the unjust man.

You take a step toward him. He takes a step back.

Meet me in the middle, says the unjust man."

If they're still the same person on the inside and therefore you have to keep loving them or else, why is using their old name or pronouns "deadnaming" them? As they accept that they're still the same person that their partner fell in love with, and not a shiny new one after all.

I guess the bar is pretty low.
I also found it more nuanced than I expected.

Coming from the Guardian I was bracing myself for rainbows and unicorns.

It's interesting that when you've got at least two trans widows on this thread saying that this article is not representative and is therefore harmful, there's several posters almost suggesting we should be grateful for it.