"Trans widows’ fear being trapped in loveless marriages if gender law changes" in today's Telegraph

Truly awful Tinsel

Both sides though, eh?

that’s vile, tinsel, I’m so sorry.

those usernames are disgusting 🤢

They were constantly taking photographs of each other as an affirmation of who they were.

Not much has changed there then.

Embarrassing, Tut tut, those fun busting wives eh?

Well done Tinsel, great to see this getting some mainstream press. Thanks for the archive link.

Hope you enjoyed your piss up!

More than 100 images from the retreat, called Casa Susanna, will go on display, part of a wider exhibition at the Barbican art gallery in London exploring the relationship between photographers and alternative communities.

“Casa Susanna was a place of refuge where they could be utterly free and away from prying eyes,” said the curator, Alona Pardo. “These people in their everyday lives could not walk around New York City as cross-dressers. This was a place where they had fun.”

www.theguardian.com/artanddesign/2017/may/17/cross-dressing-men-celebrated-barbican-uk-london-photography-exhibition-casa-susanna

Issues around married men becoming women has been know about for decades. In terms of how the transition itself can become a form of abuse within the marriage. (I found a random conference paper on it from the 80s or 90s.)

I do wonder if that's another reason why it came into being.

I don’t understand why it’s assumed by Labour and libdems thst the person who didn’t marry under false pretences/treat their partner as a mere stepping stone on their way to self actualisation is assumed to be most likely to exercise coercive control.

I wouldn't have thought the sexual orientation is necessarily the crucial point here. A bi or 'pan' partner should also be free to leave the marriage if their spouse, by getting a GRC, is wanting to legally declare themselves to be a fundamentally different person from who they thought they'd married.

Thank you for the archive link, so I could read the article.
Now I understand what the "spousal veto" is about - I knew that people didn't need their spouse's permission to decide to ID as the other sex, but I didn't realise it was a condition of getting their GRC that their spouse had to agree to it.

Makes sense now!

However, I think it's an utter nonsense to try and change this. If women don't want to remain married to a TW after their ID change, then they shouldn't be made to - nor should they be made to undergo a full divorce hearing. As for the Stonewall bollox about "coercive control" - ha! The only coercive control is forcing heterosexual women who married a man to stay in a relationship where that man identifies as a TW! OR equally, forcing a lesbian to stay in a marriage where the other half now identifies as a TM!
I wonder how many gay men this happens to? As in, one half of a gay couple decides to transition, leaving the other gay man now married to a TW? This doesn't seem to happen very often at all...

Hopefully the law won't change and women (because it mostly is women, after all) won't get pushed into this reprehensible position.

Well done Tinsel and co.

That's brilliant Tinsel!

We also don't have no fault divorce do we?

That woman who went to court a year or two was denied a divorce. The judges said they took no pleasure in their verdict and had every sympathy with her but had to apply the law.

Aye, doesn't it just, @NiceGerbil? Cake, eating it, extra cake.

'forcing them into lengthy and expensive divorce proceedings.'

Ah.

So everything becomes clear.

Wonderful work Tinsel, a trans widow is a concept so few have ever heard of.

The invisible women.

👏

Brilliant to get this into the mainstream press Tinsel A long and uphill slog, and I cheered this morning when I saw the headline. The first time I've ever seen it explained to the general public.

cancel his pervious life
Love it.

Well done Tinsel for such great coverage.

Stonewall do DARVO better than most it seems. When will people wake up to this.

Stonewall are being extremely disingenuous here:

'In their response to the GRA consultation Stonewall said:
"Stonewall strongly urges the Government to remove the requirement for spousal consent in a reformed Gender Recognition Act. Often referred to as the ‘spousal veto’, this provision gives unprecedented power to a married trans person’s partner to block them from having their gender legally recognised or forcing them into lengthy and expensive divorce proceedings.
In the very worst cases, we’re concerned that the spousal consent provisions leave trans people at risk of abuse and coercive control. In circumstances where a relationship is breaking down or is abusive, a trans person’s spouse may use this provision to intentionally and maliciously prevent them from accessing legal gender recognition.'

So they wrongly refer to it as a spousal veto, keep calling it that, then say it's often referred to as a spousal veto . . . Yes, wrongly, by Stonewall!
And as very well explained above, it has nothing to do with preventing anyone from accessing "legal gender recognition" or getting a GRC.

A lot of these marriages are longstanding, and the assets of the marriage need to assessed and distributed fairly, irrespective of whether the marriage ends in divorce or annulment.

Not infrequent sticking points for men leaving a marriage are pension rights and properties. It all takes time to negotiate equitably. It can't NOT happen because one of the parties has decided to transition.

That's not 'coercion'. It's normal, equitable law.

Divorce proceedings can be quick and cost less provided the parties are willing to be reasonable. Surely if transition is so desirable then transitioners would settle quickly and fairly for their wives and children. From reading the trans widows threads i somehow doubt this is the case…all that accessorising is expensive

Congrats tinsel. You are truly shining a light

Its annulled for the benefit of the transitioning partner, otherwise it would be a common or garden divorce.