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

www.gov.uk/how-to-annul-marriage

But according to above link, if either party is in the process of changing gender the marriage can be annulled. Why the need for a lengthy, expensive divorce?

forcing them into lengthy and expensive divorce proceedings

Otherwise known as ... a divorce.

Have a good day

You too

Stonewall: 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.

Ah yes, the nasty woman wanting a divorce, that should never be allowed.

But can’t either party request an annulment under current law?

What if the spouse doesn't know the trans partner is applying for a GRC?

Well done, Tinsel, et al. Glad to see this matter getting some sunlight.

Stonewall: 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.

But can’t either party request an annulment under current law?

[quote joolzfromyork]@RufustheBadgeringReindeer

Not taking the piss chuck ...

Just genuinely trying to understand the situation

(I've heard a great deal about the 'Spousal Veto' from the other side of the fence, and having been here this afternoon, I can only say that this issue seems to generate a great deal of heat and very very little light.)

However, I shall pass on this thread ...

Have a good day[/quote]
Everything you need to know is explained here

www.transwidowsvoices.org/gra-reform-guidance

The law, as it stands, respects the consent of heterosexual women to not consent to a forced same sex marriage.

But it is constantly being targeted by the likes of Stonewall. The government is under relentless pressure to change the law.

Getting the issue into the press is very useful, because of all the propaganda surrounding it and misrepresenting it.

If you have heard about a spousal veto you already should see that they are not telling the truth , there is no veto

So does that not make you suspicious of everything else they say

I mean if they need to lie to make a case

@RufustheBadgeringReindeer

Not taking the piss chuck ...

Just genuinely trying to understand the situation

(I've heard a great deal about the 'Spousal Veto' from the other side of the fence, and having been here this afternoon, I can only say that this issue seems to generate a great deal of heat and very very little light.)

However, I shall pass on this thread ...

Have a good day

If you married a man, and the man wants to become a Transwoman, and cancel his pervious life, then the marriage of that life also needs to be cancelled.
Talk about wanting to have your cake and eat it.
Legally I think any trans should have to divorce and share the assets, before they get the right to change their birth certificate, maybe it could be a death of gender ... Then should the partner wish they can enter into a civic partnership.

Congratulations Tinsel, it's amazing to see how much progress you have made. That was a very clear and well balanced article in the Telegraph, I hope it is seen by other women who didn't realise they weren't alone.

[quote joolzfromyork]@RufustheBadgeringReindeer

ooops ... my bad

I shall depart and write out 100 times

I must not seek to educate myself about these issues.[/quote]
Dont take the piss chum

You are asking what the problem is because the law isn’t changing

tinsel and this thread said nothing about the law changing

And the issue has been explained very clearly…

joolzfromyork

The point is that the law as it is is adequate. However Stonewall et al have been lobbying the government to change laws in ways that will disadvantage women and specifically in this case to remove this small amount of protection from transwidows.

“This is not 'do you give him permission to transition' - the transitioning partner is free to do as they wish.

This is 'do you consent to remain in a legally binding marriage upon these changed terms'.

It's hard to imagine why someone might feel a woman's consent should not be an essential part of this.”

I don’t understand why anyone would argue with this. Can somebody explain the the Stonewall point of view?

@RufustheBadgeringReindeer

ooops ... my bad

I shall depart and write out 100 times

I must not seek to educate myself about these issues.

There wasn’t a problem til you asked tinsel what she wanted

The thread was purely about congratulating tinsel on the article, not about the ins and outs of the spousal ‘veto’

Quite.

That was a really straight forward article and hopefully will draw some much needed attention to one of the most sidelined, silenced and vulnerable groups in our society. Transwidows. Fantastic job and well done to all who took part in that article.

Well done Tinsel!

The thread was purely about congratulating tinsel on the article, not about the ins and outs of the spousal ‘veto’

And before the 'it's homophobic to mind about being unilaterally redefined as homosexual by your partner's choices' starts -

I'm lesbian. I am not at all sure how I might feel in the event of a partner wishing to redefine me and make choices for me about I am now heterosexual. Or bi.

That's not my choice. Not my personal decision of identity. I may be attracted to this one person who is female but now wishes to be treated as if they were male, but I know in fact I am still lesbian because I am exclusively attracted to biological females and I also know in fact that my partner has not changed sex. I am still lesbian.

So effectively I am being asked to redefine myself in line with something that isn't actually factually true, but someone else's preferred truth. That's a pretty big thing to require of your partner in any terms, but to enter into a preferred truth of now having a wholly different sexuality? That's an enormous demand.

There's none of the taboo in going from lesbian to straight - in fact it would be much easier and safer for me to be straight. But the answer is going to be no. I would not prevent a partner doing anything they chose to do, but anyone who does not wish to wholly understand my feelings, my identity, my boundaries and take those into account in our shared life together is not someone I would stay in a relationship with.

Gosh ... that was a lot of reading ...

Still dont see what the problem is ...

I asked What exactly do you want?

@TinselAngel replied

For the law to stay the same.

and the last paragraph in the Telegraph article says :

A Government Equalities Office spokesman said: “Following the consultation on the Gender Recognition Act, the government has made clear that the current legislative system allows people to change their legal sex in a fair way, and there are no plans to alter anything within the Act.