Spousal veto - labour proposal , is it really a problem now?

I agree, Sunny, but for the sake of one coherent conversation on that one theme am willing to indulge that bit of fiction temporarily.

I'm exclusively same sex attracted; believe me that I do not agree that a male person at any point is a lesbian.

Who can counter that level of expertise?

I have looked up Jewish women this morning

I'm still enjoying this particular gem from Coriolise.

I agree with your take generally but I struggle with the idea it could even be a gay marriage

The marriage should end but they are still the same sex to me even though they’re jumping through bizarre legal allowances

Flip it around. Dissolve the marriage as part of issuing the GRC. Make it an active act of consent and will to remarry. Make it automatic freedom for the woman involved unless she actively acts to re marry her new identitied partner in a gay marriage .

Why is that not a good idea?

The supporters of this political movement positively line up to tell women 'I know better than you what you should have, want, feel and do, in things that don't personally impact me at all, and your voice and actual experience is irrelevant and you should bow to my superior judgement'.

Reframe your trauma traumatised women (and get undressed with men, who don't need to reframe or do anything.

Learn to cope with straight sex, homosexual women (because homosexuality became bad when it involved saying no to men and limiting their right to use women)

and now: no, you don't need to escape your marriage (and if you were a good person you wouldn't want to) so your punishment is to try and use the divorce process and hope it works.

There's something very, very wrong with a woman who tells someone who has lived through this situation, 'I know better than you about this situation'. Very wrong.

For the same reason that common law spouses are not recognised in law the exit clause should remain. A positive decision should be made to either remain or exit the marriage before the documents are changed to reflect the new sex marker.

Please remember it is the civil documents that people will use in their everyday lives and that future genealogists will look back at for information on our lives. Personally I would not want it in the official record that I was in a same sex marriage if I wasn’t because it doesn’t reflect the facts.

As you say, dear @TinselAngel, the new tactics are out on display on the thread, which is immensely valuable albeit frustrating to endure.

I shall be writing to my Labour MP once again.

It's interesting that the tactic has now changed from the previous, which was that it allows us evil trans widows to coercively control our poor husbands (no evidence ever provided) to the new tactic "you don't need it any more now you have no fault divorce, it's outdated".

A bit like how, in the GRR, it was "just admin" but once Sex Matters got their petition going, it was, well...not "just admin" 🤔

Sorry that should read that the reason the TRAs want to get rid of the spousal exit clause is because it stands in the way of self ID.

The reason the TRAs want to get rid of self ID, other than male entitlement is because it stands in the way of self ID.

It's interesting that the tactic has now changed from the previous, which was that it allows us evil trans widows to coercively control our poor husbands (no evidence ever provided) to the new tactic "you don't need it any more now you have no fault divorce, it's outdated".

Yes come on @Coriolise you used the term, look back at your posts and you will see it and as you are all for honesty then do furnish us with an explanation instead of dishonestly denying it.

Calling it a spousal veto isn't helpful, but it's quite right that no one should be forced to be in a marriage with someone who has revealed themselves to be not really who they had previously presented themselves to be. Relying solely on the "no fault" divorce laws is insufficient while there are religions that hold that instigating a divorce is a sin, and whether or not you agree with that, people have a right to believe it. People also have a right to believe that marriage should be between a man and a woman - they shouldn't have the right to stop two men or two women marrying each other, but they have absolute rights to decide which unions they personally are happy to be part of.

So, if a woman marries a person who at the time of marriage presents as a man, and who later decides to legally become a woman, it is exactly correct that their spouse should have a say in the order in which things happen. It isn't a veto, it's just a space to allow that woman to not be in a marriage with a transitioned woman if that isn't what she wants, and she should be able to withold her consent without being forced to be the active instigator of the divorce.

So, it's fine to have a situation where the original wife in such a marriage is offered the opportunity to consent to her change of status from a woman in a heterosexual marriage to being a woman who is married to someone who is legally and socially considered to be another woman. If that is incompatible with her beliefs or for any other reason not what she wants, then the person who instigated all this needs to be obliged to deal with initiating and completing a process of divorce or annulment before the transition proceeds, without requiring her to be the initiator of the divorce.

If you want to talk about speed @Coriolise, the proposals would change that too.

It won't take nearly as long to get one letter from one doctor for a transition. Labour, even with their latest proposals want to make transition 'easier' and faster.

It is already a lot for a wife to get her head around. It takes time. Saying 'it's now or never. I'm transitioning, so divorce me immediately, or it's happening whatever you say' is not reasonable.

I am not sure the GRA even considered detransition. Correct me if I'm wrong. It must be absolutely impossible. What would the process be to return to your original birth certificate? A doctor saying 'yep. He's a man.'?

As for the homophobia comment. A neighbour of mine left her lesbian partner when she transitioned because she didn't want to be forced to be straight. Sexuality is an important part of a person's sense is self and identity (you know - the things that we are constantly told trump all other facts and opinions). So that was bollocks.

You know nothing about Jewish women, Coriolise. You seem fixated on speed of process. There’s nothing about the importance of a wife’s dignity, agency, privacy and psychological and spiritual well-being.

There are, in addition, many different branches of Judaism. Jewish communities and synagogues are not a monolith called ‘Jewish’. Reformed and Chassidic is just one very obvious example of very different practice and belief under Judaism. Have the senior rabbis consulted women about these matters? The Labour Party certainly hasn’t.

I now now fully support repeal of the GRA as a result of this thread. I’m tired of being ‘done to’ and forced into ‘acceptance’ of other people’s men’s convenience.

It's not about urgency, it's about the sequence of legal events as people have explained.

It strikes me that for many men the act of transitioning is driven by an obsessive urgency. This though does not mean that the spouse must feel similar urgency to act. It is the 'transitioner' who is imposing the change of condition or demand for change - they cannot also control how the partner responds.

None of the above changes your sex, anyway. It is just superficial surface stuff. You cannot live as the 'opposite sex 'in any other way than in the imagination. If you've been doing all of the above secretly for years - why not for a few more?

And then pretended that they hadn't.

@Coriolise can you say why you used the term homophobic?

I can do all that but my head isn't insisting I am man though?

Of course it's all in the head, you are contradicting the actual case law behind the GRA which referred to this as brain sex.

You have to be careful with genderism. The answers are always situational and are rarely cross checked for contradictions.

Yeah im not going yo pay any attention to someone who described women who
dont Want to stay in a relationship with a TW as “homophobic”

Your emphahiss seems almost entirely to be on speed and urgency.

Just because a woman can, in theory, get a 26 week divorce does not mean she might not require/prefer longer. A contract cannot be unilaterally voided.

It’s not in their own head. Read the application for a GRC. They have to openly and socially live as the opposite sex which includes changing their name, changing their dress, changing from Mr to Miss etc.

The issue is that in Scotland, it is grounds for divorce not annulment. So the a veto clause for annulment doesn’t exist for Scotland. The argument one is needed for annulment due to Catholicism is alsk faulty and the reason that annulment in Catholic is issued by their own religious authority. They do not recognise a civil annulment.

Secondly, it’s not needed as we now have no fault divorce. We do not need to keep this as a ground for divorce or annulment for women to escape the marriage.

Thirdly, women have at least two years forewarning of the trans person going for a GRC. That is four times the amount of time needed to a get a no fault divorce. Especially since you can also get the divorce done and then do the financial settlement and child residence/support/contact afterwards.

There it is. Lovely sunlight 😎