The Times Lead Story - Labour Set To Annihilate Women's Rights

I'm basing it on
A- your not giving a fuck attitude
and
B- you saying on a thread recently that you no longer supported trans widows because I don't think women should be shunned for attending legal marches

If you do give a fuck, maybe show it by listening to women who know more than you instead of blithely assuming you and Kier know best.

So why is the "trans" scenario different? I don't think it is. It is if someone can change legal status while married. But not if there is a 2 year pause during which time you can get divorced/annulled.

You just don't get it and that is because you don't want to get it. You think Labour and KS are the answer to all our prayers and will brook no opposition to that view. Your dismissal and denigration of Trans Widows is appalling.

And stop telling me I "don't give a toss about trans widows". You know fuck all about me and are basing that on the fact I'm a labour voter. It's ridiculous.

What protection is it removing exactly? Especially when you don't even know the process yet.

I don't I'm purely saying if there is a two year window to dissolve the marriage (however that happens) that seems long enough so I would think a specific exit clause is unnecessary.

Again, it looks like catastrophising about Labour and seeing the absolute worse in a way I don't fully understand. I think they've proposed quite a good compromise. A long period of time to put off chancers and allow marriages to be sorted. No fiddling around "living as a woman" which is an impossible and pointless criterion.

Yes. Getting a GRC is a piece of piss. Hence why I'm so confused ppl are backing the Tories on it or acting like Labour's plan is a huge change

It is a huge change by the fact they are making it easier and removing a panel to assess the application and relying on the say so of one person and, I know you don't give a toss about them, but it is a huge change for Trans Widows as it removes protection from them.

You asked us to listen and see what Labour was proposing before making any decisions we have.

Is there a need to speak to me like that? Random.

I (as usual) can't really see the difference between the Labour and Conservative position on this, except Labour are getting rid of the total farce of "living as a woman".

2 years is long enough to end a marriage.
And the "annulment" - well I would be more sympathetic about it if people weren't such total arses to me on here. But as it is, lots of us have found our husbands weren't who we thought they were. Lots of us have been lied to, cheated on and abused emotionally and sexually. Lots of us feel the man we married lied throughout. Lots of us have then had a shitty divorce. So why is the "trans" scenario different? I don't think it is. It is if someone can change legal status while married. But not if there is a 2 year pause during which time you can get divorced/annulled.

The if is doing some heavy lifting there.

I know I said I wouldn't engage with Cassie but here I am.

"If" is not doing any heavy lifting. Ova said if none of the other reasons for annulment apply. Annulments are rare. It is highly unlikely any of the other reasons for annulment would apply.

Yes it would be better for trans widows to retain the law as it is i.e. the "status quo".

Fuck off Cassie, talking about things you don't understand and breezily dismissing trans widows as being less important than getting rid of the Tories.

Take a leaf out of Labour Women's Declaration's book and try and get Labour to change their policy on this rather than shrugging and assuming Labour somehow know best.

I guess the option of sticking with the status quo (and everything else that comes with the Tories) is a much better idea

For the Trans Widows, you know those women with the lived experience of a spouse changing gender, it is very important that the Spousal Exit clause status quo remains and is a much better idea.

Why do you have such a problem with that?

Quite.

Yes. Getting a GRC is a piece of piss. Hence why I'm so confused ppl are backing the Tories on it or acting like Labour's plan is a huge change

The if is doing some heavy lifting there.
I guess the option of sticking with the status quo (and everything else that comes with the Tories) is a much better idea

Keir Starmer may well be an arse, but I'm guessing that around half of Labour MPs these days are women.

Bar the honourable exception or two, the fact that they aren't speaking up for me says that: they are more concerned about power and having their noses in the trough, than the interests of ordinary women and girls. Sod em.

How the fuck is he still answering both sides of the coin

Protect women’s spaces and be nice to trans gender

HOW

At this stage he’s such a blockhead

Times Radio

We're all getting upset over nothing wims. This is a culture of fear which has been generated by shady right-wing think tanks based in Tufton Street and funded by the US Religious Right spreading disinformation to the Alt Right MSN. Have I got that right Cassie?

Unfortunately, back in the real world, Labour has revealed itself to be hell-bent on destroying women's sex based rights and removing all the safeguarding it can for children and vulnerable people.

Words matter. Sex, not gender. Exit clause, not veto. The attempts to renegotiate the meaning of words continues, and should be challenged every time.

It's the spousal exit clause. Keep the focus on whose rights are taken away if it's abolished.

Exactly. I am getting heartily sick of women having to justify why they want protection, Trans Widows have said this protects and helps them that should be enough but it never is. Men want the clause removed purely for reasons of power and control over their wives and families, small wonder Labour are bowing to men and proposing to remove it.

I’ve decided today to spoil my ballot paper. There’s nobody to vote for.

We need to start refusing to use the term "spousal veto" unless it's in quotes to challenge its use, as you have done.

It's the spousal exit clause. Keep the focus on whose rights are taken away if it's abolished.

My point exactly…

As labour apparently are going to have a trans inclusive ban on conversion therapy and have misgendering included as a hate crime (tbf I hope I imagined this but I believe something is planned for hate crime law), they will have no idea how these will interact. A few strategic court cases and anything could happen.

I guess it may be psychologiacally more comfortable yes. But that's not the same as legally necessary.

I'm not against it, I'm clarifying the argument made early that religious women couldn't get legally divorced but could get legally annulled.

I think annulment shoudl be available to religious and non religious women on the grounds their H turns out to think he's a women.

I was just trying to clarify the argument so it's not misleading.

That's right. If you only had a religious marriage and not a lawful one, you're not legally married according to the state.

A legal marriage is a protection for women. They may of course - and do of course - feel and come under pressure from their religion not to religiously divorce. But they can legally divorce if they're legally married.

And we view marriage as a 50/50 split. Because it is a contract. Hence one partner "changing sex" completely changes the terms of the contract. It is no longer the contract you entered into.

Removing the abominably named "spousal veto" would legally trap women in a marriage with their AGP husband (now "wife" ).

This cannot stand.

Once again @Brainworm , it seems like nobody has really thought this through. Again. What a mess we have now.

That's for faith communities to resolve amongst themselves. It's likely to be psychologically more comfortable for a Catholic to be both legally and religiously single via annulment than to be legally divorced whilst religiously single via annulment.