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

Somewhat ironically, I think the Equality Act is what makes the approved by 'a doctor specialising in gender issues' irrelevant.

As gender is a social construct and independent of sex, it's difficult to know what role a doctor has to play in 'approving' a gender identity. Only an individual would know if they have a gender identity or not, and if they do what it is.

However, as the GRA suggests someone with a GRC should be 'treated as the opposite sex' then I can see the role of a psychiatrist or psychologist screening individuals for conditions whereby this is deemed to be unwise. However, the EA means that you couldn't deny a GRC to someone because they have a medical condition / mental illness- so it's difficult to understand what the point of it is.

I agree with all of that.
I think changing gender shoudl be grounds for annulment.

You missed my point though: that a legal annulment would not solve their issue of a religious annulment.

Read https://www.gov.uk/how-to-annul-marriage and then tell me how any of those grounds for voiding a valid but voidable marriage are comparable to the reasons people cite for divorce. These grounds are all things that fundamentally alter the nature of the marriage.

The conversion, in the eyes of the law, of an opposite-sex marriage into a same-sex one or vice-versa fundamentally alters the very nature of the marriage. It goes beyond even abuse and infidelity in this regard because, unlike abuse or cheating, it misrepresents the non-transitioning spouse as someone they are not (same-sex attracted instead of opposite-sex attracted) and misrepresents the marriage that the non-transitioning spouse entered into.

No one has the right to misrepresent another person's sexual orientation unilaterally and with legal force in this way, and that's why it's important for the law to recognise the continued need for non-transitioning spouses to be able to annul a marriage. It's not OK for the non-transitioning spouse to have to pretend to have married and divorced a spouse of the opposite sex to who they actually chose and have to tick that "divorced" box on forms for the rest of their life because of the transitioning spouse's life decisions.

That’s a wonderful Times Opinion - glad to see that some journalists understand the issue with more depth 😊

Thanks for the apology @TinselAngel I appreciate that.
I apologise for being snippy back.

And I understand how exhausting this has been for you for many years. Take care.

A Catholic married by a priest also has to have the local registrar in attendance who signs the legal marriage certificate signed by witnesses. To comply with the law. So far as I am aware. (I'm in England.)

An annulment of the marriage by Rome does not annul the legal marriage as signed by the registrar so far as I am aware. That is a separate process under English law surely?

I'm sorry for being rude, @MalagaNights, after doing the same discussion on here for about 6 years I've just not got the patience to endlessly go over it. I should probably stay out of it for a while it's too exhausting.

I feel sure it would be considered to be very important admissible evidence that would considerably speed up the process of gaining an annulment

Nope. The Cathloic church has it's own very estabslihed criteria.

Furthermore, it might help the affected spouse on a psychological level to have their position recognised legally.

Probably. So make that argument.

I'm not against this I'm just clarifying (for Catholics at least) the legal annulment would make no difference.

He is going to ‘wait’ to see what the guidelines say. I think we know.

What he means is he is backtracking from Bridget’s all but saying they will not allow the part that says gender identity should
not be taught. Then when the election is over they will make sure it is.

The funny thing is that Labour is all about supporting minorities and respecting their rights, which includes some religious and ethnic groups that practice (impose) women only spaces and socialisging.

So maybe this is the nub of the problem, when men say society should be organised to accommodate women only practices other men respect those space. But when women say they need women only spaces they say they aren't necessary or reactionary.

So which is worse? Not listening to women, or accepting that men in minority communities are imposing a reactionary practice on the women of that community.

Mabye we need to ask Blair if he would very kindly speak up for us so that not quite head honcho from the still reigning honcho in the Labour Party.

Then Starmer could get behind it as a man has classified it as valid.

OK but if we are going to argue for it we do have to make sure that the arguments we put forward are at least justifiable and true otherwise that will unedrmine our position.

I'm just pointing ut the argument that a legal annulment is neede for religious women is not coherent. A legal annulment is no more helpful than a legal divorce in the case of religious marriage. The annulment (for Catholics at least) has to come from the Church.

You seem to be saying: I'm so pissed off lets say any shit, and if anyone, even in good faith raises a question let's just be rude to them. Nice.
That'll win the day.

Fuck this shit, I am sick of Labour and won't be voting for them based on this.
WTAF?

'All your lawyers' are telling you about the legal position not the position of all the differing religions.

Yes, the aforementioned women who write to me tell me about that.

Women who are religious would need their marriage annulled by their relisious community. A legal annulment would not solve that issue for them.

If true, I feel sure it would be considered to be very important admissible evidence that would considerably speed up the process of gaining an annulment. Furthermore, it might help the affected spouse on a psychological level to have their position recognised legally.

I'm just sick of the constant "but, but, but" on the exit clause. Women have said they need it, why do we have to keep endlessly justifying ourselves?

No need to be so bloody unecessarily rude.
I'm a regular on here so as 'random' as you.

I was merely pointing out the position of religious women.

A legal annulment would hold the same weight as a legal divorce within their community: Legally binding but not necessarily religiously recognised.

The idea that a legal process would solve their religious problem seems entirely naive tbh.

'All your lawyers' are telling you about the legal position not the position of all the differing religions.

It will be an annulment, which means that the marriage never existed, then. Why should anyone wish to stop a woman (inevitably a woman) annulling the marriage that is to her no longer a marriage? Unless there is some other agenda? TiMs seem to like having a 'wife'.

Men commit over 90% of violent and sexual offending.

Sexual offenders are overrepresented amongst transwomen within British prisons compared to other men.

It is misogyny to ignore these facts.

I've not read the full thread, so apologies if this has already been posted, leader article in the Times

www.thetimes.com/comment/the-times-view/article/the-times-view-on-trans-rights-luxury-beliefs-mzsfp62b2

https://archive.ph/hhx9J fuck's sake Labour read this and give your head a wobble

I think I'll go with the interpretation of all the women who have written to me, and the lawyers I've consulted on the Spousal Exit Clause rather than that of MalagaNights, a randomer on Mumsnet.

Fuckity bye then.

I personally feel there are some bad people in the world, some are men and some are women.

Upwards of 90% of violent and sexual crimes are committed by men (including men who don't call themselves men).

Doing a both sides thing when talking about 'bad people' is naive at best or at worst disingenuous and an attempt to obfuscate male violence.

Perhaps you should read the full thread and then you would better understand .

Women who are religious would need their marriage annulled by their relisious community. A legal annulment would not solve that issue for them.

People are saying some religious women can't get divorced. Well of course they can, legally, it's just not recognised by their religion.

I'd be pretty sure that 'chnaging gender' would be a reason for the Catholic church to grant an annulment as they are against genedr ideology, but the government position on this wouldn't make any diffrence to that.

I'm not sure where Muslim or Jewish women would stand if religious?

I'm only making this point becuase I think the argument being made here that a legal annulment is crucial for relgious women is a misunderstanding of the religious view of marriage.

Thank you for recognising so clearly that transwomen are men.