Jess Phillips appointed a minister to focus on tackling violence against women and girls and domestic violence.

I don't see why male people with cross-sex gender identities come into it. Female people with any kind of gender identity, for sure. Male people, not at all, not one bit.

Ok, I'll bite.

What does "recognising trans women" as women actually involve, and how does it benefit women?

It's got to be up there in the top tens for both the dumbest and most sexist thing I've heard in my life. Womanhood reduced to a performance, help ma boab.

@Hiphopopotamonster "Its nuanced. The whole thing. But you all reduce it down to how female presenting you are"

Utter codswallop (or should that be bollocks). It is a matter of chromosomes. If it is fashion tips you are after, the style and beauty section is that way. This is FWR.

An annulment is different from a divorce. It is important in so many ways.

Forcing a woman to stay married to a man who no longer exists, and having to divorce him (when he no longer exists) rather than applying for an annulment before he erases himself which allows her to get out is so, so cruel.

I mean, fucking hell, the mind games these women are having to deal is bad enough without this shit situation on top.

Ending male violence is a long project. Demanding female-only spaces is known as a "transitional demand" to make immediate positive change whilst the long project comes to fruition.

Ruth Davidson is one of the very few Tories that I really have time for!

Not all women can get pregnant but only women can.

As for sexist tropes, most trans identified males use the most outdated, insulting and sexist stereotypes to define themselves as women which is also often rooted in some form of kink. Dress goes swish swish does not make you a woman, being female does no matter how upset that makes these men.

Id rather follow the feminism of old which is female based than be on my knees removing women’s rights because men have rejected their fellow gender non conforming men. It’s a male problem that needs to be tackled by males.

The "this" referred to the explanatory nature of the meme.

Going round the arguments of the past and getting in a froth this early is not helping us formulate our responses.
Sooner or later someone will come onto these threads and say this. So Dismissive. Why shouldn't we discuss this? And, AFAIK, the discussion has been informative and dispassionate.

I am in my forties and am still paying back my student loan.

Take your ageist assumptions elsewhere.

Why don't we wait and see how JP is going to work?
We know the potential problems so we can be ready to support her or argue as it becomes necessary.
Going round the arguments of the past and getting in a froth this early is not helping us formulate our responses.

Good, I've always liked Ruth Davidson. She's a dreadful Tory from Fife just like my gran

The main reason I feel lukewarm towards Jess Phillips is her role on the House of Commons Women and Equalities Committee that recommended gender self-ID in 2016 and that, if I recall correctly. did so without asking for submissions from women's groups. Maybe it's time I moved on from that but here I am. It would help if she were to acknowledge what she did but I've never seen her do so.

That said, I'm very pleased to see this post created and - assuming that they're never in a million years going to recognise Rosie Duffield's expertise - Jess Phillips is, I think, a better fit for the role than many.

It's all legal marriages.

Do they think transistion shouldn't be grounds for divorce either?
They do. But this - "spousal veto" - is a cover for removing annulment. This is very important for religious women as they cannot get divorced and remarried. It's also important to anyone who is married because if you allow this, then you start to interfere with marriage as a contract. Which it is. It's hard to overstate the importance of this.

Question - as marriage is a contract. Will removing spousal veto only affect new contracts (marriages) but not old ones? Surely it's a breach of contract if it gets changed without the married parties agreeing

Yes, I've just checked. Ruth Davidson is in the Lords so I presume that this shouldn't be a barrier.

I think Ruth Davidson is in the Lords as well, isn't she? Or maybe I've got that wrong....

@MrsBennetsPoorNerves "What's the deal with Ayesha Hazarika? Has she also been given a job"
Actually, I was just assuming that being in the Lords would mean she couldn't do it. But maybe if she doesn't have a specific job she can?

I hope Jess Philips is able to apply some traction to her brief.

I also hope that this Government is able to apply a mirror internally and force much needed change inside the orgs of their more prominent backers, the Unions. Some of which have a sorry history of misogyny and using NDAs to hush up sexual misconduct amongst their male hierarchy.

Are some people (like Jess) literally arguing that a person should be able to unilaterally alter the terms of a contract (marriage)?
Yes. This starts to rewrite all legal marriages.

And the other spouse be forced to stay if their spouse transistions and they do not want to be in a 'same sex' marriage (or opposite, whichever it's ended up being)?
Yes. It's forcing women to stay in abusive relationships. Forcing women to stay with porn-addled, AGP husbands, who often don't reveal this side of them until after the marriage.

Do they think transistion shouldn't be grounds for divorce either?
They do. But this - "spousal veto" - is a cover for removing annulment. This is very important for religious women as they cannot get divorced and remarried. It's also important to anyone who is married because if you allow this, then you start to interfere with marriage as a contract. Which it is. It's hard to overstate the importance of this.

That the non transition partner should have to wait 2 years to divorce (and then receive a decree absolute with their ex spouses new name on it, ie not the name of the person they married)?
Yes, I think so

Because that seems utterly batshit.
Yes

But hey, utterly batshit seems to be the new normal.
Yes. But we have a STRONG WOMAN doing all this to other women. Progressive!!!

She knows exactly what the spousal veto is.
So she's callous

Good but somewhat depressing points, I wasn’t aware she supports removing the spousal veto.

I don't want to derail but I get really confused about this issue.

Are some people (like Jess) literally arguing that a person should be able to unilaterally alter the terms of a contract (marriage)? And the other spouse be forced to stay if their spouse transistions and they do not want to be in a 'same sex' marriage (or opposite, whichever it's ended up being)?

Do they think transistion shouldn't be grounds for divorce either?

That the non transition partner should have to wait 2 years to divorce (and then receive a decree absolute with their ex spouses new name on it, ie not the name of the person they married)?

Because that seems utterly batshit.

But hey, utterly batshit seems to be the new normal.

That just about nails it. Thank you.