Please or to access all these features

Add post

Watch this thread

Save thread

Start a new thread

Flip thread

Hide thread

My feed

Active Unanswered threads

Getting started FAQ's

Unanswered threads Acronyms Talk guidelines

Hide shortcut buttons

Talk

Feminism: Sex and gender discussions

Feminism: chat

Flip

1 2

Original poster

Genuinely don't understand this

30 replies

Belonger · 13/10/2018 07:06

Can anyone help me make sense of this? This trans person says that the proposed legislation will enable them to get married. This is the explanation of why they can't at the moment.

OP posts:

MissSusanSays · 13/10/2018 07:15

None of that is true. Lily has gotten it wrong, again.

She can get married but not under her chosen ‘gender’. The GRA was originally introduced to get around that fact that there wasn’t legal gay marriage at the time it was introduced. There is now. I can’t remember who did it but there is a great Twitter thread with all the comments from the government documents discussing in detail the introduction of the GRA as a way to not have to also introduce gay marriage.

The second bit about her husband being able to take away her ‘identify’ is also wrong. Spouses can currently use transition as grounds for divorce. This is also because there is no such thing as a no fault divorce in this country. Removing this would leave spouses open to having to remain in marriages that they don’t wish to remain in.

Spouses can also currently object to a GRC application and delay it. This should probably be scrapped. But once someone has a GRC (as Lily claims to) there is nothing a spouse could do about that.

Lastly, the GRC does not require any evidence of full medical translation. It does however require that you are undergoing treatment for dysphoria and are living full time as your chosen gender. Which is the big thing that activists are objecting to. They want people who are casually trans to be able to have legal access to single sex spaces and be able to change their birth certificate.

VickyEadie · 13/10/2018 07:34

LM has a girlfriend, I believe - not a potential 'husband'.

FekkoTheLawyer · 13/10/2018 07:40

I though the person who said this has said that they have a GRC.

Get married. In a zoo. Dress like tree frogs and eat bug cake. Call yourself Mr and Mr, or Ms and Ms, or Mx and Mx.

I DON'T CARE. Stop looking for issues that done exist.

Cwenthryth · 13/10/2018 07:45

Lily has a female partner, so would always have been able to marry them even before same-sex marriage was legalised.

Lily has also previously claimed to already have a GRC.

A GRC does not require any medical or surgical treatment at all. And costs £140 (plus any charges the 2 medical practitioners may make for reports etc).

Lily is as per usual is talking out of Lily’s arse.....HOW is the Labour Party cheerfully allowing this person to go about constantly publicly talking complete bullshit in their name? It reflects really poorly on them.

MissSusanSays · 13/10/2018 07:49

Can I also point out that there is a poverty relief exception to reduce the cost of the GRC. So pleading poverty is nonsense. Anyone can get a GRC- so long as they are committed to permanently living as their new gender and have started (free on the NHS) medical transition.

FekkoTheLawyer · 13/10/2018 07:55

But that would mean doing something - actually following a process and doing something.

It seems that the main thing is just being loud, antagonistic, argue about everything (even if there is no argument), showing off... It's more like performance art. I suspect many are actually surrealists.

SuburbanRhonda · 13/10/2018 07:57

So was Lily mistaken in claiming to have a GRC earlier this year?

FekkoTheLawyer · 13/10/2018 07:58

How could you forget that? Was it before of after the girlfriend came on the scene?

Elephantinacravat · 13/10/2018 08:01

Why would Lily marry someone who would veto a GRC for them?

FekkoTheLawyer · 13/10/2018 08:04

Anyone marrying Lily would know exactly the situation I suspect. Their life is an open book.

It's not exactly going to be the scenatio where if they decide either way the partner will be shocked 'I never saw this coming - I'm so surprised!'

AbsintheFriends · 13/10/2018 08:05

'Requires me to irreversibly alter my body'

Is LM actually expecting people to think this is an outrageous step too far for a male who wants to be perceived as female?

JellySlice · 13/10/2018 08:06

There's nothing to make sense of. It doesn't make sense. It is nonsense.

PrincessWire · 13/10/2018 08:12

I'm normally just a lurker here and don't post or comment, but the fact that Lily complains that they would have to irreversibly alter their body just says it all to me.

I was told a few days ago in a debate on FB that TW do not enjoy having a penis and that they would do anything to be rid of their male genitalia. This statement puts the lie on that...

StaffiesAndPonies · 13/10/2018 08:14

The GRA states:

If the applicant is married, and the marriage is a protected marriage, an application under section 1(1) must also include—

(a)a statutory declaration by the applicant's spouse that the spouse consents to the marriage continuing after the issue of a full gender recognition certificate (“a statutory declaration of consent”) (if the spouse has made such a declaration), or

(b)a statutory declaration by the applicant that the applicant's spouse has not made a statutory declaration of consent (if that is the case).

So a spouse can veto the continuation of the marriage after the person’s transition, but can’t veto the transition itself. It just means that the transitioning person cannot force their spouse to stay married to them. The notion that a spouse holds the power to prevent someone becoming their brave and stunning authentic self has been disingenuously put about - including by Stonewall in their guidance for completing the consultation.

FekkoTheLawyer · 13/10/2018 08:49

Surely there should be a choice to stay in a relationship that has really changed since the beginning (I really don't need another sister or intend to become a lesbian should this happen to me) or leave and get on with your life.

Don't people even thing 'what would I do if this happened to me?'. Do they really think that it could never happen to them?

SlowlyShrinking · 13/10/2018 08:59

Has it ever occurred to Lily that other people are paying for government documents (passport, marriage licence, DBS check etc etc) and generally not complaining about them much and just getting on with it? Also, we provide information about ourselves, to unknown bureaucrats, for these purposes. It’s not just trans people who have to do this. Why does Lily think trans people should be exempt?

BernardBlacksWineIcelolly · 13/10/2018 09:02

yeah

so far i've seen nothing to indicate that Lily is anything other than a heterosexual male

of course that doesn't stop Lily being a transwoman too

but the point is, Lily would always have been able to marry whoever Lily wanted as heterosexual marriage has always been a thing

now that equal marriage has been introduced, if Lily does have a GRC as Lily has previously claimed, Lily can still marry whoever they chose

i don't understand what the issue is here?

Urbanbeetler · 13/10/2018 09:05

This was the reason my (Tory) MP gave for supporting the changes to legislation when I met them. MP said it wasn’t fair that spouses could hold up the process and wouldn’t engage in any other conversation on the topic. I am trying incredibly hard to see both sides but MP made it clear it is all or nothing: ‘bigot’ or ‘ally’.

Tellin · 13/10/2018 09:12

So your spouse can make end of life decisions for you but heaven forbid they not want to be forced to stay married to you if you decide to transition and fundamentally alter the nature of the marriage. What does LM think marriage is?

FekkoTheLawyer · 13/10/2018 09:16

Not automatically - unless you have a LPA

QuentinWinters · 13/10/2018 09:24

I hate the fact there is a proposal to remove the spousal veto. Especially after reading the trans widows threads. I think your partner announcing they are and always have a different gender to the one you married should be grounds for annulment, no questions asked. Marriage after all is a contract and that's a fairly radical breach of terms.
The fact TRAs are campaigning to have it removed just shows how entitled these people can be. It's all "me, me, me" and no thought for their spouses at all

Micke · 13/10/2018 09:27

Has it ever occurred to Lily that other people are paying for government documents

I was recently looking at ticket prices for a wildlife park. As many places do, people requiring it can bring their carer for free.

BUT in order to get this carer's ticket, you have to provide:

Paying visitors who receive Disability Living Allowance (DLA) or Personal Independence Payments (PIP) are eligible to bring with them one essential carer, free of charge, subject to written evidence in the form of photographic staff identification cards (for registered care homes only) or a letter from PIP, DLA or a medical professional on NHS headed paper. The evidence provided must be dated within the last 2 years and must be one of the 4 mentioned above – no other cards, letters or blue badges will be accepted as evidence.

Just to get into a zoo, a person needing a carer has to provide the abobe evidence (which as a doctor's letter, I'm guessing will cost them about 50 quid?).

I don't think the cost of a GRA, which most people can't even then ask to see is at all high, given what someone who needs a carer has to go through, just to get that carer into the zoo with them for free.

RedToothBrush · 13/10/2018 09:30

Lily has a Grc when it suits Lily.
Lily does not have a Grc when it suits Lily.

Lily is able to blag money when it suits Lily.
Lily is unable to blag money when it suits Lily.

Lily is a woman when it suits Lily.
Lily is trans woman when it suits Lily.

Lily sees the merit for trans only needs because it suits Lily.
Lily sees the lack of merit for women only needs because it suits Lily.

Can you spot the pattern?

It's been said that Lily displays remarkable cognitive dissonance in what they say. I would contend there is not. There is a very obvious consistency in what Lily says.

At that point, you roll your eyes and go whatever Lily.

StaffiesAndPonies · 13/10/2018 09:32

The fact TRAs are campaigning to have it removed just shows how entitled these people can be. It's all "me, me, me" and no thought for their spouses at all

They need someone to clean the bog and look after the kids while they are out womanning.

StarsAndWater · 13/10/2018 09:45

This is one thing that really irritates me and highlights just how shallow this movement is.
Lily absolutely can get married. Trans people can get married. There were some non-binary people presenting a petition to Theresa May that demanded the right to get married? They can absolutely get married too.
If they follow the procedures at the registry office with their loved one, they have the right to be legally married to that person same as any other adult.
What they don't have is the right to do, is customise their marriage certificate to show whatever they want it to.
Twenty years ago, a gay couple couldn't get legally married under any circumstances.
Pretending that the 'right' to amend what it says on your marriage certificate is the same as not actually be allowed to get married at all, is ignorant at best and utterly dishonest.
It completely diminishes and minimises the very real hurdles that gay couples have faced throughout history.

Flip

1 2

Swipe left for the next trending thread