Trans widows - help me talk to my friend, a candidate for the lib dems, about the "spousal veto"

[ByGrabtharsHammarWhatASaving]

OK "friend" might be a bit strong as we haven't spoken in years, but we were very close once upon a time. I can honestly say she was one of the kindest most caring people I ever met, but I've just seen her on fb talking about how proud she is that the lib dems have unanimously voted for the motion to end the "horrific" spousal veto. I suspect she had been swept up with the idea that this is the kind thing to do, and never though about how the "spouse" wife of the brave and stunning might feel. I want to reach out to her, not to change her mind probably but maybe just plant a seed and give her a glimpse of the other side. Anything you think I should say? Maybe send her the trans widow thread? Any good articles I can send her?

Ask her why she isn't more aware of coercive control and current behaviour to modify future risk, and suggest she take the Freedom Programme.
Wives should not be placed in this position. A divorce should be automatic, child support and maintenance secured and a mandatory cooling off period.
Then the wife should have counselling and decide if she wants to enter into a lesbian marriage or not.

Surely it's just a formality so that e.g. someone who married a man is not obliged to be legally married to a woman against their will. It doesn't veto the transition, it just delays it until the divorce is sorted. (Married to a legally woman? Married to a legal woman? That sounds like marrying a solicitor...)
What alternative would they prefer? Automatic divorce on transition wouldn't be fair on those who do wish to remain married. And bring in issues of sorting the finances which would effectively delay the awarding of the GRC anyway.
Is insisting someone be in a gay (or indeed heterosexual if it's one of an initially gay couple transitioning) marriage against their will really a liberal position?

It is still a heterosexual marriage, if one is male and one is female.

What needs to be the case is that transitioning is considered grounds for a fast track divorce, instigated by the non-transitioning party, with no possibility of objection from the transitioning party.

Instead, I suspect what will happen if the veto goes is that it will become like any other divorce - where if the transitioning spouse wants to dig their heels in, and the judge who happens to hear the case doesn't agree that transitioning is "unreasonable behaviour", it will take a woman 5 years to get a divorce.

Have you tried framing it another way?

What if two gay men marry.

Then one transitions

Does the other partner have a right not to have to redefine themselves as heterosexual?

The FairPlay website has a good explanation: fairplayforwomen.com/full_guide/#q7

Legally I mean sirvix. Was trying to shoehorn the word legal in as much as I could... Should someone have to participate in that legal fiction that they're married to someone of the opposite sex to the person they actually married? That the person they actually married never existed even if they've changed their birth certificate?

Isn't it about divorce procedures?currently you have to have grounds for a divorce, this provides grounds for that legal process. Would she prefer that transition be labelled 'unreasonable behaviour'? That's the only other appropriate ground. How transphobic of her!

Practically perhaps she could support no fault divorce which is coming soon if fucking Brexit doesn't kill it off like every other functioning area of government.

Yes I agree thirdfiddle nobody should be forced or coerced into a pretence that they are now married to a woman, when they married a man.

Forcing a woman to be the one to initiate the veto when she was not the one that wants to change sex but is the one who will be left looking after the children is grossly unfair.

Automatic divorce on transition is the only way to protect women from coercive control. If finances are ring fenced and there is a cooling off period, there's nothing to stop people remarrying if they choose.

Yes, I agree Inebriati

I don’t understand UK law on divorce... why on earth would the state want to force people to stay married if one of them wants out anyway?

Has anybody ever heard of or come across a trans widower? How many men out there are forced into playing the role of gay man in a gay marriage after their wife transitions into a bearded bloke? How many men are emotionally coerced into still finding their spouse attractive in those circumstances? How many men have to help their former wives into their transition as masculine presenting male? How many men are having to have their histories rewritten and their sexualities redrawn? How many men have their role as father usurped within the household? How many men are having to explain to their children that mummy is now daddy, and really always was daddy, and has to play mental and social gymnastics to protect his children while slowly dying inside?

Maybe your friend will get it from a male point of view, because that's the only point of view the LibDems are listening to.

I don’t understand UK law on divorce... why on earth would the state want to force people to stay married if one of them wants out anyway?

Partly it's social engineering. The state has for a long time been of the opinion that marriage is a good thing so the state should make it difficult to leave one "lightly" (if you think this is an exaggeration on my part then dig out old debates on liberalising divorce law in Hansard - you will see MPs, particularly those with a religious view, saying more or less exactly this).

But as feminists we want to watch out for throwing the baby out with the bathwater. We don't want to end up with an equivalent of the situation where a man can say "talaq" three times and the woman is out on the street. Marriage is a financial and legal contract, primarily, and any reforms to divorce law should have as their main underpinning principle the idea that a good divorce is about dissolving this contract in such a way that it's fair to both parties, without either party having been rushed into snap decisions to their financial detriment (which is why I think an instant automatic end to a marriage on transition is unrealistic because it would leave both parties in financial limbo - saying instead that it's grounds for an uncontestable divorce would be better).

Divorce law I think should be framed in terms of a process based rather than a fixed time frame schedule - these are the "steps" you need to go through. It also needs to be coupled to statutory powers to force partners to disclose their financial affairs, with very heavy sanctions for withholding or falsifying statements about income or assets, so that partners can't drag out proceedings by being obstructive over financial disclosure

You only have to look at the relationship board here to realise the very real dangers of women being railroaded into quick divorce by husbands who are trying to screw them financially, or husbands who are being obstructive over finances.

Somehow the court system needs to protect transwidows and protect women going through more normal divorces where they face pressure from both ends of the time scale - conmen who want to rush them into divorce before they've realised they're being financially screwed, and abusers using dragging their heels over finances as a means of continuing to exert control.

TL:DR - watch out for unintended consequences of changes to divorce law.

Chesterton's fence.

How to make policy: hide it in other policy. Layla moran and the lib dems at conference www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/3691928-How-to-make-policy-hide-it-in-other-policy-Layla-moran-and-the-lib-dems-at-conference

I've set out my concerns on here, OP.

Thanks for the input all. Tinsel, after reading your comments on the other thread I think maybe I won't contact her just yet until we have a bit more info on how women will actually be affected by divorcing rather than dissolving the marriage. Sounds like it isn't as simple as just choosing the opposite position to what the TRAs want.

Well, here's a novel suggestion - instead of the LibDems doing the poor trans evil veto schtick, and us saying no being the 'opposing view', how about we, as women concerned with the liberation of women, say "You should be speaking primarily to the women affected by this - the spouses so casually dismissed while the spotlight is on their dazzling and oppressed husband with his marches and his special flag".

This is not something that tinkering with eye catching little bits in the GRA will solve. This is a complicated issue because this is probably one of the most obvious cases where the usual AWA/TRA crap of "Well, it's not affecting anyone else, it's their identity" is 100% obvious bullshit.

Challenge these people to ask the women affected and do proper bloody research before changing things. Fucking hell, I was so naive to think that was the way grown ups in authority did things before all this shit.

I’d ask her what research has been done on the impact on women, on how this will potentially affect financial arrangements, whether it will affect ‘reasonableness’ as a ground for divorce, whether a detailed written assessment of the effect on women - real women!- has been produced by specialist family lawyers - and if it hasn’t, why not? What does this say about how the LDs see women? That our interests don’t need to be properly considered?

The LDs wouldn’t adopt a policy for a new tax without detailed assessment of the effects, advice from experts, etc. So if they’re charging ahead with this without detailed specialist legal advice, without considering effect on women in great detail, that should worry your friend, if she cares about boring important things like equality impact assessments.

Challenge these people to ask the women affected

Thanks for this, it's just spurred me on that for this to happen, the trans widows need to organise.

(I'm using the word "Organise" in its trade union sense)

@ByGrabtharsHammarWhatASaving I have just updated other thread.

TinselAngel the trans widows need to organise. (I'm using the word "Organise" in its trade union sense)

YES!

womansplaceuk.org/2019/09/21/spousal-consent-and-the-liberal-democrats/

Woman's Place article on this.