Trans Widows, the Liberal Democrats and the Spousal "Veto"

[TinselAngel]

First of all I have @anlaf to thank for drawing my attention to this originally.

Did you know the Liberal Democrats are currently proposing changes to the Gender Recognition Act which could have the effect of trapping trans widows in same sex marriages against their will?

A woman could go from being in a hetrosexual marriage, to being in legally a same sex marriage, without her consent.

A motion was passed at the Liberal Democrat party conference (proposer Layla Moran MP ) to change the clause of the GRA which allows for one party to a marriage to have the marriage annulled / dissolved before the other party is able to be issued with a Gender Recognition Certificate.

Trans Activists inaccurately refer to this section of the GRA as the "Spousal Veto". It is not a veto. It does not prevent transition. At worst it might delay the issue of a GRC.

Never mind, you might think, the Lib Dems aren't going to get into power any time soon? Putting aside the possibility of a hung parliament in an imminent general election, the Lib Dems appear to not be able to wait to get into power to introduce this, as now Baroness Barker has submitted a private members bill in the House of Lords.

Google "spousal veto" and you will see pages of accustions that it can be used by an abusive controlling spouse to maliciously prevent their partner's transition. However no evidence is ever provided that this has ever happened. Those of you who have read the trans widows threads will have your own opinion of how likely this is.

Not all women in this situation will be able to get divorced. Some cannot get divorced for religious or cultural reasons. Maybe they can't afford it, or maybe their husband will refuse to consent to an Unreasonable Behaviour petition and drag the marriage out for 5 years or more.

Please contact the Liberal Democrats (particulary if you have a Liberal Democrat MP) and any prominent feminists you know to get people talking about this. It is a completely unjustified assault on one of the few rights that trans widows have. Any attack on Womens Rights is an attack on all women.

Is Layla the one who can see the soul of a trans person and therefore know who is truly trans?

Is Layla the one who can see the soul of a trans person and therefore know who is truly trans?

The very same.

Time and time again we were told by TRAs that ’someone’s trans identity doesn’t affect you.’

Well it does rather, doesn’t it if your husband becomes your wife without your agreement and you have no legal recourse to end the marriage? It’s disgusting, and no, I doubt straight men would be happy if their wives had their breasts cut off, grew a beard and started talking in a deep voice like a bloke. It would go down like a shit sandwich, but then it’s not them it’s happening to, is it?

Forced marriage!

I mean, really it's just a timetable thing.

You have to get your marriage - Yay! It's continuing! or Absolutely Nay. It's over. - sorted out before you get your GRC.

It's not stopping anyone getting a GRC.

How can anyone see it as anything other than a reasonable consideration of a partner in law?

You also have to have been married for at least one year in England & Wales (probably also Scotland & NI?) before starting divorce proceedings. I know most AGPs have been married longer than that when they 'come out', but in cases where that wasn't so the wife would be totally stuck until the first wedding anniversary.

Thanks Tinsel and Ancient. So using the phrase 'spousal veto' is abusive and gaslighting it seems to me, as it serves to position the wire or husband as powerful, privileged and unaffected emotionally or in any other way by the transition.

The original clause in the GRA already failed to take into account abusive relationships were the women may be coerced into staying in a marriage against her will. Removal of this clause would just make it worse. The liberal democrats are just condoning abusive relationships.

This is an absolute disgrace

Wife, not wire.

So if the spouse refuses permission to get a full rather than interim GRC, how does it affect the transitioning partner?

They can get an interim GRC
They can get all their documents, driving licence etc changed
They can transition socially
They can 'present' as the opposite sex
They can have hormones prescribed
They can have surgery

They can't change their birth certificate (but tens of thousands don't anyway)
What else is affected?

Also, we need to not use the phrase 'spousal veto. What is the preferred phrase? Thanks for all the answers

Please contact the Liberal Democrats (particulary if you have a Liberal Democrat MP)

I'll do my best but I fear that the local LibDems are already fully onboard.

The LibDem candidate for my constituency is Helen Belcher.

Ouch

Are there legal ramifications if a marriage is dissolved or annulled rather than ending in divorce? I’m thinking about division of assets, maintenance and pensions.

The LibDem candidate for my constituency is Helen Belcher.

All the more reason to tell the local party that Helens view isn't the only one!

Helen and Helen's poor, poor wife, spoke in favour of this at Lib Dem Conference.

Helen's wife speaking in support of the rights of other women in the same position, being given away, is something I find difficult to get my head around.

We are truly blessed around here.

However, the delivery of one of HB's leaflets the other day has given me the opportunity to try and help friends and neighbours in the village learn a little more about HB's work on trans issues. So far, they've been pretty stunned.

I've been asked for a template email- I'll put something together.

Tinsel, is there a phrase we can use instead?

It's a right to terminate the marriage isn't it, not a right to prevent the spouse from transitioning.

Is it a right to terminate? So if your husband transitions, that amounts to unreasonable behaviour (if the spouse wishes to divorce on those grounds) and divorce would be granted?

It's spousal consent, for the marriage to continue after full legal transition.

Not as snappy as "veto", I'll grant you.

The Spousal exit clause?

Spousal consent, spousal exit clause. Both good. Thank you.

I think exit is better than consent, for the same reason that veto isn't ideal - sounds like it's consent to transition rather than consent to leave the marriage.

(Or, would be twisted to sound like that)

Some women are vulnerable to coercive control, and they should be the ones we are most concerned about, especially since politicians have made it clear that they aren't.

I think 'spousal exit clause' works better than 'spousal veto'. Partly because people are misrepresenting the veto as 'denial of consent to transition' which is a massive abuse of human rights, and partly because it centres the woman.

Personally I think the marriage should end in automatic divorce, with maintenance payments guaranteed, and the option to remarry only after a minimum cooling off period.

So if the spouse refuses permission to get a full rather than interim GRC, how does it affect the transitioning partner?

That isn't what it is at all. I know it's been explained in previous posts, but it can't be said often enough. It's about allowing the partner of the transitioning person to exit the marriage gracefully, without having to go through a long-winded divorce, isn't it? Not forcing the partner of a transitioning person to be shoe-horned into being apparently in a lesbian or homosexual relationship, when they were in a heterosexual marriage (or the other way around, of course).

It's based on much the same approach of 'fairness' that underlies Catholic marriage annulments (afaik) - that the marriage was under false pretences.