Lib Dems actively deterring GC women

[DontBuyANewMumCashmere]

Today I emailed the Lib Dems expressing an interest in joining their party.

I stated no one should receive discrimination or abuse for their transgender status but explained that I am GC and I asked if there was room for GC women in the party.

I received the following response:
Thank you for getting in touch. Whilst we appreciate your interest in joining, you should be aware that the Liberal Democrats are a trans inclusive party, and we have made it clear that we fully behind trans communities. As liberals we champion everyone’s right to live the life they want. By the sounds of your email it appears that your values are not aligned with ours so we are probably not the right the party for you.

I am flabbergasted. I didn't expect that I would have to believe that humans can change biological sex in order to be a member of the Lib Dems.

I am so disappointed. I was going to vote for them in the GE (passionate Remainer) but I cannot if this is their response.

There is no one to vote for. I am lost.

Oh good grief. What on earth does this "completion of equal marriage" actually mean?

And who would want to restore a marriage previously dissolved? In terms of a dissolution as a result of the GRA procedure, the marriage dissolved was one between a woman and a man. But after the GRA procedure, any marriage would be between a woman and a woman. There would be no "restoration", it would be a completely different marriage contract.

As for the CofE and the CinW: that's ecclesiastical law, and has nothing to do with any political party "enabling" anything. The CofE did introduce changes because of the secular law allowing marriages of divorced people, but at the discretion of the incumbent of a parish. (A CofE priest could exercise his/her conscience and refuse to officiate, but had to make the parish church available for such a marriage with another priest officiating.)

They don't make their manifesto easy to see in its entirety. Visually, it's all in bits and pieces. I get the impression that that describes their thinking as well. (Though to be honest, I haven't looked at other parties' manifestos either.)

It says ‘allowing’ not forcing.

Annulment wasnt compulsory in the first place. It was the choice of the non transgender partner. If the non transgender partner wished to stay married they could. And some did. So the only marriages annulled were those where the non transgender partner wanted to start afresh.

The allow is therefore a red herring. Whose doing the allowing? The non transgender partner who wanted out in the first place? They arent going to want to re-"allow" the marriage they terminated in the first place.

As others have said this has repercussions on subsequent (now bigamous) marriages and children.

It an absolutely horrific bit of legislation

The revokation of divorces is unbelievable. How could that have ever got past any focus group? Surely they don't mean it. It's all horrific, so why not.

I remember when the LibDems had intelligent policy makers.

Do you think maybe this section was drawn up by just one or two abusive individuals and not double checked by anyone?

I can see how an abuser who is upset their victim has made the choice to be no longer legally tied to them would think that was a good line to put in there. I do not understand how any rational or well-balanced person could support it.

Just to say that I've written to my local LD candidate about sex-segregated spaces and lobbying groups' work to allow self-ID in practice if not yet in law.

Got the 'women's and trans rights not in competition' line and an explanation of the 2010 Equality Act.

Sent back a point-by-point response asking what she means by 'trans' and if Shen use she the word 'gender' please define. Also what preventative measures will there be to stop predatory men, y'know.. predating on women in these spaces.

I await a response. Not holding my breath.

*and if she uses the word 'gender'

So even if the non trans partner already made the decision to divorce, too bad, the marriage will be back on if the LibDems get elected?

I mean, they won't, but that right there is a good reason not to vote for them. WTF?

Oh yeah, and I'm loving how these excellent plans for forcing women to be married to abusive individuals they don't want to be married to are being described as "completion of equal marriage."

Imagine shitting all over gay marriage by claiming that your abuser's charter is "completing" it.

ProdigalKittensReturn

Yes That seems to be what that section is suggesting. Although they would have to get it through Parliment....

It certainly enough to be going WTF

Unless they mean "equal right to abuse your partner for everyone born male" I'm really not seeing how that's meant to work. And even if so, when you get a divorce from someone who's not trans you can reasonably expect that the marriage won't be reinstated years later by some stupid politician, so actually not equal at all.

Annulment wasnt compulsory in the first place. It was the choice of the non transgender partner. If the non transgender partner wished to stay married they could.

That's not true. When the GRA was passed in 2004, same sex marriage wasn't legal. In fact, one of the reasons the GRA was passed was to prevent same sex marriage becoming legal, by enabling one half of a homosexual couple to legally 'change sex' so that they could marry. The law was passed because there was enough opposition to same sex marriage for a 'legal fiction' of changing sex to be seen as a preferred option.

For an already married heterosexual couple, when one of them transitioned the marriage had to end with annulment or divorce, since they would both be legally the same sex following the granting of a GRC to one of them.

Its actually worth noting that it not divorced but annulled. The marriage is considered to have been completely invalid in the first place and any subsequent marriage is considered the "first" marriage. This is really important in churches who won't marry divorcees.

That's true, and it may also be psychologically important to the people involved in those churches to feel that they're not breaking the rules somehow.

@OldCrone thanks old crone youre right i was working off post 2004 info. Thank you for expanding my understanding

Disentangling all this is a nightmare, because nothing about it is logical - until one reads between the lines.

Yes, OldCrone - the whole purpose of the GRA wasn't to give validation, legal or otherwise, to those people who thought they were special; it was solely to prevent same-sex marriages. All those transactivists and their followers who think the law was all about them are deluded. Their trans rights only happened because that was regarded as less repugnant than legally recognising homosexual partnerships.

I think you've encapsulated the problem exactly, Kantastic. The only people to benefit from that "restoration" is the bully who will not accept their partner's free will. So of course the question is who managed to get that clause into the manifesto, and did anybody even think about the consequences of that.

So just to add some facts to this thread.

The spousal veto policies (that being, removing the spousal veto and allowing people to restore their marriges), comes alongside another libdem policy, that being no fault divorce. So anyone in a marriage that they no longer want to be in, whatever the reason, can get a divorce far easier than they can currently. Removing the spousal veto is essential, because it allows the partners of trans people to block their recognition if they do not consent, if they choose to use the veto then they then have to go through a lengthy divorce and their recognition is blocked. Under Libdem changes, the trans person can get recognition straight away and their partner can then decide if they want to go though with a no fault divorce if they wish, without vetoing the legal recognition of the trans person. It works out better for both parties.

The restoration of marriages is not primarily for those people who have got divorced since the law has changed and the spousal veto has come into effect, it is for those marriages whereby if the trans person received legal recognition the marriage was annuled regardless of if they wanted to stay married. When the policy was passed there were partners of trans people who did not get legal recognition because they didn't wish to annul their marriage speaking in favour.

Nobody is talking about forcing people to stay in marriages they don't want to, nobody is talking about forcing people to go back into a marriage they don't want to, and it's incredibly bad faith to say that's what it is.

On where this policy came from. It wasn't written by a handful of people in a back room, it was passed by our democratic party conference (overwhelmingly), members wrote it and members endorsed it. We arent the Tories, none of our policies are drawn up in back rooms.

anyone in a marriage that they no longer want to be in, whatever the reason, can get a divorce far easier than they can currently. Removing the spousal veto is essential, because it allows the partners of trans people to block their recognition if they do not consent, if they choose to use the veto then they then have to go through a lengthy divorce

Why is removing the 'veto' essential, if you are bringing in quick no-fault divorce?

In fact, let's go back a stage.

Why is this haste so essential?

Every other legal process takes a while. Every medical process takes a while. Every attempt to get essential help for mental health problems takes more or less for ever. Someone's wish to be recognised as the opposite sex seems like it should be a pretty low priority even before we come to the problems it can cause for those around them.

Please don't say that they will commit suicide. That's emotional blackmail, especially when it comes to someone who managed to sit on their inner true gender long enough to get married in the first place.

DodoPatrol because the way it stands, a trans person is blocked from getting legal recognition until either their partner consents or they are divorced. That's just wrong. If the partner doesn't want to continue the marriage (as is their right) they shouldn't be able to block the trans person from getting legal recognition until their divorce is finalised. The partner has an out if they wish, they shouldn't be able to stop the trans person living their life how they want in the meantime.

In addition, when we passed this policy, there was a trans person who still hadn't got legal recognition because they and their partner (of whom they had been married a long time before transition, and who is entirely supportive now) didn't think it was right that the partner had to give consent. She didn't believe that it was her decision to make, given it is such a personal issue regardless of a marriage.

Keeping the spousal veto in place when you have no fault divorce is just cruel

DodoPatrol the process to get legal recognition already takes an incredibly long time, and even with GRA reform it's not like you would be able to just get legal recognition overnight. It may seem like a low priority to you, but it's something that's important to them, I and the party don't believe that it is right for a liberal society to stand in someone's way and tell them they have to wait until their divorce is finalised.

Even if the suicide rates weren't as they were, it doesn't change our support for it. It's about fundamental liberal principles and individuals being able to live as they wish in a free society.

they shouldn't be able to stop the trans person living their life how they want in the meantime.

Well.
That's the rest of us told then.

Yes, it's a low priority to me. I think someone who managed to keep their 'gender' hidden long enough for the legal process of marriage can wait for the legal process of gender recognition. Why not?

Do your liberal principles also apply to women who don't want to be in a legally 'same sex' marriage they didn't sign up for?

Please go and read the Trans Widows threads, without lecturing those women on what is happening in their lives.

DodoPatrol I mean what's your point? We are liberal, we don't think people should be constrained or oppressed by the state or other individuals. I'm coming here to put forward the actual case in good faith since there has been so much wilful misinterpretation and misrepresentation of the policy. If you disagree that's fine, you are free to vote ukip instead.

Do your liberal principles also apply to women who don't want to be in a legally 'same sex' marriage they didn't sign up for?

Yes, thus why we support quicker and easier no fault divorce. As I've already said.

If you disagree that's fine, you are free to vote ukip instead.

Speaking of bad faith interpretations...