Spousal veto

[midgebabe]

So I have read various transwidow and spousal veto threads but am still struggling to understand why (rationally, not emotively) I should support the continuation of the spousal veto as it is commonly called (spousal untangling period). I guess because what I see on those threads is so much mixed up with hurt and abuse.

I am starting the thread because if it isn’t clear to me then I suspect it would be difficult to make the case to others outside of the feminist community.

I have seen

It’s necessary for women who’s religion does not allow divorce…but that to me is a wider problem than just transition …what happens to those women in DV cases etc

No one should be forced into a lesbian marriage ..which seems homophobic , like what’s wrong with lesbian marriage. I guess I also struggle here because whilst the words have changed once the legal process has completed, the person hasn’t

If we take out abuse, people changing beyond recognition, someone using the transition as a way to bully/taunt the other person, why should one legal process be dependent on the other?

Or is it rarely possible to take abuse out of this? Even if people may not be totally happy, there are cases where people have stayed together "in sickness and in health" , and their lack of joy may be related to viewing this as a health problem rather than an indication of abuse?

I thought the term “transwidow” was problematic on some boards?

Surely we've won that particular battle on MN?

Hi Tinsel I've been very cheeky and asked your question again, just to see if it stands.

Will count down to deletion in 3,2,1...

Maybe everyone should ask it!

Can't hurt to try

And... it's gone. That didn't take long.

So I'm going to ask her myself. Joint letter?

Please DM me if interested.

I thought the compliment on her books might have helped it to stick but no-go.

Do you think MNHQ would allow a question on should women on MN be permitted to ask her about issues around sex and gender identification, or if she agrees that she should be shielded from such questions?

Can we just draw her attention to this thread and others on here.

Have MNHQ got somebody on 24 hour duty over the weekend just to delete my question?

FFS Tinsel - you’re always polite and measured; your content on FWR has helped so many people, and this is a poor show.

I’m sorry you are being gagged on what is predominantly a women’s website for asking a fair question of a would be PM related to their policies.

I reported MichaelMumsnet's post on the webchat thread with this comment:

"I am concerned that a question by TinselAngel was deleted. Her question relates directly to Jess Phillips saying that it is 'awful' that a woman is allowed to choose to end her marriage before the nature of that marriage is fundamentally changed by her husband gaining legal recognition as a woman. As TinselAngel pointed out, Jess Phillips says that she supports women who have suffered domestic abuse and she should be aware of the potential for abuse in such circumstances. Jess Phillips is actively campaigning to take rights away from women in these circumstances. She should be made fully aware about what she is doing and held to account."

I've just had a reply:

There are good reasons why we have guidelines around follow up posts and not repeating the same question over and over, or allowing the discussion to be hijacked by a single issue.

First, it turns off other Mumsnet users from participating - meaning that the webchat as a whole stops representing our users in the round. (We've received plenty of representation from other Mumsnet users on this point in the past year or so and we know this is why many of them have stopped engaging with webchats.)

Secondly we're finding it increasingly hard to tempt politicians onto Mumsnet because of fears they'll simply be harangued about this single issue and shouted at for not providing the desired response - which ultimately means no one will get to ask any of these important questions to our policy makers.

---

I started to write a reply to that, but I think it's probably pointless.

"Secondly we're finding it increasingly hard to tempt politicians onto Mumsnet because of fears they'll simply be harangued about this single issue and shouted at for not providing the desired response"

Crikey. Don't know where to start with what's wrong with that.

fears they'll simply be harangued about this single issue

That's because "this single issue" matters to a lot of mothers. And it's not going to stop mattering just because politicians and others want to ignore it.

harangued about this single issue

It is not one thing.

(Thanks for your support all x)

And it sounds like the 'single issue' is anything about trans issues... Thus closing down discussion of a wide range of women's concerns. What a cop-out. Plus your question Tinsel was very concise and civil...

harangue [ huh-rang ]

noun
a scolding or a long or intense verbal attack; diatribe.

Nice to know what they think of us

Asking a politician about a policy they've just announced as part of their leadership campaign is 'haranguing'?
Give me strength.

Does she have a toilet brush?

That's the one!!!!

How often does she wash her towels/ change her bed?

Who is in charge of the decision to ban perfectly valid questions by women about spousal rights?

Have these questions just been banned by Mumsnet? Or is this a contractual obligation placed on Mumsnet, by the person in question, that they must not be questioned on "awkward things" that just happen to be important to women. And the fact that that they are currently advocating removing rights from women??

Shame on MN for deleting a question on the spousal 'veto' from a woman affected.

Gross misogyny.

If politicians are relucating to come on MN and answer questions about women's rights, shame on them.

ZERO shame attached to Tinsel.

*reluctant

We'd probably be safe asking her favourite biscuit

Nah, even biscuits are contentious these days. At least on here where the special rules apply anyway...

Whether she allows shoes in her house perhaps? Or is that shoephobic?