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?

There's a thread in chat asking mumsnet to allow a discussion of gender issues with Jess Phillips. Please post on there if you support this.

www.mumsnet.com/Talk/_chat/3797980-Who-else-would-really-appreciate-a-polite-discussion-of-gender-issues-and-the-concerns-of-women-at-the-jess-Philips-webchat-on-Monday

For completeness, here's Jess's answer to my question (which Empress kindly allowed to be substituted for hers).

Oh I missed this off my last post:

She is determined not to get it TinselAngel, and it is striking that she's not even attempting to look at it from the wife's perspective.

Is that quoted post above something JP said ?

It's shocking. It equates the wives of late transitioning men with abusive men who deny their partners reproductive agency.

Whoever said it, I can't believe I just read it.

It equates the wives of late transitioning men with abusive men who deny their partners reproductive agency.

Not only that - if that weren't bad enough - but it shows that she either doesn't know or is so arrogant she assumes a transwidow doesn't know that the spousal veto has no effect on what medical treatment a transitioning spouse does or does not have.

I think she doesnt know. I think her understanding of most issues is paper thin. Its astounding that she could be leader of the labour party. What has labour become?

I agree she doesn't know. Why would she want to expose her ignorance otherwise.

Honest to God, publicly spouting off about how awful it is, and confidently stating how you had a hand in the whole transgender equalities report, when you understand fuck all about it.

It's such a profound misunderstanding it beggars belief. It's not a minute detail, it's the entire issue. Nothing happens to the husband. He can even get an interim certificate. And have as much body modification as he likes.

Does she genuinely think that requiring a GRC, say, for prisoners, means they've all had the op? How does she account for the report on Karen White being all about 'her erect penis'?

Breathtaking.

Does she genuinely think that requiring a GRC, say, for prisoners, means they've all had the op?

When she said that we couldn't expect anyone to show that they're living as the opposite sex because that's all about stereotypes, it wasn't clear if that's because she thinks everyone who claims to be transgender has had, or intends to have, surgery, or if she thinks that being a woman is a feeling rather than a biological fact.

I agree with LangCleg.