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?

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

This is never tied in with a wider reform of divorce law though.

Also these women you mention are usually trapped in abusive marriages or divorce but can never remarry. Why argue for a policy that would put more women in this bracket.

Apologies for spamming I'm on my phone, so can't post everything at once.

They'd better get no fault divorce in first. Otherwise they've just campaigned their way to getting a GRC deemed unreasonable behaviour. Or what else would be the grounds for a retrospective divorce?
Even with - they're the ones saying a trans person is literally the other sex. If a person is supposedly literally not the person you thought they were when you married them, the marriage has to be void doesn't it. It's such a minor, administrative thing too. Noone is stopping them getting their GRC, it just takes a little longer.

No one should be forced into a lesbian marriage ..which seems homophobic

Extraordinary.

Sexual orientation is a protected characteristic. And you are saying that not wanting to have it publicly renamed is homophobic??

Noone is stopping them getting their GRC, it just takes a little longer.

You can get an interim one, can't you?

Some trans widows are able to divorce on the grounds of unreasonable behaviour- the way late transitioners carry on, it's really not difficult to put a petition together, but the problem is it depends on the consent of the respondent, so isn't as reliable a means of getting out as if we had no fault divorce.

But the word lesbian no longer means what it once did. You would still be in a heterosexual relationship, ( homogender ) but just one branded otherwise because of an idiotic ideology.

If it can't be explained without using lesbian, then we will just have to agree to differ.

But yes to tinsel's argument that until all women can get divorce then we shouldn't change the veto law.

Lesbian is a protected characteristic defined in The Equality Act. A lesbian is a woman - an adult human female - who is exclusivly attracted to other women.

I have read your thread but I am struggling to understand why you think women should be trapped in a marriage they did not sign up to, or why you are calling straight women homophobic for not wanting to be in a lesbian relationship.

You've made your point clear; you don't think men who transition become 'real' lesbians so as far as you're concerned it doesn't really count; and you cant see how this would be a problem for lesbians either.

This is a good example of how the significance of things trans changes depending on the argument being advanced. When someone "changes sex" then if it's in marriage it's no big deal, of no real significance, but when someone "changes sex" in other contexts it's vastly significant and the entire world must acknowledge this without question, without even the slightest of side-eye, otherwise woe betide them.

When someone "changes sex" then if it's in marriage it's no big deal, of no real significance, but when someone "changes sex" in other contexts it's vastly significant and the entire world must acknowledge this without question, without even the slightest of side-eye, otherwise woe betide them.

Yes. Goalposts changing all the damn time.

In terms of sex (biological not shagging) it would still be a heterosexual relationship but legally it wouldn't.

If someone enters a homosexual marriage, good for them.
If someone enters heterosexual marriage, good for them.
This isn't about homophobia or there being anything wrong with lesbian marriage.

Nobody should be forced to remain in a marriage when one party has unilaterally changed the terms of the marriage. Giving spouses an exit clause isn't vetoing someone seeking to transition, and I would question the motives of anyone who seeks to force a fellow human to remain married.

But the word lesbian no longer means what it once did

It still means a female who is sexually attracted to other females as far as I know 🤷‍♀️

But, I do in a way get your broader point that language has been so mangled and twisted around sex, sexuality and gender terminology that it's hard to pin down an exact meaning that everyone understands.

Others got there before me in a much more eloquent way

But yes to tinsel's argument that until all women can get divorce then we shouldn't change the veto law.

Thanks, but people really need to grasp that it is not a veto.

Nobody should be forced to remain in a marriage when one party has unilaterally changed the terms of the marriage

I dont get why this is even a thing to be discussed!

No one should be forced into a lesbian marriage ..which seems homophobic

What - it's homophobic for a woman to have a heterosexual identity? Jesus.

Really, what's homophobic about ensuring that men can't force their wives into a pretend lesbian marriage? It's a horrible form of gaslighting, telling women that the man they married xx years ago was a woman all along, and suggesting that it's homophobic to want to get out of the marriage.
And as Tinsel said, it works both ways - without the spousal consent / exit clause (why call it 'veto'?) a spouse could convert a same-sex marriage into an opposite-sex one without the other spouse's consent.
The removal of the spousal consent clause would mean that trans identity overrides sexual identity in the eyes of law. I don't see why anyone other than some hardline TRAs would want that to happen.

I think even some feminists find it really difficult to accept that there are some circumstances where a woman's needs should be prioritised over a man's needs.

Why is it a forced gay marriage though?

If my DH came to me tomorrow and said he is now trans can I not say in that case I want a divorce? No o e is forcing me to stay married to him are they?

I dont have veto over anything else that he might decide to change about the marriage so why this?

When someone "changes sex" then if it's in marriage it's no big deal, of no real significance, but when someone "changes sex" in other contexts it's vastly significant and the entire world must acknowledge this without question, without even the slightest of side-eye, otherwise woe betide them.

^And the disparity in the importance of identity. A husband's trans identity is a matter of life and death that requires new birth certificates to be issued, but his wife should just get over her sexual identity when the husband wants to become a lesbian. It's ridiculous.

But the word lesbian no longer means what it once did.

Rubbish. It means homosexual female. Biological females in sexual relationships.

If you believe women should be forced to remain in a legally contracted marriage when their partner wholly and unilaterally changes the terms of that contract, and should not be permitted to escape if they wish to, or in any way have their own needs, feelings and interests equally recognised..... then my God do you hate female people and believe in male supremacism.

But the word lesbian no longer means what it once did.

In fact I'm so pissed off by this offensive rubbish that I'll add: if you personally have adapted this word to fit a lot of trendy rubbish to enable people born male to appropriate identities they like, then you're doing nothing but waving around your own homophobia.

And woman hating.

And male supremacism.

Believe me, female homosexuals, and I'm one of them, really don't have an issue with what the word actually means in law and in reality. FFS.

Switching it round, why would a transwoman want to remain married to a woman who still thinks he's a bloke called Dave?

If my DH came to me tomorrow and said he is now trans can I not say in that case I want a divorce?

You can, but you would remain married to this woman for however many years it took for the divorce to happen. All official records would show that you were married to a woman.

As said many times, it's not a veto against transitioning, it's just wanting women to be able to get a divorce before their DH is legally recognized as a woman.

I'm struggling with your reasoning here, midgebabe.

I married my DH based on what I knew to be true about him. People change, all kinds of bad things might affect your relationship leading to a divorce, yes. But none can retrospectively affect our marriage contract. A GRC can.

And no, I would not have married a woman. I am straight, I like blokes. And I don't want to be in a lesbian marriage, nor do I want to be perceived to be in one. Because that's not who I am. Surely I do not have to stand by and meekly accept my spouse redefining who I am without my consent?

I do get the bit about shouldn't we address the wider problem with women belonging to certain groups or religions not being able to divorce. But that's not on the table.

What's on the table is very simple: there currently is a tool available to protect women (and it is overwhelmingly them) should their spouse seek to change legal sex. This tool allows women not to have to ever be in a opposite sex or same sex marriage, not to have to pick between ostracising themselves from their community or religion by seeking a divorce or remaining trapped in a marriage they would never have entered in the first place.

That's your choice - retain the spousal exit clause and protect these women or abolish it and make their lives harder.

The GRC-seeker (mostly men) will face no negative consequences from this choice.

I know where I stand on that. And I haven't even mentioned the frequently abusive nature of what the transwidows threads tell us happens in many marriages when an AGP decides to transition. Once you add that into the mix, do you really want to hand such power over their already suffering wives?

I think your thinking is in reverse gear on this - once you strip out abuse and unwanted hetero- or homosexuality, there's no reason left, you say. But why would you abandon normal safeguarding principles here?

I mean once you strip out the predators and abusers, we really have nothing to fear from men, so why exclude them from anything female-only?

Because we cannot strip out the predators and abusers outside of an intellectual exercise. In real life, they are inseparable from the issue. The same applies to the spousal exit clause.