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?

To make comparison to other contracts OP;

Most people take out a broadband contract at a set price for a fixed time. Do you agree that if the supplier unilaterally varies the terms of the contract by upping the price mid-way, or by reducing your bandwidth, that the contract is void and you can leave (as the law says)? Or should they be able to double the price and hold you to the contract?

Do you think that if you order a Ferrari for £350,000 the supplier should be able to substitute a Fiat instead for the same price, because its still a car with four wheels?

Should your employer be able to suddenly half your wages without your consent? Or should the employee be allowed to sue for breach of contract?

Reasonable people know the above examples are unfair and one-sided, and so if consumers, employees, tenants etc have this kind of legal protection against unfair terms and the abuse of power in a relationship, how on earth can it be right that different principles be applied to marriage and a woman (or man) be forced to be bound to a contract that can be so fundamentally altered without consent by one party.

Especially a contract that she will be forced to live out in real life, that has financial impacts but also social and practical ones. It is profoundly unfair and not compatible with a democratic society.

I was just thinking about children's birth certificates or marriage certificates which have the father's name on

The GRA states the parent remains the biological parent even after they transition. this might be one reason activists want the GRA repealed.

''12 Parenthood
The fact that a person’s gender has become the acquired gender under this Act does not affect the status of the person as the father or mother of a child.''
www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2004/7/section/12

I am troubled by this too. While I absolutely don't think a woman should have to stay in a marriage when her DH transitions (and vice versa), I also think this is the case for anyone who finds themself in a marriage of domestic abuse, adultery or if their spouse changes their sexual orientation. But we already have a mechanism for this - divorce and annulment. I don't see why transgenderism merits being a special case.

I should add, that we should change the grounds for annulment to include something like concealing your sexual orientation or gender.

Is there something basically abusive in forcing someone to stay in a marriage?

Ah.

Whoever came up with the lie phrase “spousal veto” really did a number.

Spartacus I managed to get DD's passport renewed ok, despite her Father's name and "gender" having changed since the last application.

I do wonder if her Father's identity no longer existing will cause her any administrative problems going forward. Maybe there will be a situation where she will need a copy of her Dad's GRC, I'm not sure.

GRC's record what the holders name and Dec at birth were, so there is an audit trail.

Jaxhog it is presumably a special case because the GRC retrospectively changes the basis of the marriage. No other grounds for divorce rewrites history in the same way.

But we already have a mechanism for this - divorce and annulment. I don't see why transgenderism merits being a special case

Because it is a special case. The person transitioning has already made it a special case. None of the examples affect a person's legal status; a grc does.

I married a man. I did not marry a woman. I don't want to be married to a woman. I don't have to justify that choice to anyone. I don't have to have a religious reason for that nor do I have to prove I'm not homophobic. Although frankly even if it were homophobic I'm entitled to be homophobic about who I'm married to.

PerspicaciaTick

Jaxhogit is presumably a special case because the GRC retrospectively changes the basis of the marriage. No other grounds for divorce rewrites history in the same way

Yes, indeed and no need for the qualifier "presumably"

I would never enter into a lesbian marriage, not because I’m homophobic, but because I am not a lesbian. If my husband turned around tomorrow and told me he wanted to become a woman that’s fine, I’d support him but I couldn’t possibly have him as my wife because I’m not attracted to trans women and simply couldn’t accept it. The point of contracts (like marriage) is that there is mutual agreement, without that the contract is void. In these instances I think that transition should give the innocent party an immediate right to terminate the marriage. That way everyone gets what they need.

Thanks Tinsel, have I misunderstood the claims that a GRC-holder cannot be asked to show a copy of their GRC though?

I'm not very familiar with this part of the law. I'm thinking about circumstances in which DD might need a clear audit trail to show who her Dad is. The only one I can think of off the top of my head is if he died without a will and she needed to prove her right to inherit, but I'd be interested if anyone can think of anything else?

If my husband turned around tomorrow and told me he wanted to become a woman

Please can people read the trans widows threads before they say this? It's really not how it happens.

Responding to OP. Being married to someone who has transitioned 'to become a woman' does not make the woman they are married to a lesbian. Her sexuality hasn't changed, she isn't suddenly attracted to women.

I'm a lesbian and I've been present at two lesbian events where a TW has turned up with a straight wife, with both of them claiming to be lesbians. The female partners on both occasions were very uncomfortable. They were heterosexual women who possibly for the first time in their lives were seeing women dance together, kiss and talk openly about being lesbian. Loads of women in short hair and boots and make-up. Women self-confident in their lesbian sexuality. Neither couple ever came back.

Transwomen are not women. Transwidows are not lesbians. You have to be attracted to women – the cunty kind – to be a lesbian. So you're being homophobic, OP, to suggest that it's okay for a woman to claim to be a lesbian when she's not.

Isn't it just really that marriage is a legal contract.

In any other context, one of the contractual parties doesn't get to change the fundamental essence of the contract unilaterally. They need the consent of the other And you renegotiate or terminate.

When your spouse transitions, even if you are on great terms and support their decision, you need to make a decision for yourself as to whether you still want to be married because it changes what you consented to all those years ago so fundamentally. Simply put, you may just not be attracted to them any more.

No one is saying that being a lesbian is a bad thing. What is a bad thing is waking up one day and being told that you are now a lesbian (or indeed if you were a lesbian before you are now heterosexual), your partner converted your relationship overnight without your consent and you now have literally no way to get them to come to the table to discuss dissolving a relationship status that you are unhappy with - you have to take the hardest route possible and file for a divorce, which may not be possible for some time in our system where a quick no fault divorce is unavailable (and even if a no fault divorce was available, filing for divorce unilaterally on the basis that your spouse is now trans is so much more painful as an idea than discussing with your spouse in advance, agreeing that you will support their transition but cannot stay married to them on that basis and agreeing to get divorced as amicably as possible, particularly if kids are involved. The best separations are ones that everyone has some say in and wants to move forward with.).

This was posted by CharlieParley earlier in the thread, and explains why the spousal exit clause is incompatible with self-ID.

The spousal exit clause needs to be abolished for self-determination of legal sex to work in practice.

Filling in a simple form to change your legal sex without the current gatekeeping requirements and safeguarding rules will not work if a spouse's objection requires a temporary GRC to be issued. There's no provision made for that in the draft GRA bill published by the Scottish Government for instance.

There isn't some huge injustice they're seeking to address - the spousal exit clause stands in the way of self-id. So it has to go.

I hadn't thought about it in this way. Self-ID means that the transitioner is the only person who has any say in the transition. So to have self-ID, the spouse's ability to halt the issue of a GRC until the marriage has been dissolved has to go, along with the requirement of a doctor's diagnosis and all other gatekeeping.

The ability of any other person to have a say in the issue of a GRC cannot co-exist with self-ID.

In normal contracts (and in simple terms) there are two types of breaches, those which go to the core of the contract, breach of which renders the contract void (e.g. contract is to buy a fiat and a Skoda is produced) and more minor breaches which give rise to the possibility of damages (e.g. contract is for a fiat in good condition and it breaks down on the first day of ownership). Obviously marriage contracts are different, but in my view the only way that changing legal sex would not fall into the first category is if we think that sex is unimportant, when in fact it is of fundamental importance to the vast majority of people. It is this fundamental importance of sex that the extreme ends of trans ideology seek to attack by arguing that sex does not exist/is a spectrum/is terribly complicated and/or that even if it does exist it is transphobic to focus on it.

To me, we have to let a spouse out of a marriage if their spouse transitions to the opposite gender legally. Otherwise you are forcing a person to be essentially pansexual, which is no different from how they forced homosexuals to be heterosexual by pushing them into heterosexual marriages.

Responding to OP. Being married to someone who has transitioned 'to become a woman' does not make the woman they are married to a lesbian. Her sexuality hasn't changed, she isn't suddenly attracted to women.

I fully agree with this. To me, the partner is forced to become pansexual- as in sexually attracted to a person regardless of sex or gender. But you cannot Force a sexuality on anyone. It is part of human sexuality to be a variety and it’s not phobic to have a sexuality that excludes certain sexes or genders.

As someone mentioned upthread, divorce means a financial settlement. This might be bad news for some transitioners.

As someone mentioned upthread, divorce means a financial settlement. This might be bad news for some transitioners.

I've been advised that the same financial remedies are available following disillusion/ annulment as following divorce.

So if you can't become a lesbian just because your partner transitions ( to do somwould require a change in the normal meaning of the word to a gender rather than sex preference ) then you can't be in a lesbian marriage because that would be between 2 lesbians, and anyway is there any legal difference to homo and heterosexual marriages. But people want to object that they don't want t9 be forced into a lesbian marriage. No wonder this aspect does not make sense to me.