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?

*if

Dear Midgebabe. Your trying to itch us all into a reaction. Midges are a bit like that. Some of us don’t react to the scratch. Some of us come up in welts. Well you have scratched me enough to know you have created a whole body of bites. Thankfully I have the antihistamine right here beside me to counteract your poison. I just want to say you are just an annoyance and we will find the right anti potion to get rid of the itch.
Your lack of respect to our trans widows is appalling. But then one can only assume you are male as no women would encourage another woman to stay in an abusive relationship. As a parent who is also going through the whole relationship definition, I would be thankful if you would apologise to all of us for your total disregard of what relationships mean. Maybe you have not been successful in a relationship and you have not loved anyone enough to respect their feelings. Maybe you don’t care about other people’s feelings as it’s all about you. If that is the case you have no business contributing as it is coming from a selfish perspective. No one on here does selfish. Indeed, we are all here to support others.

I'm grateful for this thread as I hadn't read up on the ins and outs of this previously, so the questions have been helpful actually!

For anyone who wants to understand more about GRCs this is really useful:

www.gov.uk/government/publications/gender-recognition-certificates-t455

@iamright17:

Ah, but Midge has redefined the meaning of lesbian. No one that powerful is going to worry about others' feelings.

Are midgebabe and mIdgebabe different posters?

I'm not troll hunting, just wondering.

Are midgebabe and mIdgebabe different posters?

Oh! How interesting. I did an AS on ‘midgebabe’ (lower case i), and the search returned results for both the lower and upper case i.

I’ve no idea if they are the same poster. I tried to change my username to pencilsinspace but I was told it was already in use. But I could change it to girldownunder

My contribution doesn’t help and of no relevance to the OP, I was just curious how usernames worked and thought I’d share my non findings 🤷‍♀️

After a long time in the back foot, I think threads like this are an indication that we're starting to win the argument and people are feeling threatened.

After a long time in the back foot, I think threads like this are an indication that we're starting to win the argument and people are feeling threatened.

I concur. And the political situation has entirely changed. No more easy wins in the pipeline. I would suggest we batten down the hatches because extremist genderism is an authoritarian movement and will not take kindly to being on the back foot.

My partner is MTF. I'm very happy with them. and I fully support a spousal veto. It doesnt stop them doing anything. They get a temp GRC and a final one later.

It's also not homophobic to not want to be labelled a lesbian. I am not a lesbian. I would not ever be in a relationship with a biological female.

Thanks for posting the link to the GRC guidance Penc. It was informative. New things that I learned:

1. You can get the £140 fee reduced if you're on benefits.

1. If you stay married and get a GRC you don't have to have a replacement marriage certificate but you can have one if you want one.

1. There is a central confidential register which records people's old identity.

1. Whilst you've got the right to not be outed as your previous gender, what this means is that anybody who obtains this information in the course of their official business has to keep it confidential. It's doesn't mean nobody is ever allowed to know/ ask. (This links to Spartacus's earlier question.

It really bought back to me how keen I was at the time of splitting from my ex, to divorce him for unreasonable behaviour rather than wait 2 years until he got a GRC and the marriage was annulled (this was pre same sex marriage). I'm really fortunate I was able to take that option.

"Triggering", as youngsters say.

@midgebabe - if my dh decided to transition, why would it be acceptable for them to unilaterally decide that I was no longer in a heterosexual marriage, but was now in a homosexual one? Why should I not have the right to say “You are fundamentally changing everything about our relationship, and I do not want to be in this radically changed relationship”?

Transitioning is a huge, life-changing decision, and it has huge impact on the life of the spouse and family of the person transitioning - and when that decision is taken unilaterally, with little or no consultation, it is utterly unreasonable to expect the spouse and family to accept the major changes to their lives, if they don’t want to.

To use a different analogy - let’s say I decide, without consulting dh, that I am becoming poly-amorous, and I want to have other husbands. Should he have to accept this radical change to our marriage, and be forced to stay married to this new me, or should he have the right to say he wants a divorce?

Long story short - if one person changes the foundations of their marriage so completely, the other person should not be forced to accept their new role in the relationship if they don’t want to!

But you wouldn't be forced to stay in the marriage. Of course you could divorce.

or should he have the right to say he wants a divorce? - no one is taking this right away though are they?

Here's a definition of analogy Hooves, which is what SDTGisAnEvilWolefGenius
Is making here.

https://www.dictionary.com/browse/analogy

Thanks Tinsel, I know what an analogy is.

SDTG also said that she should be allowed to divorce if her husband became trans just as her DH should be allowed to divorce if she became polyamorous - who is proposing that people can't divorce in either of those situations?

Glaceon, good to hear. All the best to you and partner, you sound sensible and realistic. Gender dysphoria is not an easy thing to live with so all credit to those who are getting on with dealing with it and still able to acknowledge reality. That way lies good self esteem. All the constantly depending on how other people see you and "validation" seems really unhealthy to me.

The point I was making about an analogy is that the two things being compared don't have to be exactly the same.

This is rather like when women are told 'instead of fussing about not wanting males in female only refuges, you should just focus on ending domestic violence'.

It's about 'don't look at that, look at this'. Which is intended to distract and put off females from defending existing provisions from making life ever freer for males at their expense.

Yes, it would be lovely if there was an instant no fault divorce available for anyone, at any time.

There isn't.

Removing this spousal exit clause will not make things better or easier for females caught in this situation. Why do you feel this should happen?

But I made no comment about that. I was commenting on these points

Why should I not have the right to say “You are fundamentally changing everything about our relationship, and I do not want to be in this radically changed relationship”?

Should he have to accept this radical change to our marriage, and be forced to stay married to this new me, or should he have the right to say he wants a divorce?

Long story short - if one person changes the foundations of their marriage so completely, the other person should not be forced to accept their new role in the relationship if they don’t want to!

These points aren't correct. No one is being made to stay in a relationship that they don't want to be in and of course they can divorce if that's what they choose to do.

Why am I wrong to state this?

You've already been told several times. Re-read the thread slowly and carefully. Get a grown-up to help you with the difficult words.

Show me where the plan is to prevent anyone from getting divorced because I do not for 1 second that anyone in the UK is being compelled, by law, to stay married against their will.

No one is being made to stay in a relationship that they don't want to be in and of course they can divorce if that's what they choose to do.

Let's say my husband decides he's a woman. Under the self-ID proposal he would be able to go out tomorrow and sign a document which says he is a woman and obtain a GRC making his legal sex female.

As soon as I discover this I start divorce proceedings. Until the divorce is completed, I am married to a woman.

Now do you see the problem?

With the spousal consent requirement he tells me he wants to be legally female, I divorce him, he gets a GRC.

It's about the fundamental right of someone not to have their reality forcibly and unilaterally altered against their will.

Again: why are you against women retaining this veto? Who benefits by removing it?

It's worth mentioning that other trans widows have told me that it is much more difficult and expensive to get divorced and get a fair financial settlement, once the transitioner has changed their name and / or gender.

Because if all the bank accounts, pensions etc are in a different name it takes much more admin to sort out.

Of course this works in favour of the transitioner generally. Coincidence?