Mermaids campaign against Spousal Exit Clause

[TinselAngel]

Mermaids are showing their true agenda today by including the abolition of the Spousal Exit Clause in their list of priorities.

Taking away the rights of trans widows is completely outside their remit as a charity which supports children, I can't imagine people who donate to the charity think that this is the sort of thing their money will be spent on.

If anybody wanted more proof that Mermaid's agenda is being driven by adult transitioners who want to get rid of anything standing in the way of self ID, then here it is.

www.pinknews.co.uk/2020/09/10/gender-recognition-act-reform-healthcare-transgender-trans-liz-truss-mermaids/

Or if you quite sensibly don't want to click:

Clearly not supporting children...

quote from Mermaids

we call for [...] the removal of the spousal veto which allows husbands, wives and partners to govern another individual’s rights

i didn't know anyone had a right to make someone else be in hetero or homo sexual marriage in the eyes of the law when they don't want to be. you learn something new every day innit?

and yes, how does that serve gender dysphoric young people?

If people are allowed to transition ever younger, as Mermaids would like, they shouldn't even end up in a Spousal Exit Clause situation.

When you think it can't getting any madder, it just does. Op, as you point out the agenda is pretty clear.

Interesting stance for a children's charity!

I really don't understand why some TRAs have an issue with this.

If being your 'true gender' is so important that they need to transition (whether that's full medical and surgical or just by self ID and no other changes), why isn't the gender of your spouse also allowed to be critically important, and grounds for divorce if they change it? It should be allowed to be equally important to everyone, not just those who are 'more equal than others'.

It's so one sided (How unusual ).

If your spouse changed anything else about your lives together that you couldn't live with (e.g. deciding that they want to move to the other side of the world, or that they didn't want children after saying they did) you'd be able to divorce. But according to mermaids its ok for them to unilaterally put their spouse into a de facto same sex relationship (Or vice versa if the couple were same sex initially). It's a massive moving of the goalposts.

What does it achieve in material terms anyway? Someone who didn't want to be with their spouse because of it could leave them, then presumably wait the usual 2 years (or 5 without consent) then divorce them anyway (I'm England, not sure how it works elsewhere).

I don't get why a Trans person would want to be married to someone who didn't agree with them... Unless it was to control them. So they basically advocating for the right to abuse your spouse.

This continues to appal me Tinsel and it was your posts that first drew it to my attention.

Not only do they not believe that women should have the right to choose if they wish to leave a marriage when their partner completely changes the terms on which it was agreed, they actually continue to intentionally misdescribe and mislead people in order to try and get this right removed from women. In a way that casts women as the aggressors.

Why would anyone wish to force a woman to be unable to escape a relationship they no longer wanted to be in?

^^
I'm guessing your right Around

Bloody hell! How on earth does that fit with their remit?? It might - for once - actually be worth a complaint to the charity commission about them being in breach of their charitable objects.

(Goes off to rummage)

I really don't understand why some TRAs have an issue with this.

I've thought about this a lot (and written about it a lot) and I think there are two answers to this conundrum:

1. Male entitlement - males must have complete agency and females must serve

1. Self ID- the Exit Clause stands in the way of a transitioners right to self ID and needs to be got rid of before self ID can be brought in.

Therefore the law is completely misrepresented by trans campaigners and the myth of the abusive trans widow is invented, with never a shred of actual evidence.

You've got to hand it to them really. It's been quite an effective propaganda campaign.

It seems to be presented as being because the spouse can veto the application for GRC. But surely you would have to discuss it, and if you didn't agree you could divorce the spouse and then apply? It's not like it's a quick decision that you would come to overnight (one would have thought).

All actions have consequences. We can't divorce our spouse in the uk just because we feel like it. It's a long process. Why should it effectively be expedited for certain special people?

I've seen it described as withholding comment could leave the trans person in a state of limbo, unable to own property or apply for jobs. Er how?! It makes it sound like their evil spouse is operating all kinds of coercive control, rather than starting that they don't want to be in a same sex marriage.

It's a straw man. I can't see that it causes the problems it's said to.

I think you could argue it is in breach of their charitable objects

Cross post Tinsel

Indeed.

@Kit19

I think you could argue it is in breach of their charitable objects

That's very interesting.

This is out of the remit for a children’s charity. Why would they do this? I can only assume that they have some influential donors who are trans adults and are wanting to focus on their own agenda.

@Siablue

This is out of the remit for a children’s charity. Why would they do this? I can only assume that they have some influential donors who are trans adults and are wanting to focus on their own agenda.

That is precisely my assumption too.

the Exit Clause stands in the way of a transitioners right to self ID and needs to be got rid of before self ID can be brought in

It doesn't stand in their way though does it. It simply requires the spouse to agree to the new condition of the marriage IF THEY WANT TO REMAIN MARRIED. If the spouse doesn't consent, the couple divorce or annul. The transitioning partner is still able to transition.

The alternative is that one person is forced to be married to another, and forced marriage is illegal in the UK.

@titchy

the Exit Clause stands in the way of a transitioners right to self ID and needs to be got rid of before self ID can be brought in

It doesn't stand in their way though does it. It simply requires the spouse to agree to the new condition of the marriage IF THEY WANT TO REMAIN MARRIED. If the spouse doesn't consent, the couple divorce or annul. The transitioning partner is still able to transition.

The alternative is that one person is forced to be married to another, and forced marriage is illegal in the UK.

It does in that it creates a minor inconvenience which they have to deal with first and which may cause some delay.

It's more the concept of self ID that it really stands in the way of.

So, given that various other organisations are backing away from them are they widening their remit to include adults in order to secure both alternative financial support and a broader purpose?

It doesn't prevent anything, I believe it delays it slightly because the marriage has to be annulled as two people are involved in the situation and both people have rights.

It seems as if M are framing this as if the other person's rights and having to consider them and deal with a short delay present an intolerable boundary.

I the unlikely event anybody on FWR is new to this, I wrote this piece fairly recently and it has various links in it which are useful:

uncommongroundmedia.com/spousal-exit-clause/

I agree Kit19

Surely if one of your parents came out of trans it would cause a great amount of mental and emotional stress?

Its almost as if the rest of the family only exist to indulge the transitioner.

This is one of the many reasons why we need no-fault divorce in this country. Fortunately this is coming quite soon.