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/

Don't know what to say to this Tinsel except that there are a lot of lurkers to your threads (including myself) and if there is anything we can do offline/IRL (eg contacting MPs/petitions etc) let us all know.

Mermaids are coercive, nasty, non-safeguarding (insert very rude word).

@Splodgetastic

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

Please see my linked article for why no fault divorce is not an adequate replacement.

mermaids is "for children and young people" which I think is up to age 20. So technically does include people who could be married.
I think the idea is that if people don't want to divorce if one of them transitions they don't have to, I don't think it forces them to stay together.

the most recent figures I can find for 2017 show 40 men & 200 women aged 16-17 entering into marriage with an opposite sex partner

Mermaids are pushing adult agendas whilst portraying themselves as a charity for children.

That is a really odd thing for Mermaids to even mention. How many children/young people are likely to be married to someone before transitioning?

In fact, I can't think of a less apt trans related issue for them to pick. Really - just weird. And yes, completely outwith their objects.

I think the idea is that if people don't want to divorce if one of them transitions they don't have to, I don't think it forces them to stay together.

This may help explain: some key info from Tinsel's article

If a married transitioner wants to obtain a Gender Recognition Certificate he (and it usually is he), is first given an interim certificate which can only be converted to a full Gender Recognition Certificate once either the wife confirms she consents to the marriage continuing, or the marriage is annulled / dissolved.

So this is a point of procedure where the wife is asked to confirm if she consents to stay in the marriage or wishes to leave it.

To remove this clause removes this point of procedure. As Tinsel goes on to say:

In Scotland, a trans widow’s right to exit the marriage before the status of the marriage changes has been replaced by a right to be notified by the Sheriff that a GRC is being granted.

In other words a wife is notified that her partner is unilaterally and fundamentally changing the terms of their marriage and her legal sexuality, and she has only the right to be notified that this has been done to her.

How is this defensible? And how could any trusting or healthy relationship possibly continue based on one partner treating the other in this way?

Further info relevant to the thread from the article:

An interim GRC holder can do anything they want, wear what they want, call themselves whatever they like, their transition is not prevented. They can change the sex marker on their passport and driving licence. The only thing that they cannot change without a full GRC is their birth certificate.

So this process of recognising another person is in the relationship and has a say of what they wish to do, has little impact on the transitioning partner's transition or freedoms.

So Stonewall have dropped the G in their latest campaign and Mermaids are also operating outside of their modus operandi, working on and discussing in the media (I use that in the loosest sense of the word when referring to PN) adult issues relating to the spousal 'veto'.

What next Comic Relief taking up the fight for Animal Rights or Children in Need saving the Amazon from deforestation?

Time for a letter to the charities commission...

Why can’t you just divorce? Clueless why this is even an issue.

The new divorce law allows for no fault divorce..aka irreconcilable differences aka irretrievable breakdown in relationship. This law was passed. So if my DH announced he wanted to become a woman and should be called Jenny, I can legally divorce him in U.K.
www.lawsociety.org.uk/topics/family-and-children/no-fault-divorce

I started reading stories of trans widows on your website yesterday, they were heartbreaking and it's not even my life, I cannot even begin to imagine how life changing it is for someone after all that time and with children too.
I'm trying to get my head around this spousal exit clause now, I don't want to seem insensitive but as this is a new post, I hope it's ok to ask some questions.
atm if the trans spouse wants to get a GRC , they have to either get consent for the marriage to continue or their spouse can get a divorce/annulment? But the spouse can decide to do neither?
If it's abolished, what happens? The couple just decide whether to get a divorce or not but in the meantime if a GRC is given, the marriage becomes the opposite to what it originally was (same sex/opposite sex) and technically the spouse's sexuality has changed too?
I don't know much about same sex marriage, is it a separate thing to an opposite sex marriage (as in the paperwork etc) I kind of assumed they were the same.

This one is really easy.

Just remove the spousal veto (or spousal exit clause if you prefer). And make change of gender by either spouse in a marriage grounds for immediate divorce if the other spouse chooses. So nobody is "trapped" in the wrong gender or the wrong marriage.

I can't claim to have invented this solution (british humanist association gets the credit), but it's pretty straightforward.

Well, given that there are two court cases in the offing concerning GIDS, and Liz Truss has said she is committed to ensuring that under 18s should be protected from making any irreversible changes, I expect Mermaids are looking to diversify.

It would be interesting to know whether any money is being, or has been spent on this latest objective. I’m pretty sure preventing spouses from being forced into marriage contracts they didn’t sign up for would not have been part of their funding bids to the lottery etc.

Placemarking

If I sign up to a mobile contract or an assured shorthold tenancy agreement, either there must be a clause written into the contract that I am liable to accept any price rises within the life of the contract, or I have the option to unwind the contract if the price goes up and I do not agree.

I have never seen it written into any marriage contract that if the terms of the marital contract are significantly altered, such as if one of the parties changes their legal sex, the other party is bound into that contract regardless.

A marriage is a legal contract is it not? So why should one party be bound even if the other party fundamentally changes its terms?

How often are we told by transpeople that the person they were before their transition no longer exists, or indeed never existed in the first place? How can you be legally bound to a person who either no longer exists or who never existed at all? They can’t have it both ways.

But this is beside the point, which is that the matrimonial circumstances of adults has precisely fuck all to do with a charity whose stated purpose is to support children and teenagers.

I think we are splitting hairs here - Divorce/annulment, whatever term works best for theological/cultural reasons is fine with me.

The main thing is that nobody is forced to remain in a relationship they find obnoxious and than any joint assets are shared between the former partners in an equitable manner. Can't we agree on those points?

@MiladyRenata

I think we are splitting hairs here - Divorce/annulment, whatever term works best for theological/cultural reasons is fine with me.

The main thing is that nobody is forced to remain in a relationship they find obnoxious and than any joint assets are shared between the former partners in an equitable manner. Can't we agree on those points?

No we can't agree on that. As previously stated, and explained at some length, that is only part of the issue.

That's the current situation, Milad. So presumably you're against Mermaids campaigning to change it?

Anyway this thread is not aiming to debate the pro's and cons of the Exit Clause, that has been done in numerous threads passim. Let's not get derailed from the fact that Mermaids is going well outside it's remit.

www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/3787357-Jess-Phillips-championing-the-removal-of-asking-the-consent-of-a-woman-before-her-marriage-changes

www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/3717872-Trans-Widows-the-Liberal-Democrats-and-the-Spousal-Veto

www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/3792495-spousal-veto