Transgender couple on This Morning not supporting Self ID

[DaVinyl]

Can’t find a link to any video, but Charlie and Louise Draven (Transgender couple) were being interviewed on This Morning today and were asked what they thought about the BMA’s decision regarding self ID. Charlie Draven (who has been on the waiting list for 26 months) agreed that people should not just be allowed to change gender identity as easily as they change their underwear (this is not a quote) as it is necessary for it to be a long process and more psych support would be a better place for the BMA to concentrate their efforts. Worth a listen as it supports the argument that not all transgender people agree with self-ID.

Is this the couple who recently had a baby?

Hannah and Jake Graf just had a baby

These two had one a while back - the old fashioned way - then swapped genders

www.gazettelive.co.uk/news/teesside-news/we-raise-son-person-now-15134917.amp

Ow ow ow facial piercing alert!

@zanahoria

That article though, someone telling them they should kill their son so he wouldn't end up as a serial killer? I do wonder how this is going to effect their son in the long run though, it depends on how they explain it to him, and how open and honest they are.

They talked about the impact on their son on the program today and some of the awful things that people had been saying to him. They noted that it had improved a lot since their last appearance on the show, which is reassuring, as no matter what peoples views are, they shouldn't target a child. They seemed like a lovely, sensible couple and good to hear their views on self-ID.

It's good to know they're sensible. Although it's sad to hear people can be so horrible to a child!

Hello,

I’m charlie, Yes that charlie on this morning, no I do not agree with the gender reform! The medical diagnosis is essential and should not be changed, like I said if the BMA change it they face a whole new barrage of problems! I do however think the spousal veto should be removed as right now if a transgender person was married before the application they need to get their spouse wether estranged or not to sign a form to acknowledge that they accept the transition and the new gender identity and are either willing to stay within the marriage or are filing for divorce/dissolution before the transgender person can have a full certificate. The medical diagnosis is there to create a sense of security that not just anyone can wake up one day and be like well I think I’ll be the opposite sex for a while do the GRC then a few months/years later they do it all over again 😒

And yes my son is happy healthy and very well cared for, there was some hate towards him in the first article but he hasn’t seen anything about it.

Hi Charlie

I do however think the spousal veto should be removed as right now if a transgender person was married before the application they need to get their spouse wether estranged or not to sign a form to acknowledge that they accept the transition and the new gender identity and are either willing to stay within the marriage or are filing for divorce/dissolution before the transgender person can have a full certificate.

I don't think you'll get much agreement for that here for one reason alone: removing the spousal veto means that for however long it takes to get a divorce one person is forced to live in a marriage as a same sex couple, a marriage they did not enter into. They may not accept the transition/new identity at all, ever! Why should they?

What you should be asking for is that one individuals choice to transition becomes an automatic reason for divorce - should that be what either party wants - speeding up that process, allowing the transitioner and spouse both to get on with their lives more quickly.

Basically you have put the cart before the horse.

I thought one spouse transitioning was automatic grounds for annulment of the marriage, which is quicker than getting a divorce. Am I wrong there? I feel this is a sensible provision in law, as one spouse transitioning completely changes the basis of the marriage, if the other other spouse had no idea before that the transitioner might eventually want to change gender.

I think that since same sex marriages became legal it is a may be used as a reason rather than an automatic ground or reason for annulment @Gasp0deTheW0nderD0g

But may well be wrong!

I am trying to find recent legal stuff!

www.lgbtconservatives.org.uk/sites/www.lgbtconservatives.org.uk/files/report_to_the_consultation_on_the_spousal_veto.pdf

The issue seems to be that Married transgender people who apply for a gender recognition certificate must provide a statutory declaration of consent from their spouse. Without that statutory declaration, they cannot receive a gender recognition certificate. The effect of a spouse refusing to provide a statutory declaration is therefore the same as if the spouse were exercising a right of veto.

^This is not only a cumbersome approach but it wilfully ignores the fact that an interim GRC cannot be used to gain an annulment if the spouse files for divorce before IGRC can be used. Since the IGRC provides none of the rights and protections of a full GRC (its only
use is to allow the annulment of a marriage so a full GRC can be provided), this renders the IGRC useless.^

Filing for divorce and then stringing the process out for as long as possible is one of the many tricks used by vindictive and malicious spouses who object to their partnerʼs transition

Which is why I suggested we all shout for the GRC, interim or otherwise, be an automatic ground for divorce/annulment, whatever. Done quickly! Then everyone is happy!

Thanks Charlie for your post. For transsexual people who have been through a long transition process I can see exactly why replacing a long and serious decision with a statement on a form giving someone the same status that you have spent years achieving is galling and trivialises your experience.

In terms of the spousal veto - it doesn’t exist. It’s reasonable that your spouse, an equal partner in the marriage, should not be forced into a same sex marriage against their will. But they can’t stop the trans person from transitioning - if they don’t consent the trans spouse can apply for an annulment of the marriage which is granted far more quickly than a divorce, and does not need the spouses consent. It’s a balance of rights between 2 people who both entered equally into a marriage.

It’s reasonable that your spouse, an equal partner in the marriage, should not be forced into a same sex marriage against their will.

There are also cases where the spouse entered into a same-sex marriage and later finds that their spouse is going to transition, which would make it a heterosexual marriage. Just as unacceptable.

This seems blindingly obvious to me - you can’t force a man who entered a gay marriage to another man to now be in a heterosexual marriage with someone who is legally a woman!!!

Marriage has to be by consent . Or are people advocating forced marriage for any other group, apart from spouses of trans individuals ?

@CuriousaboutSamphire

Hi Charlie

I do however think the spousal veto should be removed as right now if a transgender person was married before the application they need to get their spouse wether estranged or not to sign a form to acknowledge that they accept the transition and the new gender identity and are either willing to stay within the marriage or are filing for divorce/dissolution before the transgender person can have a full certificate.

I don't think you'll get much agreement for that here for one reason alone: removing the spousal veto means that for however long it takes to get a divorce one person is forced to live in a marriage as a same sex couple, a marriage they did not enter into. They may not accept the transition/new identity at all, ever! Why should they?

What you should be asking for is that one individuals choice to transition becomes an automatic reason for divorce - should that be what either party wants - speeding up that process, allowing the transitioner and spouse both to get on with their lives more quickly.

Basically you have put the cart before the horse.

It is a grounds for divorce but not annulment, it’s classed as irreversible differences, and no one should be forced into a marriage they didn’t agree to! But if the party that doesn’t agree is the non-transitioning spouse then they can use the spousal veto to effectively halt the GRC, by refusing divorce or dragging the divorce out.

Yes, I know that it one perspective, I posted it.

The other is that the transitioning partner drags it out.

Neither side should be forced to stay in a marriage. Such a fundamental/radical change should be grounds for the immediate cessation if the marriage if either one of the couple desire it.

And that is via divorce or annulment depending on the situation.

Hi Charlie, didn't see you on tv but i wondered how vocal you are about your opposition to self-id among your trans friends/ community, and if yours is a common view or not? I know trans people who are desperate for this to go through - have you fallen out with anyone over it?