Natwest Bank hates trans widows

[TinselAngel]

How on earth does it come within the remit of a bank to have any position whatsoever on how trans widows exit their marriage?

committees.parliament.uk/writtenevidence/17527/pdf/

I'm going to Tweet NatWest about it from a semi-positive 'Glad to see that NatWest supports the EA2010. It's such a shame that you can't openly and actively support the right of spouses whose partners transition to leave their marriages if they wish to do so.'

That's good.

The first sentence looks good but completely misses that their support for removal of 'spousal consent' directly affects transwidows.

If only the government of 2004 had had the courage to go for same-sex marriages instead of tinkering with the definitions of 'sex' and 'gender'.

But no. Here we are, consulting high street banks on whether a woman should have the right to be notified when her husband of xx years applies for a certificate that says he was always a woman.

Now it also affects same-sex marriages. Has Stonewall given any thought to that? Of course not, because 'gender' trumps everything else.

Why don't businesses just concentrate on providing a good service and treating its staff well.

Thats literally all we need from any of them.

Quite plausible that they were asked by Stonewall to submit.
However, that is not the stonewall line they are pushing!

"We would support ..." (if? But?)
Reads quite differently to me than "we DO support..."

It is certainly not enthusiastic, unquestioning, unconditional support. It's a sign of changing tides, to me.

It is certainly not enthusiastic, unquestioning, unconditional support. It's a sign of changing tides, to me

Thing is though thes companies pay them I mean why don't they just say no and stop paying. What are stonewall gonna do?

I.mean on the websites you look.at interest rates and services not stonewall logos.

If they stopped signing up then that would be the end of it. They have the power here not stonewall.

@ErrolTheDragon

The first sentence looks good but completely misses that their support for removal of 'spousal consent' directly affects transwidows.

Precisely this- they think that changing spousal consent is casualty free, is how I interpret it, particularly when read in context with the rest of the submission.

Are you drafting a* letter, Tinsel?* Send it to their Chairman (yes, it is a chair man, no surprises there) and CEO ('the first woman to lead a major UK lender.') maybe ?

I really do think they're oblivious to the problems - far too ignorant of the reality to actually hate you.

Sorry, total bolding fail there.

I don't really understand this.
A man and woman are married.
He decides to he wants to be a woman.
They divorce. Or stay together?
What does the bank have to do with it and why and for what would spousal consent be required?

@BaronessBomburst

I don't really understand this. A man and woman are married. He decides to he wants to be a woman. They divorce. Or stay together? What does the bank have to do with it and why and for what would spousal consent be required?

See here for further info

www.transwidowsvoices.org/gra-reform-guidance

@ErrolTheDragon

Are you drafting a* letter, Tinsel?* Send it to their Chairman (yes, it is a chair man, no surprises there) and CEO ('the first woman to lead a major UK lender.') maybe ?

I really do think they're oblivious to the problems - far too ignorant of the reality to actually hate you.

Another bloody letter to write

Thank you @TinselAngel

And FFS.

We have already adopted this process [self-id] in the workplace to ensure that colleagues can bring their whole selves to work every day, free of judgement, as part of our goal of ensuring all our staff are comfortable in their surroundings.

Imagine you and your spouse work for NatWest. And then that the husband decides he's a woman and wants to be known as she. Would NatWest care that his wife might not agree with doing this? Or are some people not included in the "bring your whole self" to work thing.

Fwiw, I am very suspicious about the "bring your whole self" to work thing, not all aspects of someone's lives should be brought to work.

Fwiw, I am very suspicious about the "bring your whole self" to work thing, not all aspects of someone's lives should be brought to work

What aspects of yourself need to be brought to work anyway? I mean surly you show up on time , use the skills you are required to amd go home?

Does someone run in every half am hour pointing out the vegetarians, various religions.etc so everyone's sure about who's who.

The point abiut work is you leave who you are , your problems.your opinions your pets etc at home surely?

to ensure that colleagues can bring their whole selves to work every day, free of judgement

Is this the NSPCC leather-gear-toilet-filming thing again? Shocking levels of judgment there, certainly.

to ensure that colleagues can bring their whole selves to work every day, free of judgement

It's a bizarre term. I would like to think the original good intention was that no one should feel the necessity to hide any protected characteristic , and that such characteristics are appropriately protected in the workplace. In terms of what really negatively affects people irl I'd guess that's mostly untrendy realities like disabilities and pregnancy.

We had Stonewalled champions in our work trying to recommend we got rid of sex markers on customer records. Luckily they listened when I pointed out that currently one of our best ways of stopping phone banking fraud was checking if the voice matched the customer profile of age and sex.

Incidentally you'd be amazed how often men will try to imitate their ex wives to get access to their accounts. They'd have had a field day.

We had Stonewalled champions in our work trying to recommend we got rid of sex markers on customer records. Luckily they listened when I pointed out that currently one of our best ways of stopping phone banking fraud was checking if the voice matched the customer profile of age and sex.

Well done!

We had Stonewalled champions in our work trying to recommend we got rid of sex markers on customer records. Luckily they listened when I pointed out that currently one of our best ways of stopping phone banking fraud was checking if the voice matched the customer profile of age and sex

What did they say?

Was there a look if a penny dropping or just a realisation that there was no comeback?

It wasn't too difficult once we raised the magic word "fraud". Tbh we have to deal with a lot of clueless head office types so we're pretty practiced at quietly giving them the shrug off. It was worse when setting up kids accounts and having to point out that sharing parents addresses was not a good idea as not everyone is living happily ever after.

I think a whole heap of these interventions from big companies will be one or two head office types off on their own crusade without much actual input from the company. More frustrating if parliament committees don't realise that.

Wasn't too difficult?

Does that mean they still tried to make a counter argument?

They tried to push back but I just asked the local phone bank staff to track how many calls we got in a week of someone trying to impersonate another customer who was clearly a different sex (98% men imitating women btw). Once they saw the figures they shut up sharpish.

This was about 8 years ago now, so phone banking was still more popular than Internet banking at the time.

Sarah Phillimore is collecting names for a letter to NatWest.

This was about 8 years ago now

Wow! I'm surprised no one has brought it up again in our more enlightened woke times.