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/

That's pretty shocking though. I mean it should be obvious. You literally do have to wipe your brain of everything you know to be true in order to carry out this stuff. Its scary how many people are prepared to do that. If you woke up in a hospital bed this way they'd be worried about you.

Makes you worry about their fraud protections for donors and themselves realky. How have they not been scammed?

But that screenshot does not give unconditional support for removing the spousal veto to me

It's a flipping bank, it has no business sticking its nose into anything like this. Wether for or against the veto is not a banks remit. Ever.

It's horrific how casually a large bank state they support removing a legal protection from Transwidows, without even trying to justify why they want it removed. It's absolutely unacceptable for Transwidows to be used as an easy target to direct a kick at because NatWest want to appear more "in the middle ground" on the "issue" of whether to keep women's existing legal rights. The fair position would be to keep all our rights. If they are supposedly attempting to state their support of women's rights then I worry about the intelligence of the people at NatWest who wrote this statement if they fall for some false compromise middle ground fallacy that harms Transwidows' rights. I have no idea why on Earth banks should have any say in removing Transwidows' legal rights.

NatWest are currently permanently freezing bank accounts for no reason, even though there is no suspicious activity or fraud markers on the affected customers. Customers cannot use or retrieve their money for months and are left in financial crisis. www.thisismoney.co.uk/money/saving/article-8326065/amp/Bank-customers-insist-theyre-victims-Kafkaesque-injustice.html. I would have already advised avoiding NatWest like the plague because of this affecting someone I know. Their inexcusable casual cruelty towards Transwidows is another, even more important reason to avoid banking with NatWest.

I continue to find it amazing that Sheldon Mills, the Chair of Stonewall is Executive Director at the FCA, the body responsible for regulating banks.

Not surprising perhaps that banks like NatWest feel the need to heed Stonewall lobbying.

WTAF? This is horrifying. It’s so far beyond their remit it’s unquantifiable. Where is this shit going to end?

I am a NW customer and will complain about this.

Anyone in the banking world know who best to complain to?

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!

Yes - well done. I will also mention this point. I heard/read about a case of a TW complaining about not being recognised on the phone that they were the actual customer because of their male voice. The piece was framed about their hurt, and all I could think of was what about fraud?

I don't understand why trans activists have such an issue with the spousal consent. It doesn't stop anyone from 'transitioning'.

The current law allows middle-aged fathers to alter their history by obtaining a birth certificate that says female. As rights go, that is pretty generous - and these people want to deny women the right to exit the marriage before that happens?

It's a weird battle to pick. Am I missing something? Is it part of the push to redefine mother/father?

I'd say in some cases it's an extension of their coercive control over their partner.

@RozWatching

I don't understand why trans activists have such an issue with the spousal consent. It doesn't stop anyone from 'transitioning'.

The current law allows middle-aged fathers to alter their history by obtaining a birth certificate that says female. As rights go, that is pretty generous - and these people want to deny women the right to exit the marriage before that happens?

It's a weird battle to pick. Am I missing something? Is it part of the push to redefine mother/father?

As well as it interfering with male entitlement, it stands in the way of self ID, I think that is the real reason

Also I think the propaganda has been so successful that most people genuinely misunderstand the law.

@SquishySquirmy

But that screenshot does not give unconditional support for removing the spousal veto to me... Quite the opposite. It refers to possible conflicts with the rights of others (ie trans widows) and requests that these are considered. "Need" is a strong word. "Whilst we would..." is conditional.

It's not a veto.

'Spousal veto' is a gross distortion.

Apologies Tinselangel you are right I know and I shouldn't have called it a veto.
I knew what I meant to say, but didn't word it correctly. Sorry.

I think I've seen the term used so often that I unconsciously used it, even though I know it is not an accurate reflection of the truth!

@SquishySquirmy

I think I've seen the term used so often that I unconsciously used it, even though I know it is not an accurate reflection of the truth!

You're not the only one!

We prefer "Spousal Exit Clause".

Yes I thought I had used "spousal exit clause" until I reread my post. Dont know why I didn't! Irony is that while I was trying to pick apart Natwest's use of language, I made a daft mistake with my own!

An inadvertent example of the insidious effects of deliberately misleading language, Squishy!

Oh well I hope these tiny minority all bank with them, and everyone else fucks them off.

It will be the tiniest fucking bank ever

In an entirely unprecedented move- somebody is listening to Trans Widows:

www.thisismoney.co.uk/money/markets/article-9154577/NatWest-defends-trans-rights-gets-blasted.html

can I just say how much you rock Tinsel ?

Trans Widows Voices is actively contributing to improving the lot of some very marginalised women. It feels really good to be able to come here and see grass roots activism in action.

That's excellent Tinsel and well done Baroness Noakes.

The regulations in issue here apply to banks. It is entirely right for banks to be able to participate in consultation.

The response seems entirely reasonable to me and, I’m sure, most women.

This thread title is silly and, moreover, libellous.

@BernardBlackMissesLangCleg

can I just say how much you rock Tinsel ?

Trans Widows Voices is actively contributing to improving the lot of some very marginalised women. It feels really good to be able to come here and see grass roots activism in action.

We've come a long way from a little thread on Mumsnet!

Well done tinsel. It's particularly bizarre for a bank to take a political position on a matter which will affect customers on both sides.

I don't think the bank actually realised that there are two marriage acts. One for opposite sex couples and the newer one for same sex couples.

As I understand it a marriage is contracted under one or other of these acts. Obviously it would be madness for one party to unilaterally change which one applies to a particular marriage. It needs the consent of both partners to switch.

You'd think a bank would check legal details really, wouldn't you?

@SquishySquirmy

But that screenshot does not give unconditional support for removing the spousal veto to me... Quite the opposite. It refers to possible conflicts with the rights of others (ie trans widows) and requests that these are considered. "Need" is a strong word. "Whilst we would..." is conditional.

This is more how I understood it But I also fail to see what a bank has to do with anything.