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/

Well done Tinsel. That's a great article. Sunlight!

[quote TinselAngel]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[/quote]
Amazing!

I see that Nancy Kelley of Stonewall still doesn't understand what the spousal consent/exit clause is about. She is not very good at her job, is she?

This is Money has quite an innocent take on the Hampstead Ponds and City of London debacle.
The Corporation didn't just 'wade in'. They cherry picked survey responses and left out the ones that in any way questioned the notion of 'gender identity'.

The regulations in issue here apply to banks. It is entirely right for banks to be able to participate in consultation
Participate, maybe. Pontificate, not their remit.

The response seems entirely reasonable to me and, I’m sure, most women
I'm sure that unless you are a trans widow, trying to get out of a legally same sex marriage should your husband now be transitioning then you probably think its reasonable that a bank weighs in. Many trans widows do not think its reasonable and are doing something about it.
This thread title is silly and, moreover, libellous

Tell the bank then, I'm certain they will do the sum total of fuck all, but whatever.

For every husband wanting to transition and unilaterally alter the marriage theres a wife who just wants out. Let's make that easier not harder.

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.

Quite. It’s one of the most obnoxious concepts I’ve ever come across.

There are a lot of individuals whose ‘whole selves’ ought not be imposed upon everyone they work with!

"Nancy Kelley, head of Stonewall, an LGBT charity, said: 'We've urged the Government to remove the need for spousal consent. It's deeply unfair and potentially harmful to give a partner the power to block trans people from having their gender legally recognised.'"

Spousal consent doesn't give the partner that power. It ensures that a married person is 1) notified when their spouse decides to officially 'change gender' and 2) able to exit the marriage at that point if he or she wishes to do so.

It also protects people in same-sex marriages who object to being told that they entered into a marriage with a person of opposite sex, which is what the government is effectively doing when it issues the trans spouse with a new birth certificate.
The fact that Nancy Kelley doesn't care about the potential impact on people in same-sex marriages is very revealing about her organisation's priorities.

It's in the print version of the MOS too, so can be read by Grannies and Grandads across the nation!

It also protects people in same-sex marriages who object to being told that they entered into a marriage with a person of opposite sex, which is what the government is effectively doing when it issues the trans spouse with a new birth certificate.
The fact that Nancy Kelley doesn't care about the potential impact on people in same-sex marriages is very revealing about her organisation's priorities.

Indeed.

If you remove the spousal consent clause, you make it legal for one person to retroactively change the terms of a contract without the consent of the other.
I don't understand how anyone can support that, its a huge shift in the Overton window.

This is Money has quite an innocent take on the Hampstead Ponds and City of London debacle.
The Corporation didn't just 'wade in'. They cherry picked survey responses and left out the ones that in any way questioned the notion of 'gender identity'.

To be fair, they didn’t have to mention the City of London debacle at all. “waded in” is definitely not a positive take AND it mentions that they now allow male people in the women’s pond. All this in a few words in an article about something else. If it alerts people to something they didn’t know, that is likely to be seen as unfair, then they’ve helped women.

Andy, I agree.

I think someone for This is Money reads this board. This is a message to woke-signalling city organisations that they are being watched. This is Money is influential in that it is read by small investors, of the sort courted by banks and pension funds. (Confession - when I became Attorney for my mother I used This is Money as a way to get up to speed on savings and investments. I had a mortgage rather than savings, so ISAs etc were new to me.)

The Corporation’s behaviour over the Hampstead pond survey was shocking, and would not stand scrutiny. They now know that the Mail knows. And when the time is right, they will use their material.

Sounds like their management have undergone some 'training' from somewhere. And their repulsive views are so far off the mark that the only confusion it's possible to draw from this is that the misunderstanding is wilful. No spouse has a veto on whether their partner transitions. They do have an absolute right to determine whether or not they stay in that marriage. Unless, of course, the TRAs are suggesting that women should be forced to stay in a marriage against their will. (And of course they are suggesting just that).

This pervasive shit is absolutely everywhere, but the tide's starting to turn. Two major cases of trans rights superseding children's rights have fallen decisively in favour of children's rights: that's in the last two months. And a vocally gender-critical academic has just been awarded an OBE: a clear badge of endorsement from the establishment despite valiant attempts from 600 philosophy 'colleagues' to cancel it.

It's to be hoped that in another few years' time, organisations who took this stance will just be viewed as vaguely ridiculous.

Hopefully.

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.

Agree entirely. My employers have no right to know who's in my bed. They have no need (or probably wish) to know how I 'identify'.

I've spent most of my adult life actively fighting the idea that my sex, gender, colour-preferences, style of dress, personal likes/dislikes etc have anything whatsoever to do with the way I do my job.

In the light of the recent, rapid turnaround in attitudes to these issues it feels like it's all been a waste of time, breath and hot air.

@MoltenLasagne

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.

Where I used to work, we had to actively be very aware of money laundering and we weren’t allowed to accept cards with the name of someone obviously of the opposite sex, (we had to physically have the card in our possession to make the transaction and check the cards, even for contactless payments) . I don’t know if it’s still the case, we hadn’t had any “trans training” another reason why I was not aware of any of this.

Any and Need I agree, the journalist is connecting the dots for readers and it's great to see.

But to be fair to NatWest , they probably just followed Stonewall's advice, whereas the City of London Corporation deliberately acted against women who objected to making the women's pond mixed-sex.

For those who are not familiar with the story
www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/3650789-Advice-please-Edward-Lord-1-what-has-he-done-that-is-so-appalling-2-has-everything-been-decided
Some excellent links there. Also worth noting that Lord's partner is actively involved in the (no-)debate.

If the CEO of NatWest wants to express an opinion that is fine, but this is the bank's opinion and clearly meant to carry more weight than that of the ordinary people scurrying about 40 floors below the boardroom.

Love them or hate them, this is perfect territory for the Mail:

They are:

• anti woke (just look at the inevitable "stop the world I want to get off" reader comments

• anti-cancel culture and keen to protect press freedoms. Calls for greater media regulation tend to come from the "liberal left".

• focussed on smaller investors, ie their readers, rather than City power brokers.

Underlying everything is this mammoth conflict of interest. Stonewall is a lobbying organisation. Fair enough. But what is a lobbying organisation doing so entrenched within government, legal, educational, and commercial structures, providing training, writing guidelines, handing out compliance awards. Since when did LGBT+++ become a synonym for diversity.

Many years ago a bright well qualified friend (she had worked in Brussels then as a Councillor) was selected to stand as a Conservative candidate in a no hope Welsh seat. Her job, essentially, was to canvass sufficiently that voters were aware of Tory polices and give the message that the party was not ignoring them. Her solution was to invite friends to spend a weekend knocking on doors. I was not a Tory voter but liked the idea of a girls weekend in Wales. However as a very junior employee in a Government Agency operating only in England, going would have been a sackable offence.

Fair enough. Impartiality is important. But I really don't understand why it is then acceptable for the Stonewall Chair to hold a very senior position within the Financial Conduct Authority, who are responsible for regulating the British banking industry. No wonder NatWest got it wrong. The Government themselves show every sign of having delegated equalities policies to Stonewall.

I see that Nancy Kelley of Stonewall still doesn't understand what the spousal consent/exit clause is about. She is not very good at her job
It's deliberate victimhood, and a way of controlling the debate by entirely erasing and demonising (usually female) spouses. So glad to see the needs of women in these relationships supported and reported in public. All down to Tinsel.