"Trans widows’ fear being trapped in loveless marriages if gender law changes" in today's Telegraph

[TinselAngel]

It's been a long slog but trans widows have finally made it into the broadsheets! Pleased to have worked with Ewan Somerville on this article, which is a pretty good summary:

www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2021/06/20/trans-widows-fear-trapped-loveless-marriages-gender-law-changes/

Fantastic, well done xx

Does the spousal consent requirement actually mean that people can’t legally change gender without their spouses consent? If so, is it not worth fighting for an optional immediate annulment To be available on the grounds of gender changes? ( I don’t know the background to this, so forgive me if I’ve got everything mixed up- but I can see how people may feel uncomfortable that spouses can stop transition, whilst I can also see that people may not want to be in the type of marriage that they didn’t sign up to)

Great news

Very well done

It always boggles me that the same people who will tell you that you mustn’t tell other people what their gender identity or sexuality is are so keen to force purportedly same sex marriages on straight women without their consent.

That’s chilling. Imagine if it were the other way round? No way would men accept it.

If somebody wants to transition, and their spouse doesn’t want to consent, then they need to divorce. That’s a simpler and fairer route than suddenly converting a straight marriage into a gay marriage, forcing somebody to be in a different kind of marriage than the one they chose.

That's brilliant. Great work, Tinsel

@Anotherhill

Does the spousal consent requirement actually mean that people can’t legally change gender without their spouses consent? If so, is it not worth fighting for an optional immediate annulment To be available on the grounds of gender changes? ( I don’t know the background to this, so forgive me if I’ve got everything mixed up- but I can see how people may feel uncomfortable that spouses can stop transition, whilst I can also see that people may not want to be in the type of marriage that they didn’t sign up to)

No, to your first question. My understanding is that it's another TRA scaremongering tactic to call it the 'spousal veto'.

There is no 'veto'.

There is a provision that the spouse does not have to stay married to a transitioner - which seems eminently fair and sensible, given the enormity of the change to the marriage contract.

It would not be a same sex marriage for the woman though, only for the transwoman. If the woman doesn't want to be married to a transwoman that should absolutely be grounds for divorce or annulment though.

For anyone new to this:

uncommongroundmedia.com/spousal-exit-clause/

My understanding is that it's another TRA scaremongering tactic to call it the 'spousal veto'

indeed. it would be more accurately called a 'spousal exit clause'. let's centre the wife's experience, not the husband's

I wonder how SW actually phased the question that resulted in such a high percentage being in favour of it being abolished.

Yes, the term 'spousal exit clause' is much more accurate and fair.

It's up to the government to make that exit, whether it be by divorce or annulment, as quick, painless, bureaucratically inexpensive but as financially equitable as possible.

It's not the government's business to prevent women getting divorces. That would be state-led abuse.

@AfternoonToffee

I wonder how SW actually phased the question that resulted in such a high percentage being in favour of it being abolished.

If I remember the question correctly, it was very loaded and misleading. I don't know if the wording is still out there somewhere.

That's a fantastic achievement Tinsel. Not only will women everywhere in the same circumstances, now see that there is an established support group, but the true nature of a lot of these relationships is now getting some sunlight.

Congratulations. What an achievement. 💐

Well done Tinsel

Well done Tinsel and all the other trans widows who spoke up.

quick question(s) if I may

What Exactly is it that you want?

Clearly, if your xPartner is transitioning and you don't wish to stay then Divorce is the only option ...

Is there a problem about getting divorced under these circumstances that requires a special remedy ? (genuine question)

I'm confused about/by the references to a 'Homosexual Marriage' since conventional wisdom here on MN is that no-one can change their sex (sex is immutable) so how does the marriage become 'Homosexual' ? (again - genuine question).

Even if the marriage is seen under current law as 'Homosexual' does that fact/fiction prevent you or anyone else from getting a divorce?

Does that fact/fiction put you at a disadvantage when suing for divorce?

I'm not being confrontational (No Honest!) but I struggle to understand what you need the law to do to solve the problem (as you see it)

Any help on these points would be greatly appreciated

Have a good day

Thanks @TinselAngel

Am sharing this elsewhere. People need to know and understand the impacts of having a trans-identifying spouse.

This is brilliant Tinsel, and are not enough thanks for all your tireless advocacy on behalf of the many women and children affected by this.

joolzfromyork

So joolz, you would quite alright being recorded as being in a same sex marriage, when in fact that doesn't reflect the truth for your sexual orientation and this change is forced by your partner?

You don't think it respectful of someone who chose to love and marry you to wait to transition so that they are not effected this way? You think it shows how much you love and respect that person to force a change in the marriage in this way. That the records will show that the spouse will have married someone of same sex for ever?

Is there a problem about getting divorced under these circumstances that requires a special remedy ? (genuine question)

For women in some religions divorce is out of the question, my understanding is the spousal exit claws allows for annulment. For those women who can divorce this ensure the divorce happens before the legal gender change.

I'm confused about/by the references to a 'Homosexual Marriage' since conventional wisdom here on MN is that no-one can change their sex (sex is immutable) so how does the marriage become 'Homosexual' ? (again - genuine question).

Legally it becomes a same sex marriage, that the wife didn't consent to.

What Exactly is it that you want?

For the law to stay the same.

TinselAngel amazing work

@AfternoonToffee

I wonder how SW actually phased the question that resulted in such a high percentage being in favour of it being abolished.

In their response to the GRA consultation Stonewall said:

"Stonewall strongly urges the Government to remove the requirement for spousal consent in a reformed Gender Recognition Act. Often referred to as the ‘spousal veto’, this provision gives unprecedented power to a married trans person’s partner to block them from having their gender legally recognised or forcing them into lengthy and expensive divorce proceedings.

In the very worst cases, we’re concerned that the spousal consent provisions leave trans people at risk of abuse and coercive control. In circumstances where a relationship is breaking down or is abusive, a trans person’s spouse may use this provision to intentionally and maliciously prevent them from accessing legal gender recognition.

We already know that trans people are at high risk of domestic abuse. SafeLives’ 2018 Guidance for Multi-Agency Forums: LGBT+ People states that trans survivors are one of the most hidden groups of domestic abuse survivors. Stonewall’s LGBT in Britain: Home and Communities, also found that one in five trans and non-binary people (both 19 per cent) have faced domestic abuse from a partner in the last year. As Galop, the UK’s LGBT anti-violence charity states: “Through our work we know while trans people may face similar patterns of abuse, many trans survivors face specific forms of abuse related to their trans identity. Most often, partners or family members may prevent trans people from expressing their gender identity or gender expression and isolate them from their systems of support. They may also threaten to withhold medication used for transition or threaten to make their trans history public. Without reform, the current Gender Recognition Act gives abusive partners the chance to wield an immense amount of control over their partner’s life, by enabling them to prevent their partner from achieving legal gender recognition. This must end.” – Nik Noone CEO, Galop

The Government has stated these provisions are necessary because a marriage represents a contract between two people. But Stonewall is concerned that the provision suggests that a married trans person has somehow violated this contract (either by deceiving or harming their spouse) by seeking legal gender recognition. It also implies that same-sex marriage may be automatically undesirable for a spouse.

It’s vital that we follow Scotland, who removed the need for spousal consent by passing an amendment to the Marriage and Civil Partnership (Scotland) Act in 2014."