"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/

Tinsel provided a link a few posts upthread.

It explains the issue around the issue in some detail.

There does seem to be a lot of confusion. It is NOT a spousal veto, although I can see that a biased TW might see it that way.

Essentially, it means that a TW (or TM) cannot get a final GRC certificate until their spouse has confirmed they wish the marriage to continue or be annulled. Because if it continues, it becomes a homosexual marriage in law. For many women, this would be unacceptable, therefore they need to have the choice to annul the marriage immediately.

@TinselAngel and others

So you wish to retain the 'Spousal Exit Clause'?
amended? or unamended?

(Just trying to get a handle on this)

And that is all you require?

Stonewall says "we’re concerned that the spousal consent provisions leave trans people at risk of abuse and coercive control."

But surely not having the spousal consent option leaves women (it is mostly female spouses) equally open to abuse and coercive control? Since the gender change is the choice of the trans person, surely this choice should be in the hands of the spouse?

@Jaxhog

(didn't see your post until after I sent)

Thanks for that ... so, it appears that you want the current spousal exit clause to be amended to permit annulment ?

and for the exit clause to remain unaltered in all other ways?

Well done @TinselAngel. It's inspiring how much you've managed to achieve

@Jaxhog

Stonewall says "we’re concerned that the spousal consent provisions leave trans people at risk of abuse and coercive control."

But surely not having the spousal consent option leaves women (it is mostly female spouses) equally open to abuse and coercive control? Since the gender change is the choice of the trans person, surely this choice should be in the hands of the spouse?

Stonewall is primarily a mens rights organisation.

Well done Tinsel 💐

Stonewall says "we’re concerned that the spousal consent provisions leave trans people at risk of abuse and coercive control."

The claim doesn't make any sense at all.
Someone who wants to transition but is prevented from obtaining a full GRC because their partner objects can exit the marriage and transition. They aren't forced to stay married.
A partner who doesn't want to be in a same sex marriage should have the same right.

@Jaxhog

There does seem to be a lot of confusion. It is NOT a spousal veto, although I can see that a biased TW might see it that way.

Essentially, it means that a TW (or TM) cannot get a final GRC certificate until their spouse has confirmed they wish the marriage to continue or be annulled. Because if it continues, it becomes a homosexual marriage in law. For many women, this would be unacceptable, therefore they need to have the choice to annul the marriage immediately.

Presumably this applies also to people in homosexual marriages whose partner 'changes sex' too and therefore they find themselves in a non consunsual heterosexual marriage

The transitioners often give the impression they want to avoid the financial settlement part of divorce, not divorce per se, and Stonewall are a mouthpiece for this.

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).

You end up with a new marriage certificate for a same sex marriage, the record of which is held on a central register.

I'm not quite sure how that works if you married pre-2013 though.

@Thelnebriati

Someone who wants to transition but is prevented from obtaining a full GRC because their partner objects can exit the marriage and transition. They aren't forced to stay married.
A partner who doesn't want to be in a same sex marriage should have the same right

Do they not enjoy that right now?
Are they somehow Forced to stay married?

I don't understand what is being posted here ...

TinselAngel - I'm so relieved that you and the other transwidows are beginning to be brought into the public consciousness because you weren't well served by Kathleen Stock's coverage of you in her book.

I think the questions in this thread show how confusing and completely framed on the needs of the transitioning partner the debate and public understanding has been.

Tinsel and other transwidow(er)s

[quote joolzfromyork]@Thelnebriati

Someone who wants to transition but is prevented from obtaining a full GRC because their partner objects can exit the marriage and transition. They aren't forced to stay married.
A partner who doesn't want to be in a same sex marriage should have the same right

Do they not enjoy that right now?
Are they somehow Forced to stay married?

I don't understand what is being posted here ...[/quote]
No, as jax explained they need to be able to divorce or have the marriage dissolved BEFORE the GRC certificate is issued

I'm the biggest TERF going but I am reluctant to be in any situation where you have to get your spouses permission to do something like this, does this work for women also? Do they have to get permission to change?
Its a bit Gilead!!
However I do believe that this should legally annul a marriage if one party wants that and we should be fighting for that.

…or in effect they will be forced into a same sex marriage

@Shehasadiamondinthesky

I'm the biggest TERF going but I am reluctant to be in any situation where you have to get your spouses permission to do something like this, does this work for women also? Do they have to get permission to change? Its a bit Gilead!! However I do believe that this should legally annul a marriage if one party wants that and we should be fighting for that.

Did you see Tinsel 's link upthread? Are you balancing one person's right to obtain a GRC against a partner's right to ask for an annulment or divorce rather than have the relationship registered as something that it wasn't? And possibly an attempt by the other person to alter the birth certificates of any children?

Well done.

So. To me, it would make sense if when a married person declared themselves to be the same sex/gender as their spouse, there was an immediate annulment of the marriage, attributed to and any legal costs paid for by the person who has changed their identity. What a nightmare the present situation is, where a woman can be recorded as married to a woman, when in fact she married a man. There would have to be an option for the couple to continue in the marriage if they both wished, but the assumption should be that such a radical change in lifestyle would bring all prior agreements to an end.

Well done, everyone involved, for trying to bring some clarity into the situation.

[quote joolzfromyork]@TinselAngel and others

So you wish to retain the 'Spousal Exit Clause'?
amended? or unamended?

(Just trying to get a handle on this)

And that is all you require?[/quote]
My position is set out in some detail in the link up thread to the uncommon ground article.

I'm off out now for a real life piss up with fellow terven.

Enjoy

Great work Tinsel

I find it ridiculous that Stonewall appear to claim that a family member being unsupportive of gender identity is domestic violence when two women a week are killed by their partners.

Well done Tinsel!

I'm off out now for a real life piss up with fellow terven.

Enjoy