"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/

[Datun]

@DazzlePaintedBattlePants

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.

It's going to be very illuminating when people read that, and then read the trans widows website.

The misrepresentation becomes blindingly obvious.

[PurpleHoodie]

Stonewall think people are stupid.

But hey. Gravy train £££££££££

[Thelnebriati]

@DoingItMyself

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.

Yes this, and include provision for child support.

Its a change in contract. The people who oppose it really haven't thought through the legal consequences.

[borntobequiet]

@SpindleWhorl

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.

This.

[EmbarrassingAdmissions]

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.

And an estimated 2 women take their own lives per week because of domestic violence or similar.

In addition, approximately 400 people commit suicide each year who have attended hospital for domestic abuse injuries in the previous six months, 200 of these attend hospital on the day they go on to commit suicide

lwa.org.uk/understanding-abuse/statistics/

www.nationalelfservice.net/mental-health/suicide/high-suicidality-among-people-experiencing-domestic-abuse/

[SpindleWhorl]

My impression is it's all about £££££. For the transitioning men, and for Stonewall.

MRA 101.

[StealthPolarBear]

What impact does it have that people tend not to be content with merely changing sex, they want to rewrite history?

[PurpleHoodie]

Its a change in contract.

Yes. For all people like to spout "marriage is just a piece of paper", it is actually a legal contract.

And social and religious. Some religions deem marriage legal AND religious. Some countries deem marriage legal - or not - depending upon laws of the land and religious laws of the land.

See atheist people scratching their heads over the furore surrounding PM Johnson's latest marriage.

Officially, he has been married once. Officially he has been married several times. Both are true.

It really is not just "a piece of paper".

Transwidows cross a broad spectrum.

In all cases they have people in their lives trying to * them over. Through emotional - and legal blackmail.

[PurpleHoodie]

And screw them and their offspring over in legal financial support.

[Thelnebriati]

Should one party have the right to retroactively change a contract?
Why is saying 'no' being framed as coercive control and abuse?

[Redapplewreath]

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?

This is not the case. It is not permission to transition - that is entirely in the hands of the transitioner.

This is the spouse being asked whether they consent to remain in the marriage with this massive shift in what they agreed to when entering into the legal contract of marriage. And whether they consent to now being part of a same sex marriage, which frames them as homosexual whether or not they choose to identify themselves as such.

If they do not consent to remain in the marriage then if I understand correctly, an interim GRC is granted - please bear in mind how very very few people actually apply for one of these as part of their transition, the massive majority of transitioners do not - until the marriage has been annulled. When that has happened, and the spouse has been released from the marriage, the full GRC certificate is granted. There is no practical impact upon transition.

Annulment is necessary since not all women of all faiths and cultures are easily able to divorce without significant disadvantages.

As any frequent reader of MN knows, the issues for a woman having to fight for a divorce with an unwilling to grant it partner can be a lengthy, extremely expensive and distressing process. Transition is often an extremely expensive thing, there are many accounts of family funds and assets being severely affected and depleted, and in almost all cases the wife will be the one who will primarily be supporting the children through their father's transition, and providing home and future for them as their resident parent after this massive upheaval in the family life. It is easy to see that a two year battle to gain legal separation may be a severe burden to inflict on mother and children and worsen their situation.

This is not 'do you give him permission to transition' - the transitioning partner is free to do as they wish.

This is 'do you consent to remain in a legally binding marriage upon these changed terms'.

It's hard to imagine why someone might feel a woman's consent should not be an essential part of this.

[Redapplewreath]

[quote EmbarrassingAdmissions]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.

And an estimated 2 women take their own lives per week because of domestic violence or similar.

In addition, approximately 400 people commit suicide each year who have attended hospital for domestic abuse injuries in the previous six months, 200 of these attend hospital on the day they go on to commit suicide

lwa.org.uk/understanding-abuse/statistics/

www.nationalelfservice.net/mental-health/suicide/high-suicidality-among-people-experiencing-domestic-abuse/[/quote]
Fuck.

That's more than one a day.

[PurpleHoodie]

Redapplewreath

Really good post.

Also consider this.

You're a British couple. You like to holiday in Dubai...or the Maldives. Or you want to save up to go there on honeymoon.

You've have no worries about getting arrested for holding hands in public, or kissing your spouse. You have no worries about being locked up.in prison abroad.

Your spouse says "I'm transitioning. Accept it. Tough shit on you. You are now legally in a same-sex marriage. You go on holiday. You hold hands. You get arrested. You get thrown in a foreign prison. For 5-15 years. Not out of the realms of possibility. British nationals are getting locked up abroad for all sorts.

[joolzfromyork]

Gosh ... that was a lot of reading ...

Still dont see what the problem is ...

I asked What exactly do you want?

@TinselAngel replied

For the law to stay the same.

and the last paragraph in the Telegraph article says :

A Government Equalities Office spokesman said: “Following the consultation on the Gender Recognition Act, the government has made clear that the current legislative system allows people to change their legal sex in a fair way, and there are no plans to alter anything within the Act.

[Redapplewreath]

And before the 'it's homophobic to mind about being unilaterally redefined as homosexual by your partner's choices' starts -

I'm lesbian. I am not at all sure how I might feel in the event of a partner wishing to redefine me and make choices for me about I am now heterosexual. Or bi.

That's not my choice. Not my personal decision of identity. I may be attracted to this one person who is female but now wishes to be treated as if they were male, but I know in fact I am still lesbian because I am exclusively attracted to biological females and I also know in fact that my partner has not changed sex. I am still lesbian.

So effectively I am being asked to redefine myself in line with something that isn't actually factually true, but someone else's preferred truth. That's a pretty big thing to require of your partner in any terms, but to enter into a preferred truth of now having a wholly different sexuality? That's an enormous demand.

There's none of the taboo in going from lesbian to straight - in fact it would be much easier and safer for me to be straight. But the answer is going to be no. I would not prevent a partner doing anything they chose to do, but anyone who does not wish to wholly understand my feelings, my identity, my boundaries and take those into account in our shared life together is not someone I would stay in a relationship with.

[RufustheBadgeringReindeer]

@joolzfromyork

Gosh ... that was a lot of reading ...

Still dont see what the problem is ...

I asked What exactly do you want?

*@TinselAngel* replied

For the law to stay the same.

and the last paragraph in the Telegraph article says :

A Government Equalities Office spokesman said: “Following the consultation on the Gender Recognition Act, the government has made clear that the current legislative system allows people to change their legal sex in a fair way, and there are no plans to alter anything within the Act.

There wasn’t a problem til you asked tinsel what she wanted

The thread was purely about congratulating tinsel on the article, not about the ins and outs of the spousal ‘veto’

[CousinKrispy]

Well done Tinsel!

[Gumbomambo]

That was a really straight forward article and hopefully will draw some much needed attention to one of the most sidelined, silenced and vulnerable groups in our society. Transwidows. Fantastic job and well done to all who took part in that article.

[Datun]

There wasn’t a problem til you asked tinsel what she wanted

The thread was purely about congratulating tinsel on the article, not about the ins and outs of the spousal ‘veto’

Quite.

[joolzfromyork]

@RufustheBadgeringReindeer

ooops ... my bad

I shall depart and write out 100 times

I must not seek to educate myself about these issues.

[merrymouse]

“This is not 'do you give him permission to transition' - the transitioning partner is free to do as they wish.

This is 'do you consent to remain in a legally binding marriage upon these changed terms'.

It's hard to imagine why someone might feel a woman's consent should not be an essential part of this.”

I don’t understand why anyone would argue with this. Can somebody explain the the Stonewall point of view?

[ItsAllGoingToBeFine]

joolzfromyork

The point is that the law as it is is adequate. However Stonewall et al have been lobbying the government to change laws in ways that will disadvantage women and specifically in this case to remove this small amount of protection from transwidows.

[ItsAllGoingToBeFine]

@merrymouse

“This is not 'do you give him permission to transition' - the transitioning partner is free to do as they wish.

This is 'do you consent to remain in a legally binding marriage upon these changed terms'.

It's hard to imagine why someone might feel a woman's consent should not be an essential part of this.”

I don’t understand why anyone would argue with this. Can somebody explain the the Stonewall point of view?

See my post at 1230 for their unusual interpretation of things.

[RufustheBadgeringReindeer]

[quote joolzfromyork]@RufustheBadgeringReindeer

ooops ... my bad

I shall depart and write out 100 times

I must not seek to educate myself about these issues.[/quote]
Dont take the piss chum

You are asking what the problem is because the law isn’t changing

tinsel and this thread said nothing about the law changing

And the issue has been explained very clearly…

[Stealhsquirrelnutkin]

Congratulations Tinsel, it's amazing to see how much progress you have made. That was a very clear and well balanced article in the Telegraph, I hope it is seen by other women who didn't realise they weren't alone.