"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/

If you married a man, and the man wants to become a Transwoman, and cancel his pervious life, then the marriage of that life also needs to be cancelled.
Talk about wanting to have your cake and eat it.
Legally I think any trans should have to divorce and share the assets, before they get the right to change their birth certificate, maybe it could be a death of gender ... Then should the partner wish they can enter into a civic partnership.

@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.

Great post - clearly sets out the issue. It is beyond my realm of comprehension how someone does not 'get' the issue. It is not a veto. It is disingenuous to claim that it is.

@RufustheBadgeringReindeer

Not taking the piss chuck ...

Just genuinely trying to understand the situation

(I've heard a great deal about the 'Spousal Veto' from the other side of the fence, and having been here this afternoon, I can only say that this issue seems to generate a great deal of heat and very very little light.)

However, I shall pass on this thread ...

Have a good day

If you have heard about a spousal veto you already should see that they are not telling the truth , there is no veto

So does that not make you suspicious of everything else they say

I mean if they need to lie to make a case

[quote joolzfromyork]@RufustheBadgeringReindeer

Not taking the piss chuck ...

Just genuinely trying to understand the situation

(I've heard a great deal about the 'Spousal Veto' from the other side of the fence, and having been here this afternoon, I can only say that this issue seems to generate a great deal of heat and very very little light.)

However, I shall pass on this thread ...

Have a good day[/quote]
Everything you need to know is explained here

www.transwidowsvoices.org/gra-reform-guidance

The law, as it stands, respects the consent of heterosexual women to not consent to a forced same sex marriage.

But it is constantly being targeted by the likes of Stonewall. The government is under relentless pressure to change the law.

Getting the issue into the press is very useful, because of all the propaganda surrounding it and misrepresenting it.

Stonewall: 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.

But can’t either party request an annulment under current law?

Well done, Tinsel, et al. Glad to see this matter getting some sunlight.

@merrymouse

Stonewall: 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.

But can’t either party request an annulment under current law?

What does that even mean? That they should not be subjected to divorce proceedings? Why ever not?

But can’t either party request an annulment under current law?

What if the spouse doesn't know the trans partner is applying for a GRC?

Stonewall: 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.

Ah yes, the nasty woman wanting a divorce, that should never be allowed.

Have a good day

You too

forcing them into lengthy and expensive divorce proceedings

Otherwise known as ... a divorce.

www.gov.uk/how-to-annul-marriage

But according to above link, if either party is in the process of changing gender the marriage can be annulled. Why the need for a lengthy, expensive divorce?

Its annulled for the benefit of the transitioning partner, otherwise it would be a common or garden divorce.

Divorce proceedings can be quick and cost less provided the parties are willing to be reasonable. Surely if transition is so desirable then transitioners would settle quickly and fairly for their wives and children. From reading the trans widows threads i somehow doubt this is the case…all that accessorising is expensive

Congrats tinsel. You are truly shining a light

A lot of these marriages are longstanding, and the assets of the marriage need to assessed and distributed fairly, irrespective of whether the marriage ends in divorce or annulment.

Not infrequent sticking points for men leaving a marriage are pension rights and properties. It all takes time to negotiate equitably. It can't NOT happen because one of the parties has decided to transition.

That's not 'coercion'. It's normal, equitable law.

Stonewall are being extremely disingenuous here:

'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.'

So they wrongly refer to it as a spousal veto, keep calling it that, then say it's often referred to as a spousal veto . . . Yes, wrongly, by Stonewall!
And as very well explained above, it has nothing to do with preventing anyone from accessing "legal gender recognition" or getting a GRC.

Well done Tinsel for such great coverage.

Stonewall do DARVO better than most it seems. When will people wake up to this.

cancel his pervious life
Love it.

Brilliant to get this into the mainstream press Tinsel A long and uphill slog, and I cheered this morning when I saw the headline. The first time I've ever seen it explained to the general public.

Wonderful work Tinsel, a trans widow is a concept so few have ever heard of.

The invisible women.

👏

@WarriorN

Wonderful work Tinsel, a trans widow is a concept so few have ever heard of.

The invisible women.

👏

And now, every trans widow will hear about tinsel's website.

'forcing them into lengthy and expensive divorce proceedings.'

Ah.

So everything becomes clear.

Aye, doesn't it just, @NiceGerbil? Cake, eating it, extra cake.

We also don't have no fault divorce do we?

That woman who went to court a year or two was denied a divorce. The judges said they took no pleasure in their verdict and had every sympathy with her but had to apply the law.