The use of the term 'trans widow'

[aibubaby]

I've found this term in poor taste ever since I saw it, and this article I've seen on Twitter is a great look at why.

rachelemoss.com/2021/06/24/a-letter-to-trans-widows-from-an-actual-widow/

Marriages end all the time because one spouse isn't who the other thought they were. It's sad or heartbreaking or difficult, and people have (obviously) got the right to grieve for a relationship which is no longer the same. But it isn't a death and it's thoughtless to describe it as though it is.

They want a way to be able to say yes or no to the change from heterosexual marriage to homosexual marriage.

Or vice versa.

@WoolOfBat

Just to add to Errol’s point if that is a bit too specific for an initial look…

Transwomen want to be able to transition whilst remaining married and turning a heterosexual marriage into a homosexual marriage without the other party’s consent. In theory, women could then be trapped until the marriage was dissolved and there may be some difficulties to do that, especially for religious women or if the transwoman insists on staying married.

Transwidows just want to be able to have their marriage terminated if the partner transitions. They want a way to be able to say yes or no to the change from heterosexual marriage to homosexual marriage.

In no way do they want to stop a transition, they just don’t want to be stuck in a marriage where the transition happened without anyone consulting them.

Thanks for this - I wasn't aware of it and having read the like Errol posted I can see why it's such a complicated issue legally (if not morally, as it seems pretty straightforward from either side in terms of the right thing for each party!). A person married to someone who comes out as trans shouldn't have to stay married to someone they don't want to any longer than necessary nor have their marriage changed without their permission, but nor should a trans person have to rely on someone else's say-so to obtain paperwork they're entitled to. I assume the hold-up is something to do with the complication of making 'spouse transitions' a legal end point for marriage and how to define that without the full GRC? In a previous career I worked alongside divorce lawyers indirectly so it's something I thought I knew a bit about but evidently not (although that was a long time ago)!

but nor should a trans person have to rely on someone else's say-so to obtain paperwork they're entitled to

They don't. Either party can use the interim GRC to obtain an anullment of the marriage.

@aibubaby I think it is such an important point that LangCleg is making. Transwidows just want to be able to walk away and get a clean break. Transwomen tend to be less keen on this.

Transwomen often portrays this as a hold up/ or a permission but it is not. My understanding is that many transwomen want to stay married in a homosexual marriage and “continue life as before” although they now are identifying, acting and dressing as a woman.

They can get quite cross that this isn’t happening and are saying that it is a spousal “veto” whereas in reality it is just a way for transwidows to be able to leave the marriage.

They don't. Either party can use the interim GRC to obtain an anullment of the marriage

The delay is generally due to equitable distribution of marital assets (aka £££)

It’s absolutely right that a woman should be able to get out of a marriage that the other party wants to fundamentally change, and also that she shouldn’t be left penniless by virtue of doing so

[quote WoolOfBat]@aibubaby I think it is such an important point that LangCleg is making. Transwidows just want to be able to walk away and get a clean break. Transwomen tend to be less keen on this.

Transwomen often portrays this as a hold up/ or a permission but it is not. My understanding is that many transwomen want to stay married in a homosexual marriage and “continue life as before” although they now are identifying, acting and dressing as a woman.

They can get quite cross that this isn’t happening and are saying that it is a spousal “veto” whereas in reality it is just a way for transwidows to be able to leave the marriage.[/quote]
When no fault divorces come in, will that effectively 'solve' the issue? I don't know how long they'll take as a process once they're introduced.

In cases like you say that's obviously horrendous for the person trapped in a marriage they no longer want to be in and I see the issues for those in religions where gay marriage is disallowed (not that it should be an issue of religion, it's not really the point). Equally, in other scenarios, where the divorce is likely to be protracted and long, it doesn't seem right that the trans person has to wait for a full GRC until a divorce is granted which can take a long time. I don't know what the answer is, really - immediately-applicable no-fault divorces in the specific case of a transitioning spouse? With legal provision made for property, child residency and other legal issues can be dealt with retrospectively within a specified time frame to allow the non-trans spouse (terminology obviously being used for clarification here) to be free of a marriage they no longer want to be in and end it without foot-dragging if that's an issue, and allowing the trans spouse to get their full GRC without delay?

Yes, finances and child arrangements still need sorting out properly, however the marriage is ended. That's the same for everyone, it's not a detriment suffered by trans people.

If they waited all through the engagement without mentioning to their spouse to be that they "were" a woman, they can bloody well wait through the divorce until they get to "be" one.

Equally, in other scenarios, where the divorce is likely to be protracted and long, it doesn't seem right that the trans person has to wait for a full GRC until a divorce is granted which can take a long time.

Why not? What are they prevented from doing while they are waiting?

has to wait for a full GRC until a divorce is granted which can take a long time.

Current legislation specifically allows the marriage to be annulled.

@LangClegsInSpace

Equally, in other scenarios, where the divorce is likely to be protracted and long, it doesn't seem right that the trans person has to wait for a full GRC until a divorce is granted which can take a long time.

Why not? What are they prevented from doing while they are waiting?

The principle of it, really - why should their full GRC be contingent on their divorce being finalised, even if it doesn't fundamentally change anything for them? BUT I understand that the inverse principle applies - why should someone suddenly have to be married to a person of legally the opposite gender to that which they are attracted to, even if (in many cases - religious and cultural issues aside) it wouldn't fundamentally change anything in their day to day life. Does the interim GRC not make this the case anyway? I'm not sure how they work.

I get that there are shades of this. An abusive spouse should not get to hold someone hostage in a marriage to suit their own wishes. But there are some marriages where the end of the marriage due to one person transitioning isn't acrimonious, there's no abuse, and it's generally amicable - i.e. they're not doing some kind of power play to keep their spouse in a marriage with the aim of maintaining it, but they're not yet divorced due to sorting all the paperwork...and in that case the transitioning partner's full legal GRC shouldn't be withheld from them while the division of assets etc is sorted, in my opinion. But I don't know how you balance both of those competing interests in the cases where the non-trans spouse (again, using this term for clarification!) doesn't want to be legally married to someone who is officially now a different gender.

The annullment as opposed to the only way out to be a divorce is important. Not all women from all cultures and situations can divorce without significant consequences.

The interim GRC has no consequences at all for the transitioning partner; it merely covers things while the partner legally leaves the marriage. There is no competing need. Waiting for a final piece of paperwork when the interim one does everything necessary is hardly traumatic. It cannot be at all compared to the needs of a woman to have her fair share of the marital assets, to be able to leave a marriage she is not happy in and does not consent to remain in (and in many cases on record this is putting it mildly) and in almost all cases to also provide for any children in the marriage while supporting them through not only the break up of the marriage but also the transition of their parent.

By comparison, waiting to dissolve your marriage and see your partner and probably parent of your children is all right before getting your interim certificate replaced with your final one is not exactly an unreasonable expectation on anyone.

But there are some marriages where the end of the marriage due to one person transitioning isn't acrimonious, there's no abuse, and it's generally amicable - i.e. they're not doing some kind of power play to keep their spouse in a marriage with the aim of maintaining it, but they're not yet divorced due to sorting all the paperwork...and in that case the transitioning partner's full legal GRC shouldn't be withheld from them while the division of assets etc is sorted, in my opinion.

I'd assume in those cases the full GRC isn't withheld. It's an option, afaik, for the women that need it (or men, if such a case occurs) .

So that point seems rather irrelevant.

But there are some marriages where the end of the marriage due to one person transitioning isn't acrimonious, there's no abuse, and it's generally amicable - i.e. they're not doing some kind of power play to keep their spouse in a marriage with the aim of maintaining it, but they're not yet divorced due to sorting all the paperwork...and in that case the transitioning partner's full legal GRC shouldn't be withheld from them while the division of assets etc is sorted, in my opinion.

I’m not sure what kind of situation you are imagining, but there is nothing to stop a partner who has agreed to a GRC also seeking a divorce.

The simple solution would seem to be that if you want to live an ‘authentic’ life, don’t marry somebody under false pretences and then expect them to retcon their previous existence to affirm your narrative.

Despite the vast increase of people identifying as transgender (or who feel able to openly admit to being transgender), the number of GRCs applied for has not increased significantly. It's gone up from about 350/year when the law was introduced to about 450/year.

And although the cost of applying for certificates was cited by activists as being a huge barrier to application, now it has been reduced to a tenner, 9 fewer applications were received this quarter compared to last.

There also seems to be a lot to stress on the idea that a spouse 'could' drag out a divorce, without any evidence that this is a common problem.

I know there was a case recently where a wife was refused a divorce because the judge did not agree that there had been unreasonable behaviour. However an interim GRC can specifically be used in divorce proceedings and gender transition is specifically grounds for an annulment.

An interim GRC does not legally change someone's sex. It is granted where a person meets all the requirements for obtaining a full GRC except that the applicant is married/in a civil partnership and their spouse/CP does not consent to the marriage/CP being converted to a same sex/opposite sex marriage/CP (as appropriate).

The interim GRC is basically a certificate that says, 'we will allow you to legally change your sex when your marriage/CP has ended and either party can use this certificate to do that.' That's all it does.

The most important principle here is that a marriage or CP is a legal contract between two people and the terms of a contract should not be changed without the agreement of both parties.

Where the marriage ends amicably, the obvious solution would be to separate for the two years 'living as' the preferred gender (a requirement for getting a GRC) and then use the ground of two years' separation with spousal consent to obtain a divorce. That's also plenty of time to come to an amicable agreement about the division of assets so the divorce should be quick and easy.

It's normal to sort out the division of assets before a marriage is finally ended. I'm no expert but I imagine it could create all sorts of problems to do it the other way round. What happens with housing rights? These can be different depending on whether you are married or not. What would happen if one party died inbetween the marriage ending and the division of assets?

I can see no good reason for turning all this on its head simply for the 'principle' of being able to obtain an all-but-obsolete cerificate a little earlier.

I’m not sure what kind of situation you are imagining, but there is nothing to stop a partner who has agreed to a GRC also seeking a divorce.

Yes, this too. If a spouse wants a divorce but doesn't mind the marriage being converted in the interim then there's no problem is there?

and in that case the transitioning partner's full legal GRC shouldn't be withheld from them while the division of assets etc is sorted, in my opinion.

@aibubaby In that case, you just don't understand the issues because you haven't grasped what a GRC does, or how it affects people who have a contract or relationship with you.

You divide your assets, divorce, then you change your legal gender because thats the only way it can work.

The principle of it, really - why should their full GRC be contingent on their divorce being finalised,

Why shouldn't it? The terms of a marriage contract cannot be changed unilaterally, so a divorce or annulment is essential before someone changes legal sex.

In life we sometimes have to wait for things, grown adults can usually deal with this.

I note that you obviously haven't taken on board any need for empathy for trans widows yet, if you're still more concerned about the transitioner.

I don't know what the answer is, really

I do, and it's very easy

the person who wants to fundamentally alter a contract they entered into has to experience delayed gratification

it's really very simple

Just to spell it out to you @aibubaby, this only affects a tiny amount of men who transition. Most of them don't seek a GRC.

And yet, there is heavy lobbying to get the law changed so that the wives of that tiny number of men who transition and apply for a GRC are trapped in a marriage when their husband have legally changed their sex marker to woman.

Why do you think that is? Who benefits?

the person who wants to fundamentally alter a contract they entered into has to experience delayed gratification
This. It bears repeating that marriage is a CONTRACT that both parties enter into. Neither can change the terms of that contract because they feel like it.

@Lonel

the person who wants to fundamentally alter a contract they entered into has to experience delayed gratification This. It bears repeating that marriage is a CONTRACT that both parties enter into. Neither can change the terms of that contract because they feel like it.

Absolutely this ^