Meet the Other Phone. Flexible and made to last.

Meet the Other Phone.
Flexible and made to last.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Feminism: Sex and gender discussions

UNISON passes policy Trans Equality - Louder and Prouder

163 replies

frazzled1 · 15/06/2022 21:23

twitter.com/JamesAnthonyRN/status/1537022734953328640

“Trans women are women, trans men are men, non binary identities are valid”

UNISON passes policy Trans Equality - Louder and Prouder
UNISON passes policy Trans Equality - Louder and Prouder
OP posts:
babyjellyfish · 17/06/2022 15:33

Bosky · 17/06/2022 14:17

JFC!!! People coming on here lecturing us, telling us they know better than us what we believe and what our politics are - and they don't even know what the "spousal veto" aka "spousal exit clause" is!

Time wasters!

I'm not the one calling you names!

I'm totally on your side.

Just wondering what the spousal veto is and how it would work, exactly.

Does it mean the trans spouse wouldn't be able to get a GRC unless their spouse consented? Because at the moment hardly anyone gets a GRC anyway.

babyjellyfish · 17/06/2022 15:33

SpringBadger · 17/06/2022 14:56

It's never really explained why the wife has to be dragged through a divorce instead of having the option of annulment, is it? Or why any decent husband would want to impose such a restriction on his wife, in the context? I suspect it's purely that the word "veto" can be dishonestly deployed to get sympathy from useful idiots, and also that some people like the idea of controlling others while playing the victim.

What would be the financial consequences of an annulment as opposed to a divorce though?

DodoPatrol · 17/06/2022 15:43

I was wondering that too, BabyJellyFish. If the marriage is annulled, does the wife find that she has never been married to the person concerned and thus have no claim for a split of marital assets including pension?

babyjellyfish · 17/06/2022 16:02

DodoPatrol · 17/06/2022 15:43

I was wondering that too, BabyJellyFish. If the marriage is annulled, does the wife find that she has never been married to the person concerned and thus have no claim for a split of marital assets including pension?

This is what I would worry about.

She shouldn't have to be dragged through the divorce courts, but then neither should someone whose husband has run off with another woman.

But the breakup is unavoidable, and what matters is that her interests are properly protected.

SpringBadger · 17/06/2022 16:32

Hmm, I'm not sure exactly how it works, but there is still a financial settlement process. Whether it is more disadvantageous than doing it via divorce, I'm not sure.

becausetrampslikeus · 17/06/2022 16:37

I think it can be used to ensure either divorce or annulment before transition- the later I think for some religious groups where divorce is not an option

babyjellyfish · 17/06/2022 16:48

But what does "before transition" mean?

Most trans identifying people do not have a GRC.

becausetrampslikeus · 17/06/2022 16:56

The spousal delay relates only to getting the GRC

Legally they can't change legal gender unless the spouse agrees or they formally dissolve the marriage

Thelnebriati · 17/06/2022 16:58

If they don't have a GRC they haven't transitioned. They just identify as trans. That doesn't cause so many legal problems for the partner trying to leave, as documents still exist in their name.

The exit clause means they can receive an interim GRC until the spouse has left the marriage and everything is settled. No one is being prevented from transitioning or receiving a GRC.

SpringBadger · 17/06/2022 17:01

babyjellyfish · 17/06/2022 16:48

But what does "before transition" mean?

Most trans identifying people do not have a GRC.

It's not for those without a GRC. It's only those who are changing their "legal sex" (another slippery term).

babyjellyfish · 17/06/2022 17:24

OK, that makes sense. Thanks for the explanation.

TheBiologyStupid · 17/06/2022 19:31

I don't know why the GRA didn't just include a clause saying that if a spouse wishes to invoke annulment or whatever of the marriage on the granting of a GRC that should be automatic, with no financial detriment to them. (I'm not very informed about the legalities involved, but I'm trying to approach this from the point of view of avoiding the onus being placed on the non-transitioning spouse to have to resolve any issues arising from something outside of their control. My sincere apologies if my suggestion is impractical or offensive in any way to the trans widows caught up in the legal fictions that the GRA created.)

TinselAngel · 17/06/2022 20:56

WhiteFire · 17/06/2022 14:18

Am I right in thinking that the spousal veto allows the marriage to be annulled rather than needing to be ended by divorce?

It's not a veto but yes otherwise you're right.

TinselAngel · 17/06/2022 20:56

What would be the financial consequences of an annulment as opposed to a divorce though?
The financial consequences are the same either way.

TinselAngel · 17/06/2022 20:58

Thelnebriati · 17/06/2022 16:58

If they don't have a GRC they haven't transitioned. They just identify as trans. That doesn't cause so many legal problems for the partner trying to leave, as documents still exist in their name.

The exit clause means they can receive an interim GRC until the spouse has left the marriage and everything is settled. No one is being prevented from transitioning or receiving a GRC.

This is correct.

TinselAngel · 17/06/2022 20:58

DodoPatrol · 17/06/2022 15:43

I was wondering that too, BabyJellyFish. If the marriage is annulled, does the wife find that she has never been married to the person concerned and thus have no claim for a split of marital assets including pension?

No. It's a voidable marriage not a void marriage.

TinselAngel · 17/06/2022 21:01

See this excellent article by Jo Bartosch for more information about the Spousal Exit Clause

thecritic.co.uk/til-trans-do-us-part/

babyjellyfish · 17/06/2022 21:08

Thanks @TinselAngel.

FrippEnos · 17/06/2022 21:25

Has @SunbowRainshine31 defined what a woman is yet?

I realise that even asking this makes me a far right Mat Walsh supporter but it really does seem to be the right place to start.

Bosky · 17/06/2022 22:40

babyjellyfish · 17/06/2022 15:33

I'm not the one calling you names!

I'm totally on your side.

Just wondering what the spousal veto is and how it would work, exactly.

Does it mean the trans spouse wouldn't be able to get a GRC unless their spouse consented? Because at the moment hardly anyone gets a GRC anyway.

Huge apologies babyjellyfish! I got you muddled up with the time-wasters!

(Mortified and contrite! 😳)

babyjellyfish · 18/06/2022 07:20

No worries, easily done!

ZuttZeVootEeeVo · 18/06/2022 08:36

TitInATrance · 16/06/2022 07:41

I was a rep, retired member.
Not surprised but particularly disappointed in Unison who were always a particularly pro-woman union.

However, I am aware of two TW in my former workplace who did pass to anyone they hadn’t outed themselves to - so whilst GC I am a little bit conflicted.

Because some men can look like women, you are conflicted on the idea that women and girls should have words to describe themselves that exclude men?

Bosky · 18/06/2022 15:00

ZuttZeVootEeeVo · 18/06/2022 08:36

Because some men can look like women, you are conflicted on the idea that women and girls should have words to describe themselves that exclude men?

TiTINATrance I think the way out of feeling conflicted might be to recognise that things are very different now than they were in 2004 when the GRA was passed.

2004

  1. "Trans" meant "transsexual" and in the UK this conjured up public images of glamorous models April Ashley and "Bond Girl" Tula (Caroline Cossey), tweedy travel writer Jan Morris, and Hayley Cropper (Coronation Street character played by not-trans actress Julie Hesmondhalgh).

  2. Most transsexuals who could "pass" went "stealth". That this was the norm, or at least the intention, is reflected in the prohibition in the GRA against "outing" by someone who learned in an official capacity that a transsexual had applied for or been granted a GRC.

Section 22 - Prohibition on disclosure of information
www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2004/7/section/22

Successful "stealthing" was framed as a "legal privacy" issue for the transsexual rather than a non-consensual intrusion on the privacy of others.

  1. The GRA codified "transsexuals" as people who had a specific psychiatric diagnosis:

“gender dysphoria” means the disorder variously referred to as gender dysphoria, gender identity disorder and transsexualism,

Section 25 - Interpretation
www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2004/7/section/25

  1. The main purpose of the GRA 2004 was to enable same-sex marriage by the back door, ie. transsexuals were understood to be homosexual in the real sense of the word.

  2. Transsexuals were understood by the general public to be very different people to "transvestites" (aka "cross-dressers"), professional "female impersonators" and "drag artists". Many if not most "hobbyists" were heterosexual and most of the best-known professional performers were, at least officially, heterosexual.

2022
6) "Trans" means, in practice, anything that someone who calls themselves "trans" says it means, although the term "transsexual" is frowned upon by trans advocacy groups:

www.stonewall.org.uk/sites/default/files/setting_up_lgbt_011.pdf

  1. Promotion of the concept of a "trans umbrella" plus non-consensual mothballing of the term "transsexual" has resulted in the intentional blurring of distinctions between, for example, male cross-dressers, female impersonators, drag queens, eunuchs (men with a castration fetish), "furries", "other kin", "adult babies", etc.

  2. The GRA 2004 is still in force but lobbying and training by Stonewall and similar trans-advocacy organisations has resulted in statutory sector, voluntary sector and commercial organisations "going beyond the law" (breaking the law in some cases) in substituting "gender" and/or "gender identity" for "sex" and/or "gender reassignment" as a Protected Characteristic under the Equality Act 2010.

  3. The assaults on language and reality, and the determination of trans advocates to appropriate, twist and erode the meaning of the words "woman", "female" and "lesbian" present a real threat to the legal protections, privacy, dignity and safety of women and children.

For example,
Girl Guiding exempts males who self-ID as women from safe-guarding procedures that apply to all other male staff and volunteers 1 and GG sacked women who raised concerns:

www.mumsnet.com/search?q=girl%20guiding&topic%5B0%5D=Feminism%3A%20Sex%20%26%20gender%20discussions

  1. "Trans" in all its manifestations is no longer something to be "in the closet" about. "Out and Proud" is the thing. You cannot turn on the TV, listen to the radio, open a Newspaper, surf the internet, use Social Media, go to the Library, School, College, University, work, department store, coffee shop, etc. etc. without being forcefully reminded that TRANS PEOPLE EXIST!

  2. "Stealthing" is less likely to be in the news as tabloid "outing" than as the almost equally rare occurrence of a case of non-consensual sex by "deception as to gender": Justine McNally v R [2013]

www.cps.gov.uk/legal-guidance/rape-and-sexual-offences-chapter-6-consent#a11

  1. Women are now alert to the fact that males who cannot "pass", or who make absolutely no concessions to "passing", are aggressively invading what were once women's single sex spaces both on and off-line.

  2. Number 13 - unlucky for some or perhaps all of us? Successful "stealthing", previously framed as a "legal privacy" issue for the transsexual, is now understood as deceptive, non-consensual intrusion on the privacy of others and a threat to the legal standing and protection of women.

At a practical level, there is no reason on earth why a woman should assume that "passing" equates with a benign disposition, compassion for women or empathy for women. All the "lucky genes", cross-sex hormones and cosmetic surgery in the world cannot alter the fact that we live and die the same sex we are born.

At a societal level, those who "pass", do no favours to women by "stealthing". Just because they can "pass themselves off" as women it does not mean that they should.

All credit to those who have recognised the harm that they have done to women as a class by successfully "stealthing" and are intent on stopping being part of the problem of institutionalised reality denial and medico-pharmacological exploitation of children and vulnerable adults.

SunbowRainshine31 · 18/06/2022 23:16

Thelnebriati · 17/06/2022 16:58

If they don't have a GRC they haven't transitioned. They just identify as trans. That doesn't cause so many legal problems for the partner trying to leave, as documents still exist in their name.

The exit clause means they can receive an interim GRC until the spouse has left the marriage and everything is settled. No one is being prevented from transitioning or receiving a GRC.

I think you mean a legal transition in terms of recorded sex on the birth certificate.

A trans person is still legally transitioned as-per equality legislation with or without a GRC.

One is the GRA, the other is the EA2010.

Thelnebriati · 18/06/2022 23:27

The Equality Act names the protected characteristic as gender reassignment. Its illegal to discriminate against someone or harass them because of their protected characteristic. They gain that protection from the point at which they announce they are embarking on the process. (There is also an expectation in the EA that they will go on to take hormones and have SRS.)

Protection from discrimination does not mean they have legally transitioned. A persons legal sex is the sex recorded on their birth certificate. They can only obtain an amended birth certificate after they have been awarded a Gender Recognition Certificate.
Announcing they are trans does not give a man the right to use a women's single sex facility.

Swipe left for the next trending thread