WRN letter to MPs - Labour MP response getting rid of spousal veto

[Alltheprettyseahorses]

Has anyone else received a reply back from their MP about the WRN petition that reached over 100k signatures? I got one focused on trans rights with this extremely disturbing paragraph (I'm assuming it's a stock response)

The current law is almost twenty years out of date. It asks people to go through a very arduous process and obtain the consent of their husband or wife (if they have one) to change gender. For that reason, I believe we should modernise the law on gender recognition while protecting spaces for women who were born women.

I'll ignore the laughable final line and the arduous rubbish for now. The spousal protection clause is a vital piece of safeguarding that protects the wife's/husband's rights and dignity in the marriage and Labour clearly want to get rid of that because the only people who matter are trans. They need to read the trans widows threads.

The current law is almost twenty years out of date.

The law is not even 20 years old, why did Labour pass a law which they now seem to think was out of date at the time it was passed.

I hate the way the spousal "veto" is characterised, it's so dishonest.The spouse of someone seeking a GRC cannot withhold consent but the law correctly recognises that a spouse has a right to divorce documentation which accurately reflects the marriage as same or opposite sex.

A decree nisi is required as proof of ID if someone changed their name upon marriage and then changed it back upon separation/divorce, it's important that the spouse not seeking a GRC does not have the additional burden of proving or explaining the discrepancy between the marriage certificate and decree nisi.

This is an issue which predominantly affects women so of course Labour don't give a shit.

Its not even an accurate statement. The transitioning spouse can be granted an interim GRC until the divorce has been finalised. No one is prevented from transitioning, it just enables the spouse to disentangle their life while the necessary documents still exist.

Someone needs to go through the divorce process - including things like closing a joint bank account and selling a house - to explain why the transitioning spouse won't be affected (they still have access to their documents) but the non transitioning spouse will be (they don't have access to documents and are legally prevented from outing their spouse.)

I think it's essential to write back correcting these inaccuracies.

Do you mean the Sex Matters Petition about the wording in the Equality Act and this letter?

sex-matters.org/take-action/write-to-your-mp-about-the-petition/

Why would asking your MP to request a debate on clarifying that the word sex in the Equality Act refers to actual sex, result in a letter talking about the so called "spousal veto" in the Gender Recognition Act?

They either really don't understand it and have outsourced their thinking to an extremist lobby group now well known for selective interpretation and reframing of reality -

or they are intentionally supporting lies that aim to control and disempower women as equal partners in a marriage to benefit a man.

Come on Labour, which is it? You're fucked either way, but pin it down?