Spousal veto - labour proposal , is it really a problem now?

[Appleofmyeye2023]

Hi, did look to see if thread raised on this.
with the news yesterday about labour change in direction, but still wanting to “simplify” GRC process, they confirmed that they would still want to remove the “spousal consent” part. Obviously seen a fair amount of outcry on this.

whilst I completely agree that no one should be required to stay married when the terms of their marriage have shifted , is this need for spousal veto to end the marriage still a problem given the divorce law changes last year.

historically, the need for spousal veto was obvious. The newly trans spouse could refuse to consent to a divorce and force the other spouse to 5 years of marriage before the marriage could be divorced. Even if the trans spouse agreed , it would take 2 years plus if adultry hadn’t been committed. Undoubtedly a cruel and unnecessary burden on a spouse who didn’t want to remain in marriage to a spouse who wanted to change genders.

But, divorce laws have changed. Irrespective of any behaviours or consent of either party, a divorce now goes through a single “no blame” process and timeline. No matter what the real reason for divorce is there is now a minimum of 26 weeks time. Neither party can object. It is enough for just one party to say the marriage has irreparably broken down.

now we can argue that 26 weeks is still too long in these circumstances. When I saw the changes I was quite shocked as, imho, more critically it means people in abusive marriages have to also wait 26 weeks now, whereas in my case I completed divorce in 14 weeks due to safe guarding issues. But, this was debated and government determined that other safe guarding processes were available such as abatement orders etc

so, taking time line aside, we are now in situation that no trans partner can force a marriage to continue for years because they don’t consent to the petition. Divorce WILL proceed whatever the circumstances and whatever the views of the non petitioner

Either I’m missing something here , or I’m right in thinking that the spousal veto is no longer required, irrespective of any changes to the GRC.

can anyone explain to me why the spousal veto is still needed please

Feelings are not what we should be ruled by here.

Im sorry but I’m not going to change my mind.

that's OK

your arguments are less than persuasive or logical so you are not going to change anyone else's minds fyi

Likewise. It’s been a pleasure.

Again, it's control of the language and framing of gender identity.

'I'm going to believe something stupid because the vipers were mean to me'

genuine LOL

This example of arrogant smugness: It is exceptionally symptomatic of the tone deaf/compassion and empathy free/ lady bountiful/master of the workhouse ethos we've all come to expect of this political lobby when talking to women and reframing their reality and trampling them down to benefit men's sexual freedoms.

No, words have actual meaning.

What part of your discussion TO women affected by this, rejecting their experience and wishes and feelings, involved listening, compassion or empathy?

At which point have you not told them that their wishes and experience is wrong and that you have judged it to be irrational, and illogical? (I believe you said you have exposed and dismissed every point of theirs)

At which point have you responded to anyone asking you why male transitioners' feeligns and wishes matter so much more than you will grant women partners' feelings mattering or being relevant?

You're going to have to explain why this is a factually incorrect summary of your approach to this extremely sensitive matter for the women who have been involved, and suffered as a result of their partner's transition. How it's 'arrogant' or 'smug' to point this out, I'm not sure. I do think it's exceptionally arrogant however to tell women who have had to escape an unwanted marriage that you know better than they do what they feel, what they need, where they are wrong about their own experiences, and that they are illogical and irrational.

You didn’t read the link though?

It’s all set out there

Oh and I might as well add all the name calling, personal attacks and no factual information likely did influence my decision to stick with my current opinion.

No one has the faintest interest in what you think either way. We all do it for any lurkers who might be reading. We don't tend to let misogynistic nonsense stand unchallenged on this board, the feminist board, of a majority female site predicated on the existence and importance of biological sex.

If you'd behaved yourselves I might have managed to care about women.

Heard it. Got it on a bloody t shirt mate.

Yes well there is a difference between ruled by and influenced by, but you know that. It takes maturity to admit to our biases.

Your first post set out your biases, you were sad about how long it takes for men to get their genitals cut off.

'only laydees will change my mind with their laydeelike discussions

mean old harridans will simply make me dig in and believe something stupid that I can neither explain nor justify

in a very real sense, this painful cognitive dissonance I'm suffering from is the fault of you witches'

How it's 'arrogant' or 'smug' to point this out, I'm not sure.

It's just a DARVO. The typical TRA tactic.

Lol, says the woman who has never been married to a man.
You know nothing about me and yet you assume I know nothing, that I have no experience when you, yourself know that you know nothing.

You assume too much.

Bernard you crack me up

I was not.

Im going to leave the thread now so you can lie about me to your hearts content.

You know nothing about me and yet you assume I know nothing, that I have no experience when you, yourself know that you know nothing.

Is this some sort of riddle?

This thread really takes me back to when I heard all sorts about mumsnet being "transphobic". It's exactly this kind of thread that would've peaked me as a lurker. Things that would've stood out to me would have been:

Women do have rights.

You can't unilaterally change a contract and expect the other party to put up with it.

You can't start picking away at the legal foundations of marriage and expect it to fly.

If this change gets through, what's next?

That's when I'd have written to my MP, with whom I've met a number of times about these kinds of issues, and who is sympathetic and has raised my concerns with Ministers.

So I'm very glad of the constant attempts to force women into submission because it may well mean there are women reading it, who've had enough, and who start saying no, and decide to take action.

What vile harpies we are!

mean old harridans will simply make me dig in and believe something stupid that I can neither explain nor justify

in a very real sense, this painful cognitive dissonance I'm suffering from is the fault of you witches'

It's such a common argument isn't it!

Yeah, sad was an error, as that is definitely an emotion.😀

Feelings are not what we should be ruled by here.

This thread reminds me of those vox pops of women in the 1960s being asked about equal pay and lots of them saying men should be paid more than women because they’re men, because they’re the breadwinner etc.

There will always be women voting against their own best interests in favour of men and it’s infuriating and sad one day our daughters will be looking back at the trans lobby in the same way I look back at those 1960s women.

So marriage is only marriage when it involves being married to a man, does it?

I don't need to know anything about you beyond your engagement on this thread, where you have been telling women who have lived through escaping a marriage during/post transition that you know what's best for them and they are illogical, irrational and wrong.

I don't need to assume anything there, the lack of compassion, listening, ability to care about those women or be at all sensitive is front and centre.

Incidentally if you're claiming yourself to be a transwidow you have a staggering inability to listen to or care about other women in that situation.

Brilliant summary. 😄