Let's have a poll!

[AdamRyan]

Thought it would be interesting to see the majority view on this board for what the consensus is on how trans people should be accommodated in society. I want to see what less vocal posters think

Options:

1. as they identify. Exactly the same as the sex they identify with. Access to womens spaces at all times, protected in law.
2. Third spaces: Treated as their acquired sex in most social and work contexts, use third spaces or treated as birth sex for times where biology is important for safety or dignity (i.e. hospitals, prisons, sports, changing rooms, providing or receiving intimate services like waxing, smear tests)
3. As their birth sex. People can choose to refer to them in their acquired gender but there is no expectation of this; all official documentation and interactions with services remains as birth sex.
4. Other - please explain

Let's see!

Are you saying that males who rape women and girls are now 'not gender conforming heterosexuals'?

Who else rapes women and girls if not males?

Omfg go and read the thread. Highlight all OP posts and READ THEM.

Adam I'm really interested in your thought process on this.

You have said that you want a stronger GRC process so that only genuine trans women can get them but you seem to be able to saying, but I may be confused, that even those trans women (with the stronger GRC) won't be allowed in single sex spaces, including public toilets.

So what is the function of the GRC under the new stronger process? It doesn't appear to do anything?

I know how to read an OP's posts. I'm literally quoting your own words back to you.

That's not exactly it - the boohooing is attention-seeking bollocks because the spouse cannot block the process. If they don't agree to the marriage continuing post-transition, an interim GRC is granted pending the divorce and final certification is merely delayed by a few months.

Your proposal to make continued marriage opt-in rather than opt-out seems sensible. But forgets that marriage is a legal contract involving multiple practical, legal and financial entanglements. So there still has to be a divorce settlement negotiated and agreed - and in practice the delay would be the same.

Adam

Do you know who is an expert on the current working of the spousal exit clause, and who could tell you exactly how the process could be improved for spouses and children of transitioners?

The trans widows.

I'd say I can't believe you still have no idea how the process actually works, despite your constant yakking about being on FWR for years, but unfortunately, I can believe it.

I'd prefer to see a situation where the marriage is [snip]

Is there a reason why your preferences should be given great weight? Opt-in certainly sounds better, but let's consult with the women who've been in this situation. No divorce or annulment can be done immediately, if the division of property is to be fair.

P.S. Seeing as you wanted the "spousal veto" to be removed entirely a page ago, you'll be doubtless pleased to hear Scotland already got rid of it.

Argh I didn't mean that. I think women should have the right to have the marriage annulled on transition, rather than block the transition. Annulment to recognise that the person isn't who they thought they married and they can't stay married.

No way do I think women should be forced to stay married. Its barbaric.

Honestly, fucking hell.

2024, and we still have people on FWR thinking the spousal veto means spouses can block transition and wanting to remove it entirely.

Well my sympathy for these men who demand to access female spaces was depleted a long, long time ago.

Sorry to hear that they feel unsafe or unwelcome or whatever in male spaces but that's not my problem.

Realise thread has probably moved on, but just quickly de-lurking to give appreciation for this well thought out post.

If you're wearing women's clothes and are straight then surely you're a transvestite and not transgender?

Today, the majority of adult males who profess that they have gender dysphoria are heterosexual males. They are counted as transgender.

I don't think there is any 'surely' about it, as nobody really knows what 'trans' even is.

That doesn't work for practical legal reasons - you can't end a marriage unilaterally and instantaneously, because there are things that must be negotiated before a marriage can end - from custody of children to splitting of pensions. It wouldn't make legal sense to end the marriage until that negotiation has been done (how do you legally force someone to do the negotiation, if the marriage has already formally ended?) So I don't see that you're suggesting anything workably different: the current situation seems as efficient as anything could be.

After hanging out round here for ages, I’ve slowly and painfully come to realise that where I disagree with the majority ideas on this subject (I know it’s not a hive mind etc, but still…)- where I disagree with certain vocal and possibly somewhat strident posters-…

…I’m usually wrong. So when people disagree with me now, I listen very carefully to see where I’m going wrong.

I don’t always cave, mind you, but I certainly gain a better depth of understanding than I started with.

Would you like to quote where I said people other than males don't rape women and girls then?

Are you saying that males who rape women and girls are now 'not gender conforming heterosexuals'? no, I got questioned for saying "straight men" when I was talking about who benefits from patriarchy. I updated the "straight" bit to "gender conforming heterosexuals". It has fuck all to do with rape.

Who else rapes women and girls if not males?
I find this an extremely offensive way to represent my position and not in good faith.

I'm not rehashing it again, read my posts, it's clear. You are now doing the equivalent of "but women do it too" mra tactics on threads about male violence. I know the tactic well.

I know it sounds like splitting hairs but divorce implies that there was a valid marriage that broke down later. I think transition Implies the trans spouse wasn't honest from the outset. That's why I think it should be an immediate annulment, no faffing about agreeing terms, gaining consent from both partners or waiting 2 yrs etc

There's no 2-year wait or need for both parties to consent with the current process.

As for 'faffing about agreeing terms', what do you suggest happens with the house, children, joint finances, pensions etc if you scrap the 'faffing'? One rule that will fit all possible circumstances.

Right, nice derail but it's not really relevant is it?

Interesting way to spell 'Oh, I hadn't thought about that.'

I am divorced and prefer not to think about the process to be honest so I won't if you don't mind.

It may not be directly relevant to the original question, but it is relevant to demonstrating the importance of thinking through all the implications before suggesting legislative or social changes. It was failure to do that which got us into this mess in the first place.

Well yes. But as I'm not involved in legislating and am not particularly advocating my approach, just sharing my opinion, I don't have to provide a watertight analysis of how every aspect should work. That's why we have a parliament!

It's much easier to see how an extreme version could operate but unfortunately extremes tend to only be the wishes of a small proportion of the population and so not particularly democratic.

In a similar vein, if you are an option 3 advocate, what do you propose happens to people who transitioned years ago and have effectively built a life for themselves in their acquired gender since then? They have legal recognition as the opposite sex, altered documents, colleagues and friends may not know their history.
How do you unpick that under option 3?

Simple solution to this. Don't suggest that we barter away women's legal rights to leave marriages, if you can't handle thinking about the minutiae of divorce.

No-one forced you to make a performance of putting trans widows rights on the table. You did it to yourself, as part of your attempts to signal that you were naice and willing to work with the male transitioners, unlike those mean women over there.