Sir Kier Starmer on GMB now being asked what his stance on trans gender is

[SpringLobelia]

He said he apologises to people eating their breakfast'.

He is being questioned about his treatment of Rosie Duffield but he's not answered really and moved the convo swiftly to Brianna Ghey

Susannah said you told the MP Rosie Duffield that she is wrong to say only women have a cervix and he is again deflecting.

Says he believes in safe spaces for women.

Women's prisons? - deflects again to the NHS today. no answer to any direct questions.

Says again about safe spaces being important- but again deflecting and whittering about the constituion

SR asking for clarity- is it right or wrong for RD to say only women have a cervix - KS- she is biologically right. SR- should you apologise to her?
KS- deflects. Wants discussion. Not answering the question.

I'm giving up now. He can't even string a coherent sentence together. Keeps deflecting.

IMO of course.

Removing the spousal veto" means in effect "making it ok for one person in a marriage partnership to completely change and rewrite the basis for the partnership without the consent of the other partner" and that is not ok

I'm agreeing with you for sure. This isn't how contracts work - and marriage is a legal contract. They want to rewrite everyone's marriage.

Quite. The spouse has no veto or right to object, it is purely that they get the chance to decide that they don’t want to be married to this new identity. Remove the relevant clause and you are saying women (for it is nearly always women) must be forced to be in a marriage with someone they never chose to be married to.

So, in essence, removing the "veto" means removing safeguards from the women in a relationship?

They are probably going to say its irrelevant now we have no fault divorce so it's pointless keeping it but by removing it they are pandering

Surely ending the so called veto can push a woman and her kids into povrrty? Imagine a SAHM with 2 kids in z rental, she has given up her job to care for the kids. How does she leave? We know how hard this is from reading the Relationship board.

This, together with today's announced proposal to remove the safeguards there are, for those who want to change gender, together with an unrelated education proposal- is going to make it impossible for me to vote Labour in the next GE.

I don't see it as a 'spousal veto', but as 'spousal protection'.

This is partly how the Conservatives keep getting in (in my area). The alternatives are split, so C end up with the slim majority. They don't even need 40% of the vote. Bah!

Not all women can divorce for religious reasons. Plus this would still force women into a marriage with a legal person they never chose to marry.

WTF! Labour seem absolutely determind to alienate the female vote entirely. Have they learnt nothing in the last few years? I am angry with the total indifference- they really really don’t care do they. What if they win? What happens to us?

Exactly. It's a disaster for women

This is from a pp on another thread. In the interests of balance…

’Personally I think it's right that a spouse shouldn't have the right to prevent someone from transitioning if they want to. At that point, the relationship is over in any case, and it also sets dangerous precedents if one party is permitted such control over the other.

Stripping out time consuming and expensive bureaucracy is also a good idea

This isn't going to cost Labour any seats, that's wishful thinking.’

🤷‍♀️🤯

Labours removal of the spousal veto,( which does not stop a partner transitioning ) technically pushes people into same sax marriages which is not what they originally agreed to when they married.

The current Conservative situation allows a temporary GRA certificate to be issued whilst a marriage can be annulled.

Im finding the use of the word veto confusing removal of a veto ie a double negative. Something I always find confusing so please MN have I understood correctly above,

Personally I think it's right that a spouse shouldn't have the right to prevent someone from transitioning if they want to. At that point, the relationship is over in any case, and it also sets dangerous precedents if one party is permitted such control over the other.

A spouse does not have the right to prevent someone transitioning if they want to. The only right she has is to request that her marriage is annulled first. Currently I believe someone requesting a GRC in these circumstances gets a temporary one for six months whilst their marriage is annulled or they are divorced, then they get a permanent one. What you are suggesting is the party requesting the GRC has complete control over the nature of the marriage between him and his spouse and her ability to exit it.

As for ‘expensive’ bureaucracy - you really think £5 is expensive? And why shouldn’t setting up a legal fiction, that demands other lie to support your fantasy, require bureaucracy?

In terms of political fallout - it has taken down two Scottish First ministers so far.

Price of a woman £5. Yeah that sounds about right. 🙄

Couldn’t agree more. But that quote is how the Labour supporters justify their thinking. :(

I think I misunderstood. I thought the spousal veto (which isn't really a veto) had gone anyway. Something about, now there's no-fault divorce, there's no need. Now I'm realising what I thought was the current situation is what's being proposed here. And of course it's a really bad idea, for all the reasons posted above.

And really, "dehumanising"? Get a fucking grip, Dodds! There can't be the slightest inconvenience for the sacred caste, can there?

It's typical of trans activist campaigning that they are disingenuous on this as on other issues. There is no spousal veto. There is a possibility for marriage annulment if one spouse chooses to change their legal sex.

I think calling it a veto is really misleading and it's also a very hostile expression.

It seems to be a provision that's not supposed to prevent someone from transitioning, but to give the other person in the formal relationship the right to leave it.

Thats why we renamed it 'the spousal exit clause'.

Labour don’t think women exist

All about the men

Hm.

While it seems a little excessive to continue to retain the special 'detonate marriage' button built into the 20 year old pre-equality legal recognition of transition in order to avoid the existence of even a brief window of time where a person could be said to have been technically same-sex married, it evidently still means a lot to people who are ideologically opposed to the concept of either same-sex marriage or legal transition.

It's been theorised that the Conservative party lost around 30% of their membership over same-sex marriage when they introduced it a little over a decade ago - it's clearly still a highly contentious subject for some groups whose ideology opposes legal equality for same-sex couples.

While I am a firm believer in the importance of same-sex marriage and what its recognition says about us as a society, from a principle of compassionate regard for groups who would find it deeply distressing to exist for even a few months in what is technically a same-sex marriage, I thus support the retention of this clause.

It does continue to send a deeply distressing message to trans people that their rights are conditional and subordinate to the sensibilities of non-trans people, but that's hardly a state of affairs that is confined solely to this particular piece of legislation!

@ButterflyHatched it works the other way too. A male in a gay marriage who got a GRC would make his marriage a straight one, maybe people would care about it that way round.

Its a legal necessity. The fact it hurts feelings is not the greatest harm in this situation. The spousal veto does not stop anyone transitioning; an interim GRC is granted.

For religious women divorce is not an option. A legal annulment allows them to exit a marriage which is not what they agreed to. Thats not them being homophobic.

The interim GRC also allows the non transitioning partner time to close bank accounts, sort out joint pensions and other financial arrangements without being forced to out their spouse as trans.

The people pushing this in Labour are arrogant wankers who have literally no interest in the lives of people affected.

They haven't even bothered to look into the good reasons why the clause exists.