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.

Another argument I have seen is that other changes to the marriage contract don't require consent - changing names being one. If A changes his or her (or their!) name, then de facto the contract is changed. In such cases, and in cases of other contracts such as mortgages, pensions and banks accounts, the contracting institution is simply advised of the change. So why should marriage contracts be different?

Well, with a bank, if you change your name there is no material change to the agreement. You invests your money, perhaps at interest, and you can take it out again when you want unless there is a limitation which you would have agreed to, such as fluctuating interest rates or withdrawal limits. This is not the case with a marriage contract. The terms "husband" and "wife" imply a particular view of marriage, and a GRC would substantially change the contract. If "husband+ husband/ husband + wife/ wife+ wife" is the original agreement, then any unilateral change to this is analogous to the pension company unilaterally deciding to keep all your money after your payments are finished, and simply "advising you of the change".

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,

It's doing no such thing. It's merely ensuring that there is agreement from both parties about whether the marriage should continue once one of them has chosen to make a fundamental change to their identity.

We should remember that "changing gender" is merely a lifestyle choice. It is no longer considered to be a mental health condition with a requirement of medical treatment to alleviate symptoms.

No woman (or man) should be held hostage in a marriage which is fundamentally different from that which was originally agreed upon just to satisfy the wishes of someone who has made a lifestyle choice which alters the nature the marriage. Nobody forces anyone to transition, they could simply choose not to do so, or not to apply for a GRC, if they want to remain married.

It is nothing to do with "ideologically opposing same sex marriage".

A woman who is married to a man who transitions to become a transwoman, is not suddenly in a same sex marriage. She's in a marriage to a male person who has adopted a huge change of lifestyle, habits, behaviours.

A few people have pointed out that no-fault divorces exist, which is true and is also a safety net.