The Times Lead Story - Labour Set To Annihilate Women's Rights

[Arealnumber]

Labour to simplify ‘undignified’ gender transition process

www.thetimes.com/article/29648ec1-5b29-4b35-97df-2a443c71d7e0?shareToken=fd3bf0c5a080ae78044dd82770d8e1a7

I feel sure it would be considered to be very important admissible evidence that would considerably speed up the process of gaining an annulment

Nope. The Cathloic church has it's own very estabslihed criteria.

Furthermore, it might help the affected spouse on a psychological level to have their position recognised legally.

Probably. So make that argument.

I'm not against this I'm just clarifying (for Catholics at least) the legal annulment would make no difference.

I'm sorry for being rude, @MalagaNights, after doing the same discussion on here for about 6 years I've just not got the patience to endlessly go over it. I should probably stay out of it for a while it's too exhausting.

A Catholic married by a priest also has to have the local registrar in attendance who signs the legal marriage certificate signed by witnesses. To comply with the law. So far as I am aware. (I'm in England.)

An annulment of the marriage by Rome does not annul the legal marriage as signed by the registrar so far as I am aware. That is a separate process under English law surely?

Thanks for the apology @TinselAngel I appreciate that.
I apologise for being snippy back.

And I understand how exhausting this has been for you for many years. Take care.

That’s a wonderful Times Opinion - glad to see that some journalists understand the issue with more depth 😊

Read https://www.gov.uk/how-to-annul-marriage and then tell me how any of those grounds for voiding a valid but voidable marriage are comparable to the reasons people cite for divorce. These grounds are all things that fundamentally alter the nature of the marriage.

The conversion, in the eyes of the law, of an opposite-sex marriage into a same-sex one or vice-versa fundamentally alters the very nature of the marriage. It goes beyond even abuse and infidelity in this regard because, unlike abuse or cheating, it misrepresents the non-transitioning spouse as someone they are not (same-sex attracted instead of opposite-sex attracted) and misrepresents the marriage that the non-transitioning spouse entered into.

No one has the right to misrepresent another person's sexual orientation unilaterally and with legal force in this way, and that's why it's important for the law to recognise the continued need for non-transitioning spouses to be able to annul a marriage. It's not OK for the non-transitioning spouse to have to pretend to have married and divorced a spouse of the opposite sex to who they actually chose and have to tick that "divorced" box on forms for the rest of their life because of the transitioning spouse's life decisions.

I agree with all of that.
I think changing gender shoudl be grounds for annulment.

You missed my point though: that a legal annulment would not solve their issue of a religious annulment.

Somewhat ironically, I think the Equality Act is what makes the approved by 'a doctor specialising in gender issues' irrelevant.

As gender is a social construct and independent of sex, it's difficult to know what role a doctor has to play in 'approving' a gender identity. Only an individual would know if they have a gender identity or not, and if they do what it is.

However, as the GRA suggests someone with a GRC should be 'treated as the opposite sex' then I can see the role of a psychiatrist or psychologist screening individuals for conditions whereby this is deemed to be unwise. However, the EA means that you couldn't deny a GRC to someone because they have a medical condition / mental illness- so it's difficult to understand what the point of it is.

That's for faith communities to resolve amongst themselves. It's likely to be psychologically more comfortable for a Catholic to be both legally and religiously single via annulment than to be legally divorced whilst religiously single via annulment.

Once again @Brainworm , it seems like nobody has really thought this through. Again. What a mess we have now.

That's right. If you only had a religious marriage and not a lawful one, you're not legally married according to the state.

A legal marriage is a protection for women. They may of course - and do of course - feel and come under pressure from their religion not to religiously divorce. But they can legally divorce if they're legally married.

And we view marriage as a 50/50 split. Because it is a contract. Hence one partner "changing sex" completely changes the terms of the contract. It is no longer the contract you entered into.

Removing the abominably named "spousal veto" would legally trap women in a marriage with their AGP husband (now "wife" ).

This cannot stand.

I guess it may be psychologiacally more comfortable yes. But that's not the same as legally necessary.

I'm not against it, I'm clarifying the argument made early that religious women couldn't get legally divorced but could get legally annulled.

I think annulment shoudl be available to religious and non religious women on the grounds their H turns out to think he's a women.

I was just trying to clarify the argument so it's not misleading.

As labour apparently are going to have a trans inclusive ban on conversion therapy and have misgendering included as a hate crime (tbf I hope I imagined this but I believe something is planned for hate crime law), they will have no idea how these will interact. A few strategic court cases and anything could happen.

My point exactly…

We need to start refusing to use the term "spousal veto" unless it's in quotes to challenge its use, as you have done.

It's the spousal exit clause. Keep the focus on whose rights are taken away if it's abolished.

I’ve decided today to spoil my ballot paper. There’s nobody to vote for.

It's the spousal exit clause. Keep the focus on whose rights are taken away if it's abolished.

Exactly. I am getting heartily sick of women having to justify why they want protection, Trans Widows have said this protects and helps them that should be enough but it never is. Men want the clause removed purely for reasons of power and control over their wives and families, small wonder Labour are bowing to men and proposing to remove it.

Words matter. Sex, not gender. Exit clause, not veto. The attempts to renegotiate the meaning of words continues, and should be challenged every time.

We're all getting upset over nothing wims. This is a culture of fear which has been generated by shady right-wing think tanks based in Tufton Street and funded by the US Religious Right spreading disinformation to the Alt Right MSN. Have I got that right Cassie?

Unfortunately, back in the real world, Labour has revealed itself to be hell-bent on destroying women's sex based rights and removing all the safeguarding it can for children and vulnerable people.

How the fuck is he still answering both sides of the coin

Protect women’s spaces and be nice to trans gender

HOW

At this stage he’s such a blockhead

Times Radio

Keir Starmer may well be an arse, but I'm guessing that around half of Labour MPs these days are women.

Bar the honourable exception or two, the fact that they aren't speaking up for me says that: they are more concerned about power and having their noses in the trough, than the interests of ordinary women and girls. Sod em.

The if is doing some heavy lifting there.
I guess the option of sticking with the status quo (and everything else that comes with the Tories) is a much better idea

Yes. Getting a GRC is a piece of piss. Hence why I'm so confused ppl are backing the Tories on it or acting like Labour's plan is a huge change

Quite.

I guess the option of sticking with the status quo (and everything else that comes with the Tories) is a much better idea

For the Trans Widows, you know those women with the lived experience of a spouse changing gender, it is very important that the Spousal Exit clause status quo remains and is a much better idea.

Why do you have such a problem with that?