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

@TinselAngel This two years to plan a coming out party of reflection, do you know if there will be any requirement to let the spouse know that the process has begun and to get the hell out of dodge, or can they be kept completely out of the loop?

We don't know, they haven't said so we can only assume not.

Yes, I wondered about that. I think I asked the question, maybe on another thread.

None of the things you name are comparable to having your marriage unilateral changed from opposite-sex to same-sex or vice-versa.

But not if there is a 2 year pause during which time you can get divorced/annulled.

Where, in Labour's proposal, have they mentioned that the non-transitioning spouse will be automatically notified of the application for a GRC? Because you can't file for divorce ahead of the GRC being finalised unless you know it's been applied for in the first place.

It's also really bad law to put women (and let's be honest, we are talking trans widows not widowers) in a position where they are racing against time to end a marriage before the GRC process finishes. Even automatic notification giving her an 18 month head start doesn't guarantee that the "D"H won't drag things out as much as possible.

I shouldn't allow myself to be goaded.

But unfortunately, and I suspect why it keeps happening, it is only too likely that if someone is denying your lived reality you respond.

Its a very strange mind set to have - but one as women we experience all too often from men.

Just dont expect it on FWR.

So basically, as a disabled person and a woman, I'm best voting Tory?

The Labour Party have really lost their way.

I'm not sure we even know if the cooling off period is prior to a GRC being issued do we? A bit like trading regulations where you have 28 days to return something you bought.

I can't find the article now on the Times page. Did it actually say the 2 years comes before a certificate is issued?

Edit - mixed up tenses.

The main drive is that Catholics will accept an annulment of a marriage. What other religions do is up to them. Some accept divorce and remarriage.

There's no such thing as "living as a woman" anyway, so removing that condition is meaningless.

How often do doctors refuse to give a medical report, or give a report that doesn't support the transition? I imagine it's vanishingly rare, so it seems like this is another non-change.

I hate the whole premise of the current Act, and the ridiculous nonsense around "legal sex", so I would definitely like to see it changed in a significant way. But I'm not convinced the potential changes mentioned here would make it much worse?

There's no such thing as "living as a woman" anyway, so removing that condition is meaningless.

You are correct it is sexist, misogynistic nonsense which is why the whole thing should be ripped up.

The whole premise of GRA2004 was to pretend not to legalise same-sex marriage whilst in fact legalising it for people who are willing to jump through certain hoops, in response to a ECtHR ruling.

We now have same-sex marriage so I'm really not sure what GRA does apart from cause problems for women.

The 2-year cooling off period doesn't make sense to me either. If they are worried that people might make a mistake in wanting to change their 'legal sex' perhaps amending the GRA to allow people to reverse their GRC at any time should be added instead. The cooling off period is purely there to make it sound like they've built in some sort of safety measure but it doesn't hold up to logical scrutiny or hold much power in the way of stopping someone from changing every other legal document to the new name + gender.

It's pointless tinkering around the edges, which is very much in keeping with Labour's aims and manifesto i.e. we're not the Tories, we're not going to make any changes to Tory spending and welfare targets, we aren't going to make any changes re Brexit, but somehow we'll make things better. We're offering a nice red-coloured velvet glove to go over the iron fist.

https://whittlings.blogspot.com/2014/04/every-person-has-rights.html

Even the annoying Stephen Whittle thinks it's an important right for a wife to be able to dissolve her marriage however she thinks fit before it changes its essential nature.

What's been announced (leaked?) is very vague, and I suspect that no-one has really worked through the implications. But at best it looks like the imposition of a two year timetable on the dissolution of the marriage, shifting the balance of power away from the non-transitioning spouse.

Please let's not make Whittle an authority on this.

Exactly. I am also disabled and am seriously considering voting Tory- not because I expect or want them to win, - they won't - but to try to ensure that the new Labour government has a decent sized opposition to contend with.

A landslide victory at this point would be disastrous for women and children.

So far, based on Labour's own manifesto and general rhetoric, the ONLY real difference between them and the Tories is the "Trans issue" as they would have it.
Pathetic!

I asked my Labour candidate on the doorstep "What is a Woman". He danced on the head of a pin. The splinter up his arse from sitting on the fence trying to work out how to answer the question left me feeling Labour most certainly cannot be trusted on women's rights and safe spaces. No vote from me.

If ‘living as a woman’ is a nonsense phrase and impossible to define, as you keep insisting, how can any male born person be said to be trans? Isn’t being a trans woman just…living as a woman?
On your other points, other posters have patiently explained the significance of these changes to you, particularly as regards the marital exit clause. You’re not listening.

Piss off with your sanctimonious ageist bullshit

Piss off with your sanctimonious ageist bullshit

Say what you really feel EdenPalmersTerfAuntie

Piss off with your sanctimonious ageist bullshit

Up with this sort of thing!

The racist and homophobic grandparents we are all slightly embarrassed by comment is extraordinarily reminiscent of the racist uncle attempted smear of Jo Phoenix by her OU colleague.

Pathetic really.

And didn't that turn out well for the OU.

Yes.

For a Catholic looking to leave a marriage there are two separate process.

They can apply to have the marriage annulled within the Catholic Church. This is a well established institutional process and it's not that uncommon. Each region will have it's own tribunal that handles this stuff. Lots are granted annulment but also lots aren't.

Legally, the person generally has two choices, at least in countries where divorce is legal - apply for annulment if it's applicable, or divorce.

So you typically get three final possibilities that are ok by the Catholic Church: a) one you get a church annulment, and a legal annulment. Probably the least common, there are actually more grounds for church than legal annulment. b) church annulment, legal divorce. This is probably the most common scenario. People who do this are free to marry in the Catholic Church again. Or c) Church does not grant an annulment, but there is a legal divorce, so while they are legally no longer entangled the person is not able to remarry in the Church. This isn't necessarily considered a lesser outcome from a religious POV, it's recognized that even if the marriage is valid from a religious POV, it may be necessary to protect the other spouse or children from being linked legally, for example, to a drug addict.

And the award for handwaver of the year goes to......

CassieMaddox

Now this:
https://www.thetimes.com/article/7543b6e2-6ac7-4e4b-bb71-5f0a8030d32a?shareToken=b1f85781d4d8e767d1a8ec96eb7cc830