Logical consistency in the trans argument

Currently, people cannot obtain a full Gender Recognition Certificate to legally change their gender without the consent of their spouse.

But MPs on the Commons women and equalities select committee are holding an inquiry looking at how laws could make changing gender easier, as part of a wider probe into reforms of the Gender Recognition Act.

The LGBT charity Stonewall told MPs it “strongly urges” scrapping the spousal consent provision, citing the 84.9 per cent who disagreed with it in the Government’s recent GRA consultation.

It’s not so much that he spouse can stop you getting the chop. It’s that they get a divorce – a right to one – if permission isn’t granted. This is opposed by Stonewall.

Hmm, OK.

So, another contention is that sexual attraction is concerned with gender, not natal sex. Thus, those lesbians who do not date the ladypenis are being hateful bigots. Because the ladypenis is attached to a woman, look, the certificate says so, the declaration is that this is a woman. So, not dating such, when a woman attracted to women, is bigotry.

But when it comes to marriage this logic doesn’t seem to hold. Because – just to pick an example – a man changing to being a woman in a previously heterosexual marriage turns that former heterosexual woman into a lesbian. Because sexual attraction is to gender, not sex, right?

But people should not have the possibility of the dissolution of the marriage when they are forcibly turned into a lesbian? Or even from into het if it’s a lesbian partner that does a Freddie? And so on through the permutations?

Nice logic you’ve got there Stonewall. Be a pity if anyone bothered to examine it.

12 thoughts on “Logical consistency in the trans argument”

  1. We can pretty much guarantee that none of our lawmakers will be at all fazed by this. The only one prepared to stand up to Stonewall’s nonsense is Liz Truss.

  2. ‘It’s that they get a divorce – a right to one – if permission isn’t granted’

    I’m astonished the law is so reasonable. It must be a pretty old law.

    I can easily understand why Stonewall opposes it.

  3. BiND, I have a feeling the question asked just stressed the right to self-determination, and completely failed to mention the attached “spouse’s legal right to divorce” bit.

  4. I was down the pub last Monday (quiz night, we won again) and we all agreed gender fluidity is an utter load of bollocks, or not a load of bollocks, but either way, it has no basis in reality.

  5. @Philip: no, you’re not.

    Am I alone in finding the entire farrago utterly tedious and wishing they’d all just go away and boil their heads?

  6. But people should not have the possibility of the dissolution of the marriage when they are forcibly turned into a lesbian? Or even from into het if it’s a lesbian partner that does a Freddie? And so on through the permutations?

    Remember when they told you homosexuality was not a choice? The government will make sure of that.

    Its like the joke ‘drugs will ruin your life – the government will make sure of it.

  7. It’s not so much that [t]he spouse can stop you getting the chop. It’s that they get a divorce – a right to one – if permission isn’t granted. This is opposed by Stonewall.

    No, it isn’t; you’re misrepresenting Stonewall’s position. The problem is that the (non-transitioning) spouse can refuse consent and refuse a divorce, at which point the person transitioning either has to pursue a contested divorce (presumably on the grounds that refusing consent is “unreasonable behaviour”) which is expensive in court fees, and time-consuming (courts are usually backlogged), or has to wait five years for a divorce by separation without consent. The result is that a small number of vindictive “trans widows” are able to prevent their spouses from getting a GRC for years on end by contesting everything, and this is what Stonewall are asking to change.

    What Stonewall is proposing is that the GRC (and, note, this has nothing to do with “the chop”) should be issued without requiring consent – and then the non-transitioning spouse should have a right to a divorce as a result. But the transition shouldn’t have to be delayed while waiting for the divorce to go through, which is what currently happens.

    There used to be a right to an annulment, but that was removed when same-sex marriage came in and replaced with the consent process. Stonewall would be entirely content with an automated, expedited divorce, so long as it wouldn’t add yet another delay to the already lengthy process of getting a GRC. They offered this as a compromise in the same-sex marriage process, and Theresa May refused it at the time.

  8. The Pedant-General

    “either has to pursue a contested divorce (presumably on the grounds that refusing consent is “unreasonable behaviour”) which is expensive in court fees, and time-consuming (courts are usually backlogged), or has to wait five years for a divorce by separation without consent.”

    This sounds like the current situation is very sensible. The person wanting the GRC has to submit themselves to being on the wrong side of a contested divorce. So they bloody well should.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *