solution = marage equality
why do these idiots need to make it so complicated?
If Christine Timbrell wins it will leave the governments position on gay marriage in tatters. So lets hope she has the money to take this to the European court of human rights.
in law, CP isn’t for gay people per se, it’s for people living in a relatikonship like marriage who want it recognised. This is why siblings and other relations within the forbidden zone can’t marry or CP.
This person wants it both ways, which presently she can’t as she hasn’t finalised her transition. It will be interesting if it does go to ECHR, or maybe they’ll bring in an exception for trans people and still exclude gays from marriage!
Mihangel apYrs – You say the CP law is not for gay people per se, but was there not a straight couple wanting to get CPd a while back and they were turned away to be told that it was only for gay couples?
good luck to her but…
she’s a woman living with another woman but is not Queer? P-l-e-a-s-e! She’s totally and utterly Queer. Live with it.
“she’s a woman living with another woman but is not Queer?”
Maybe their relationship is platonic now? The article says that they don’t believe in divorce, and if they’d been married that long you’d imagine they had an emotional attachment anyway.
As John said, none of this would have arisen if we had gay marriage…
Yup trans people really illustrate what a ridiculous farce UK mariage laws are.
Two trans men x and y are in a relationship. Both are in the process of transitioning at the end of which they will be legally recognised as male, but aren’t at the moment.
If they wanted to get married they would have to: get CP’ed as two ‘females’. When x gets his gender recognition certificate their CP will be annulled and they will have to get married as a male and a female. When y gets his gender recognition certificate, they will have to get divorced as they are now a same sex couple again. Then they can get CP’ed again as two men.
Actually, she said they’re not ‘gay’. Entirely believable. I assume her wife is heterosexual (as she entered into a marriage with a person she believed to be male), and frankly the sexuality of transpeople should never be assumed, even in reference to past or persisting relationships (I know transmen still with their female -lesbian- partners who id’ed as gay men once they got their gender issues sorted out).
‘Wanting it both ways’? Since when was wanting equality ‘wanting it both ways’? The fact that she’s of TWO minority statuses (transperson and a woman in a relationship with another woman) that are commonly discriminated against don’t make her desire for equality *on both fronts* unreasonable.
I hope these hip cats win this case. Such a load of red tape and nonsense, isn’t it?
And what the hell is this unequal pension age about?! What the hell? I had no idea that such a ridiculous, archaic, sexist piece of nonsense still existed. 2020 is nowhere near soon enough! Both pensions should be available at 60 immediately, if not last week! Unfortunately, I’m guessing that by 2020, the age will be equalised to 65, instead of 60.
A perfect illustration of the fact that there IS a huge legal difference between CP and marriage.
And.. “He also argued that if both women were eligible for pensions aged 60, they would received “preferential treatment” compared to a mixed-gender marriage couple.” …, is surely a complete piece of bollox. If these two women WERE in a CP, they could both retire at 60 anyway, and no claims of unfairness in regard to mixed-gender couples would be made.
Or perhaps there is a little piece of small print, in the con-job that is CP, that we have missed?
one thing i dont get is why the couple want to remain together. they say their not gay and therefore a civil partnership is wrong. but their not a straight romantic couple then why by their own logic should they be married?
either they see themself as a straight couple and therefore christine sees herself as a man.
or they dont see themselves as a romantic couple at all and its a financial arrangement and shouldnt be married anyway
they hate divorce becazuse its against their religious beliefs, but these religious beliefs let couples who arent in love to marry for financial reasons? or these religious beliefs let a man become a woman, still claim to be a man but want to be legally seen as a woman while saying their a man…
I am confused.
if this leads to another step towards equality of marriages etc. then good but it just mindscrews me that someone can be so dedicated to their religion to oppose divorce yet only remain married for financial reasons
Jesus Christ, I’m just blown away that NO ONE has made the point that the law, in and of itself, is discriminatory; and not because of the trans angle. How is it not discriminatory to make men, who die five year EARLIER than women, on average, wait five extra years to get their pension, especially when it’s men who overwhelmingly pay the most into the pension system?
The clear way to end these problems is not to allow trans women to participate fully in this discriminatory system but to END the discrimination that causes it. Equalize the age of eligibility for men and women.
Really, for all of the posturing that European countries do about how non gender biased they are, they seem to be oblivious to and unaware of glaring gender biases against men that are right in front of their eyes. This clearly biased law is one example. Male only conscription in many European countries is another. Is it that people don’t notice? Don’t care? Are too lazy to challenge? This really puzzles me.
Why has no man challenged this obviously biased law in court?
Now please, let some woman, or man, explain to me that this law is biased but it’s ok because ___________________
This woman should not be celebrated as a heroine fighting a discriminatory law.
She’s not fighting the discriminatory law at all. She’s just fighting to be removed from the category that’s discriminated against and put into the category that isn’t discriminated against. She’s not asking to change the discriminatory part of the law at all.
I find it outrageous that no one seems to realize this.
what a muddle
of abrahamic religious nonsense
the buddhists would do it better
but not by much
in law she’s not a woman until she divorces her wife, but she doesn’t want to (understandable). So she wants things changed just for her.
At the moment “marriage” is between opposite sex couples, CP between same sex couples (I shoud have made that clear at 3); she can’t have it both ways: she either follows through (and gains the financial benefit) or doesn’t bbut stays married. That’s no more unfair than the facts that:
a) men can’t get a pension until to 65 (at present)
b) same sex couples can’t marry
I agree with what she is trying to do but I had a problem with the quote: “We are not gay and it would be hypocritical to pretend that we are. That is what we would be doing by entering into a civil partnership.” If she is a women in love with a women that makes her gay (the non gender form of the word gay but the quote implies that anyway), if she is claiming to be straight then surely that means she is claiming to also be a man which just contradicts her trying to get this pension. That said, same sex couples deserve to marry hence she does deserve this pension but sadly we still live in an unequal Britain
I don’t agree with the difference in age retirement between men and women. Still, the rationale is that women on average have worked a lot more than men at home (household shores, taking care of children…), and that this work deserves to be recognised. This is indeed true, on average, but laws should not be made on that “average” basis. A particular man might have worked a lot more at home than a particular women.
The point is: whether we agree or not with the discriminatory law, its basis lies on the average life histories of women in this society, not on some biological ideas of what a woman is.
And the one thing transexual women don’t share with non-transexuals is “having lived as a woman”, specially in cases where the transition happened so late in life.
So, not only the law is wrong (in my opinion), but also in this case the demand simply doesn’t make sense.
“The 2004 gender recognition act allows trans men and women
to be legally and fully recognised in their new genders, but
only if they divorce or have their marriages annulled.”
If Pink News thinks it is an LGBT site then its writers should know that act requires considerably more, and because of some of those outrageous requirements and other failings of the procedures, at least half of those eligible in the UK under European law to be recognised as being fully the sex of their identity have not used the law and face the same discrimination as the woman in the report.
It also does not provide full recognition. In many circumstances people are still allowed to treat a person who has gone through the process as if they have not.
Those requirements, even if one has completed all imaginable surgery, and regardless even of having transitioned decades previously with never a regret, include obtaining a fresh mental illness diagnosis, with a report submitted to be permanently retained in a government file that includes such details as if, how and why one masturbated before transition, how and why one dressed previously, who, if anyone, one had sex with, and why. That is a permanent file as in lodged in the public record office for ever.
Many who have gone through the process found that re-traumatising.
If the recognition is granted the applicant has to be listed on a central register, the security of which is an unknown factor, but it is open to a great many agencies and may not be secure.
The new birth registration is then added to the most recent birth registrations, with the original left unsealed, so it becomes easy to identify in the indexes that are now online. And the new birth certificate is only a poor imitation, easily spotted as being issued due to the recognition process by anyone familiar with registration documents. With the popularity of family history that is a great number of people.
The Equality Bill, currently in the Lords, intends to add further to the discrimination faced by those who refuse to submit to that most unsatisfactory process by requiring them to be insured as if still their original sex too. Insurers will no doubt refuse to honour insurance if that is not complied with. So people who transitioned decades ago will be having to embarrass themselves everywhere insurance is bought. Such as car rental or travel counters.
The act is a disgrace. Since it went through at the same time as the disgraceful civil partnerships law, under the same, most Roman Catholic ministerial control, the whole system urgently needs reform. A court judgment as sought by Christine Timbrell might start that.
Iris: “…none of this would have arisen if we had gay marriage…”
Make that equal access to marriage, or else you still get to have one version for straight and another for gay.
Learn your history; it was dropping the idea of gay marriage and and picking up same-sex marriage, and equal access, that got things moving at last, over in Hawai’i, in the mid-90s. Suddenly it ceased being about gay rights and became about human rights, and plugged into the well-established laws against sex and race discrimination, and took off.
And this was deliberately crafted in the UK – Blair’s ministers put through the civil partnership bill and the gender recognition bill side by side, arm in arm, when equal marriage was already well established in other countries.
> I’m guessing that by 2020, the age will be equalised to 65,
> instead of 60.
> I agree with what she is trying to do but I had a
> problem with the quote: “We are not gay and it would be
> hypocritical to pretend that we are. That is what we would be
> doing by entering into a civil partnership.” If she is a women
> in love with a women that makes her gay
Should the state be in the business to defining a person’s, or a couple’s sexuality? Or indeed, should you?
Thanks for the input, oatc. Those are some very sobering details. So very unpleasant when you take a look at something bad and find out it’s even worse than you thought it was.
And on another note, why is everyone making such a big fuss over Christine and her wife’s denial of being gay? I think John (8) hit the nail on the head. You don’t just find out that your husband is transsexual and then decide you like women. That’s not how love and attraction work. Therefore, it really isn’t a lesbian relationship, despite being a same-sex relationship! Crazy stuff, eh?
To oatc, I do apologise, I usually don’t even like to define my own sexuality so I am a bit ashamed that I would try to define someone else’s. This said, the law (the so far unequal law) does state that two people of the same sex can’t marry, I don’t know whether she was dening this but either she is one gender and is allowed to legally stay married or she is another and deserves the pension but the marriage become void (though the marriage is also deserved), if she does beat the system and she gets both that she deserves then I will be pleased for her but I can’t see it happening with the current laws.
This is just a reiteration of other threads. (Sorry Chrissie, but you are wrong) – It is NOT that there is any difference between CP and marriage. It is that each “legal relationship”, for want of a better description, covers certain groups of people, and unfortunately due to the legal definitions, this person falls between the two, and so consequently is denied the benefits of either.
If there was a global, legal and secular definition that covered all eventualites, we would not have this problem. This is all down to badly thought-out, rushed through bills to appease the Church, yet try to keep LGBT people happy.
As it stands it has so far done neither.
If it weren’t for mad old Barbara Castle’s discrimination in favour of women this wouldn’t be happening, and I will not be done out of nearly £50K just because I and my partner are male!
one thought: she says that they were married by a bishop in church. All a civil divorce does is remove the legal relationship, not the spiritual one (sh’d need the Church to annul that). After all that’s why divorcees aren’t able to have a second church marriage – they’re still married in the eyes of the church!
Just a thought but if marriage and civil partnerships where equal in the eyes of the law, then this couple would not have to divorce and then get a civil partnership. Their marriage would simply just transfer into a civil partnership automatic without the humiliation they currently face.
*Bangs head on table*…
THEY ARE THE F_CKING SAME!!
It’s just you cannot be one AND the other. You have to leave one door before you can go through the other. They obviously have two entirely separate systems set up to handle this, and there is no way of “transferring”. That doesn’t mean there is a difference, it’s just they are independent of each other, one is for ladies and gentlemen, and the other is for ladies and..
Oh f_ck this, I really can be bothered. How many times do you have to repeat the same old bollocks on here before someone finally twigs on?
Great comment by ‘oatc’
“The act is a disgrace”
Yes, it certainly is. Very bad and discriminatory law. It achieved absolutely nothing for transsexual people except set in stone prejudice. The people responsible for pushing it through should be ashamed at the damage they have done.