Refusing to Fund Your Partner’s Gender Transition is Domestic Abuse, Says Crown Prosecution Service
Spouses who refuse to fund their partner’s gender change surgery may be committing domestic abuse, the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) says in new guidance. The Telegraph has more.
The CPS has listed nine types of behaviour which could amount to abuse of trans or non-binary people by their partners or members of their family.
These include “withholding money for transitioning”, which would include either spouse refusing to pay for gender surgery, counselling or other treatment in a way that amounted to coercive control or abuse.
Other behaviours could be “criticising the victim for not being ‘a real man/woman’ if they have not undergone reassignment surgery”, or “threatening or sharing pre-transition images”, or refusing to use his or her preferred name or pronoun.
The guidance has, however, been criticised by the Women’s Rights Network (WRN), which campaigns for the sex-based rights of women.
The group has written to Max Hill, the head of the CPS, citing the guidance as “detrimental to women’s trust and confidence” in the service.
Heather Binning, founder of WRN, said: “How on earth can reluctance to pay for elective, unnecessary surgery from family finances be cited as an example of domestic abuse by anyone, let alone the CPS?
“The same document states that correctly referring to a family member’s sex is also abuse. This completely ignores the difficulties and emotions many people experience when a family member identifies as something they clearly are not.”
The guidance also claims that “gender identity is what you know your gender to be and can only be decided by the individual for themselves”. This is a wholly subjective concept of gender, of course, floating free from all connection to reality.
It adds: “Gender identity is not the same as sexuality; trans and non-binary people identify as heterosexual, gay, lesbian, bisexual, pansexual, asexual and aromatic, amongst other identities.”
Aromatic? Good grief. What are they, a duck?
Worth reading in full.
Stop Press: Watch Andrew Doyle discuss the latest trans insanity with Weekly Sceptic host Nick Dixon and Lewis Schaffer on GB News.
Stop Press 2: Maya Forstater, who last week won more than £100,000 in compensation from a think-tank that dropped her over her view that people cannot change their biological sex, said the new guidelines showed how the CPS has been “ideologically captured“.
Stop Press 3: A reader points out that aromatic is likely a typo for aromantic. However, the error (if it is) is in the guidance itself and not just the Telegraph quotation. And doesn’t it just sum up the lunacy of all the identity nonsense that it isn’t obvious that ‘aromatic’ is not part of the alphabet soup?
To join in with the discussion please make a donation to The Daily Sceptic.
Profanity and abuse will be removed and may lead to a permanent ban.
Stop please world, I’m desperate to get off..
My wife just said the exact same thing about Banks cancelling accounts.
What a complete load of nonsense. How can anyone possibly break the Law by refusing to pay for something? My Dad wanted to get me a horse when I was a kid but my Mom said no: was that child abuse? Where does this crap end? Little Johnny is told he can’t have an ice cream, Little Johnny has been taught his Human Rights at school and sues his parents. Meanwhile, Janey has successfully sued for a 4 week holiday she needs for her mental health.
Janey and Johnny’s Maternal Person and Paternal Person have meanwhile been prosecuted by the CPS and have both lost their jobs.
All coming to a house near you.
Where does this end? It ends where enough people refuse to get on board with this claptrap. Until then, don’t expect the establishment, including the CPS, to do much that makes sense. How is anything like this going to play out anyway? Is anyone really going to be forced to make a settlement of thousands of quid on the strength of a court ruling that someone with money refused to fund the gender reassignment surgery of a family member (especially a spouse!)? I’ll believe it when I see a single successful case.
What about similar situations when one spouse is exhibiting symptoms such as compulsive self-immiseration, either as a behaviour pattern in its own right, or as part of more embracing mental health problem such as depression, borderine or bipolar mood disorder or similar self-harming behaviour? If one spouse refuses to agree to paying for some grossly excessive purchase, is that “coercive control” or “enforcing clear boundaries”? (Background: I became aware of a case in which some person, already diagnosed with bipolar, entered a manic phase in which she bought a racehorse for tens of thousands of pounds, without any interest in horses, and was appalled when she came out of the manic phase and realised what she had done, with no memory of the event, and then asked why nobody stopped her?)
My wife (well, she was last time I checked) just made a good point on this: if your wife changes to your husband he won’t be buying as many dresses.
I believe one should make strenuous efforts to stay married, within reason. I also think one should try to be supportive if you discover that your partner is mentally ill. But I think at some point if they can’t be convinced I’d be asking for a divorce.
Sort of makes the phrase ‘who wears the trousers round here?’ a little more pertinent…
I just can’t get my head around it. Someone I know quite well had a daughter who suffered from anorexia. It’s quite scary because it makes no sense but using logic doesn’t really work.
“I do. I wear the trousers – and I wash and iron them too”
I was thinking along the same lines. If someone has a true case of gender dysphoria it’s not something that would have occurred overnight but over many years, probably leading to considerable relational upheavals way before being asked to cough up to have ones parts removed. Or are people who broke up/separated/divorced under such circumstances now considered abuse criminals? And what happens if the mentally ill person decides that gender assignment didn’t work and wants to revert back to their original gender label – or even another one: does the same concept of ‘abuse’ apply? It’s the same illogical thinking that insists lesbians are transphobic if they won’t sleep with trans (wo)men with all their original parts. The mind truly boggles.
I know rationality is a waste of time in these matters, but it’s true that the issue boils down to the general claim that what you believe about yourself is, unchallengably, true: The guidance also claims that “gender identity is what you know your gender to be and can only be decided by the individual for themselves”. So unless some reason can be presented why “gender”, including creative genders of your own invention, is exceptional, does this principle cover every other case of self-identification? We may not challenge someone who believes they are the Emperor of China or Jesus Christ and demands to be treated that way. We may not challenge the person who believes they are evil incarnate and deserve only to die (and if we’re a doctor in an age of euthanasia, we must implement their wish rather than try to change it). We may not challenge someone “knows” they are the only real mind in the universe, and acts that out in treating others as disposable automatons. We may not challenge the more common narcisistic or sociopathic belief that someone is the most important person in the world, and that the other fools are there to be… Read more »
But objectivity no longer exists.
You can’t argue with a fact like that… 🙂
“the other fools are there to be exploited”, i.e. Dale Vince
If George Orwell was alive today, his head would be spinning round like a top with all the possible subjects to parody. In this, I only see more interference in what is essentially a private family matter. In any other age, no one would be able to sue other family members for withholding money or for telling their child they are what they were born as. Depending on the family, there would be different levels of how the message was conveyed. Once again, we see an opportunity to create division. Remember, the powers that be are hell-bent on societal collapse and that means undermining the traditional family because it represents the – or used to be – strongest unit within a community.
Anti family = Marxism
“I only see more interference in what is essentially a private family matter.”
The state has no business interfering in how a married couple spends their income.
I know one bloke who gives his wife an allowance every week and she is responsible for all their weekly shopping from this – he pays all the bills.
I know numerous couples who divvy up all bills on a 50-50 basis but any money they have left over is theirs.
I know couples who pool everything and every financial decision is shared.
If one partner decides to spend £50k on a car for example without the other’s consent does that constitute domestic abuse?
This is way out of order and perfectly confirms that the legal system has been taken over and corrupted.
Any clear thinking legal mind would reject this gratuitous, interfering nonsense out of hand.
My brain has short-circuited.
Up=Down
1=0
Your=My
Evil=Good
Insane=Sane
Injustice=Justice
And Right and Left no longer exist, in their place we have Centre.
If we’re going to play silly beggars, how about another, quite valid legal argument? We are continually told that the victim group du jour have known since a young age (indeed, even in the womb!) that they are the wrong sex or fancy the same sex or species or whatever (it is getting very hard to keep up). If I married a man who never gave me any indication that he felt he was a woman/a combo/a nothing/a double act (they) or that he fancied men, surely I would have a legal claim for fraud? I invested time, effort, finances into establishing a long term relationship with someone who obviously did not want the same things and hid this from me. If I understand the CPS correctly, if I wished to have breast implants so I looked like Katie Price and my partner indicated he rather wished I wouldn’t as a) he preferred me not to look like a freak and b) he was genuinely concerned about my undergoing unnecessary medical procedures, as they always carry a risk, this would constitute domestic abuse? At the same time, if my husband were to suggest that I get implants so I looked… Read more »
Sophie Cook… 🤦♂️
That explains it then….
Yep, it certainly does, who the feck do these people think they are..
And what on earth does he look like… Ffs
What a scorcher….oh…woof
A freak show in the clown world
What is guidance?
Is it a parallel legal system?
Somebody said to me the other day that we have the most right-wing government in recent years. I can see why he said it – there are strong words on controlling immigration, on curbing absurd wokeism, on making Brexit work, on pursuing unnattainable climate goals, curbing spending, etc, etc.
But in fact it’s the last 13 years of “Conservatism” that have seen all these these things grow from almost nothing to a true dystopia.
So it’s a right facing government, actually acting as a left-progressive government, either by saying one thing and doing another, or by setting up scapegoat ministers to fail at the hands of the Blob and an unsupportive executive.
What we have in Britain is as if Brezhnev’s government loudly extolled their commitment to capitalist enterprise, unilateral disarmament and Christianity in Pravda. They actually did trumpet their Soviet constitution’s freedom of speech, assembly, religion etc at the Russian Exhibition in London in 1968, much to my amusement, but our political rulers are exhibiting another level of hypocrisy altogether, and to their own voters rather than foreigners.
People of the right need to stop voting Conservative.
People of the Right are a shrinking minority. The majority of ‘Conservatives’ are fully signed up Statists, totally dependent on the State for everything.
Sadly you seem to be right, though I think there’s still a majority against mass immigration and that would get behind a sensible energy policy
The error is to assume Socialism is exclusive to Parties of Left.
Elevation of the State over the individual, destruction of property Rights, central economic planning and control can be adopted by all Parties.
Communism, Fascism and National Socialism shared these common roots, yet supposedly are polar opposites.
BwaHaHa – an aromatic aromantic! Pungently soul-less then? 🤔
Today were are getting Met Office Weather Warnings for a thunder clap and a passing shower.
If your spouse changes ‘gender’ you may well consider that they are not the person you married.
Some outcomes are worse than others. None are great,
So someone can identify as something they are not. ———Yep that’s fine by me except I might not choose to identify them as such. If a leopard wants to identify as a hyena must I accept that? Are we going down the rabbit hole of absurdity now? Yes we are. Soon a silly child who decides he is a fox will require to be put in a pigeon loft to rip the unfortunate birds to bits and it will be a crime not to allow it. ——This has now gone way beyond PC madness, or wokery now.
I’ll just dump this here. Absolutely sick to the back teeth of having women ignored, cancelled & treated with utter contempt.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-12274419/Now-health-professionals-urged-call-vaginas-bonus-holes-avoid-offending-patients.html
If my husband decided he was a woman I’d be filing divorce that very day on the grounds that I’m not homosexual. Thankfully there’s zero chance of that happening.
I don’t think ‘grounds’ are required for divorce though it might help speed things up if one could agree them with the person who used to be the person one married.
People change. Some more than others 🙂
“Grounds for divorce” is an obsolete concept. One simple self-identifies as newly divorced and then gets the papers stamped at court. Five minutes. The onus is on the respondent to argue that the marriage has not irretrievably broken down, but the cost of a contested divorce is huge and the likelihood of success is minimal.
If my husband came home wanting to be ‘reassigned’ – I’d certainly help him on his way🔨🔪🪓🪚✂️- you get the picture……
Dysphoria includes, for example, blind people trapped in a sighted body. Where does a partner stand legally who refuses to stab their other half in the eyes to make them ‘whole’ and the person they ‘really are’?
It this transablephobia?
Surely thats the same as having an affair ! So would the court say you would need to help your partner with hotel shag bills , gifts ,sweet nothing phone bills etc ! Every day more bollocks ( if you’ll pardon the pun ) comes to light 😨
Doesn’t look as if the CPS has improved much since Starmer’s incompetent and malign reign.
No doubt Max Hill also thinks that our schoolgirls should just lie back and think of “diversity” whilst being ravished by Labour supporting Pakistani taxi drivers and kebab shop owners. Whilst he denies any knowledge of what is happening, happy that “Jim” will fix it.
Seroius question: Why are you even with that person? Just leave. No law broken there.
Perhaps poor Serena Lau’s parents should pay for the damage to the Range Rover. CPS needs to be dismantled.
This whole state of affairs is “aromatic”, just not in a good way!
So if I had been happily married for five years and my wife decided she wanted £3000 out of our joint bank account to turn into a man, it is now a crime to put up an objection to that? Is is also abuse to then file for divorce, finding the prospect of being married to a man undesirable, on the grounds of discrimination?