I’m almost divorced. Finally. I am still alive too. Miracles can and do happen. It has been hell, but the hell of the divorce process is drawing to a close.
I want to shed light on one aspect of the court process which I have found profoundly disturbing, and one which I was unable to shut up about, and still remain unable to shut up about, even if it is not in my best interest potentially to speak up.
My divorce has taken place in England. Family Court. The UK, like many countries, operates a no-fault divorce system, meaning the reasons are largely immaterial. My ex, however, has made it clear, that she petitioned for divorce on the basis that I came out as transgender.
I cannot truly blame her legal team for the things which happen, as ultimately, she is the author. And my wife, it turns out, is a bigot. At least when it comes to me. She is a self-described “fag hag”, but has preferred to sensationalise my sexuality by calling me lesbian and referring to my kinky self as disgusting. Her words. Said years ago and repeated in court.
While she denied having any knowledge of me being transgender in court, she did note “maybe” to having given me panties and heels on various birthdays over the years. A process which I had to stop as giving me “boy shorts” or underpants that even my grandmother wouldn’t wear was a bit insulting.
All I am saying is that she chose a legal team who are nasty people, but their nastiness was hired nastiness…one of them even pulled me aside and apologized. I was blown away. Especially since they categorically refused to apologize for things this same person had said in court.
In the first hearing, my ex’s barrister refused to gender me correctly, made a speech about it, how it was impossible to refer to me as husband and not call me him, and for the sake of expediency, he would not refer to me as a woman, or a her.
“Quite right,” the judge concurred. My own team was horrified. We asked for an apology but never got one. A very British thing to do by the way. The High Court has ruled on how deliberate misgendering is a violation of human rights, and that it contributes to an atmosphere of hostility. But the rest of the court system hasn’t gotten the message.
That was nothing compared to what was to come. My ex tried to stop me from taking hormones, and then later, from accessing my own money to pay for surgery. She initially said that it would be devastating for our children. The truth is, however, that they have been my biggest supporters. Later, in open court, her Barrister admitted it was simply that she wanted more money, and that if my surgery went ahead, there would be less money for her.
That someone can stand up in court and say something so offensive is horrifying. That a judge would not censure such a person does not speak well of fair process in the British courts.
And in the end, they did try to stop me. Thankfully, that particular judge allowed me to have the funds to pay for my surgery so it went ahead. But after his ruling, they took so long to agree the order, that I would have missed my surgery date had I had to wait on those funds. Thankfully, my family stepped in and covered key costs…but later, a year later, post-op, my ex and her team tried to get that money paid back into the estate which we are dividing, simply because it became a loan from my family.
Never mind that my surgery did cost what it was meant to cost, which was more than the amount granted to me from my own funds. But the global standard signed up to by 40 governments is that transgender healthcare is not a mental health issue, but a medical one.
A lot of the “noise” in our divorce proceedings related to me being trans. But in theory, the Judge ignored this issue and focussed on the financial aspects of our divorce, which is at should be.
During the final hearing, however, my ex’s Barrister criticised me for showing no remorse for being trans and the damage it had done to his client. That I had not apologized. I had come to expect this from him, from my wife’s team. After all, over four days of court, my wife refused to use my new name, consistently dead-naming me despite being asked by the Judge to do so, simply saying, “its hard. We were married for 25 years.” She refused to gender me correctly, so in the end called me “Respondent” when she remembered. The kids tell me she mocks them when they use my new name or correct pronouns, tells them that I am mentally ill.
She noted in court the same message she sent to me the. day of my surgery, “I will never be able to celebrate this day as it is the day my husband died.” That was five minutes after she wrote to me to tell me that my new name was beautiful.
Anyway, the judge made a draft ruling which he sent to us for comments. I was advised to be brief and to not antagonise. But there was a paragraph that stuck in my craw. He repeated that he found it shocking that I had expressed no remorse. Applicant is my wife; Respondent is me.
“On behalf of the Applicant, counsel stated in his closing submissions that the Respondent has shown no understanding whatsoever that her decision to transition to a woman has had an impact on anyone else, and particularly the Applicant. That appears to be an accurate reflection of the position. There is no doubt that this has been a hugely difficult and emotionally draining experience for the Respondent and it is not surprising that it has had a huge impact upon her. However, it is also obvious that it would have a significant impact upon the Applicant who had been married to the Respondent as a man for 20 years. The lack of empathy from the Respondent is striking.”
And despite advice to the contrary, I was unable to keep my mouth shut. It will be a historical document. It is a reference. My children might read it. So, in my response, I lit into the clause, and noted my shock that such a point of view would be repeated.
This is what I wrote:
“You have repeated verbatim remarks about an absence of remorse or a need to apologize to the Applicant for my transition. Please clarify on what basis you believe such comment is justified, and why you have not asked the same of the Applicant, or indeed, do not ask of all parties in every divorce?
I write this comment with some trepidation, but am compelled to do so. Your Judgement is not just about one family’s divorce but raises issues about the place of transgender people in society, and how we are treated.
Being transgender is an issue of fact, not choice. Just as race is. The global health and medical communities have agreed on the importance of aligning sex to gender as outlined in the WPATH guidelines, ascribed to by every Western government and the medical and psychological establishment, including the British Medical Association and the American Medical Association. Your own rulings in allowing me to pay for sex reassignment surgery from marital funds are a tacit recognition of global standards.
Applicant’s counsel’s admonition that I had shown no remorse for being transgender is a hostile statement. Such a request is fundamentally discriminatory. The choice I faced was not one of coming out or having a sex change; of being man, woman, or trans; but to live or die. That is amply demonstrated by letters of support, where suicidal ideation was repeatedly linked to transition. Asking me to apologize for choosing life, which is in effect what his words amount to, should have no place in civil discourse.
I made my marital vows and remained committed to them: “for richer for poorer, for better or worse, in sickness and in health…”. While we are in a no-fault divorce process, my wife knew what she was marrying, and it has been very convenient until it is no longer convenient.
Transgender people represent an estimated 0.5% of the population, yet we have become a political punching bag. I ask you to consider what it means to take on a world filled with hate towards people like me and to find my best friend, my most important ally, join the ranks of the bigots. And if that seems strong, please also consider that this divorce process has offered ample example:
- Applicant’s Barrister opened his comments before Judge X by expounding on why he would call me a “man” and refuse to use my pronouns. He was formally asked for an apology on this matter and has steadfastly refused to provide one. Unsurprisingly this was extremely distressing to me.
- During proceedings, said Barrister also asked via my Barrister Y that I delay transition until after the divorce was finished—in the summer of 2023. I note that Applicant’s testimony before Your Honour on the point of whether she was able to make the causal link between my suicidal ideation and being trans, was that she had ‘no idea’. That statement is negated by her own testimony given document exchange making this causal link already in the summer of 2023. A formal apology was also asked for this and not given.
- Throughout these proceedings, the Applicant has sought to delay or prevent my transition and surgery, even stating before your Honour in January of 2024 that she wanted to have more money available to her. This shows a callous disregard for a life partner; it is also inhumane.
- I note also that the Applicant refused to name me correctly or gender me correctly throughout the hearing in your own court. Your Honour would not know this, but she also admonishes our children when they refer to me as female or by my name.
Our relationship was one of friendship. Ours was a sexless marriage from 2008 onwards, when the Applicant noted that my sexuality ‘disgusted her’. A statement she all but repeated before this court.
The Applicant’s sense of entitlement to my body and my life is galling.
Consider for a moment that I now live in a world where much of it is off-limits, and I would take enormous risk to even travel there. Included on that list is the current USA. I also note that the only place I have ever been physically assaulted and am regularly verbally abused, is the United Kingdom. The tolerance of Counsel’s statement and behaviour towards me during these proceedings, and Applicant’s refusal to apologise for playing such a dangerous game with my mental health creates a hostile environment for me and should be censured. Repeating Counsel’s statement verbatim demonstrates how easy it is to simply accept prejudice as “normal”.
The Applicant’s feelings—while real and deeply felt—stem from a social framework that assumes cisgender identity as the default and positions any deviation as a disruption rather than a natural variation of human experience. Her devastation, rooted in shame, is ultimately a form of discrimination:
The Applicant’s Feelings Are Rooted in Cisnormativity:
- The idea that the relationship has been fundamentally altered assumes that a husband must be a man for the marriage to be valid in the same way. This enforces a rigid, gender-essentialist perspective, where “husband” and “wife” are tied to assigned sex rather than to the people and love that make up the marriage.
- If love, commitment, and shared life experience define marriage, then why should a gender transition be seen as a betrayal rather than a natural evolution within the relationship?
The Applicant’s Reaction Implies Ownership Over Gender Identity
- While partners influence each other, no one owns their spouse’s identity. The husband-turned-wife has always been the same person internally, just previously unseen. The devastation assumes that the wife has a right to dictate or expect the spouse’s gender identity to remain static, which is an entitlement cis people take for granted.
- It positions the trans woman’s gender as something that is happening to the wife rather than simply who the trans woman is. It treats the wife’s comfort as more important than the trans woman’s need to live authentically.
If There Is No Harm, Why Frame It as a Loss?
- The wife is not losing a person; she is losing an assumption about that person. The individual she loved, raised children with, and shared life experiences with has not disappeared.
- The distress she feels is based on social conditioning rather than tangible harm. If society did not enforce rigid gender roles and norms, this transition would not be seen as inherently disruptive.
- Imagine if a partner revealed they were adopted after 20 years of marriage—would their spouse be “devastated”? Or that their grandfather was a Nazi war criminal? Likely not. The only reason gender transition is perceived as a crisis is because of cultural bias.
A Double Standard Exists Between Trans and Cis Identity Changes
- People change all the time in marriage—physically, mentally, emotionally. If a wife gained weight, went through menopause, changed careers, had repeated plastic surgery to her face, or had a spiritual awakening, it would not be seen as a betrayal.
- Why is gender transition the one type of change that is met with devastation, when it is not a choice, but an intrinsic truth about the person?
Trans Existence Is Framed as an Inconvenience Rather Than a Reality
- The wife’s devastation implies that the trans woman should have stayed closeted for the sake of the marriage. This assumes that the burden of making the relationship “work” should fall on the trans person hiding herself, rather than on both partners adapting to reality.
- A cis person would never be expected to suppress their identity to preserve their marriage. No one tells a straight woman, “You should have just pretended to be a lesbian to make your wife happy.” But trans people are expected to suppress their reality, implicit in your comment.
Feelings Are Valid, But That Doesn’t Mean They Aren’t Biased
- Any trans woman making this argument would not be saying that the wife shouldn’t feel anything—just that those feelings, however natural, are shaped by a societal bias that centres cisgender identity as the default and positions transness as an abnormal disruption. In that sense, even though the wife’s feelings are understandable, they are still rooted in a discriminatory framework. The court has a duty of fairness to recognise this.
- Much like racial or cultural biases, people don’t have to intend harm to participate in discrimination. The devastation response assumes that a woman’s husband was “lost” rather than realized, reinforcing a worldview where trans people’s identities are secondary to cis people’s expectations. And at its core, that is what discrimination is: treating one group’s needs and comfort as inherently more legitimate than another’s.
This summary is perfectly in line with the Applicants behaviour and commentary, referring to my sex change as the “death of her husband”. It is also consistent with her sense of entitlement, which has informed her actions.
Why do you ask that I show remorse instead of her? Whose conduct is worthy of reproach? Who has conducted an aggressive, scorched-earth approach to divorce, needlessly driving up costs, refusing to seek mediation (I made my first Open Offer in November of 2022 and have ca. 80 Open and WP offers during the course of these proceedings, all of which she has rejected out of hand), refusing to engage at any level? I loved my wife, and was counting on her support through my transition as I would expect of the closest of friends.
Applicant was fully aware that I was suicidal from October of 2021. Nearly 20 letters of support back that up, and state that I was at risk of self-harm. And yet, the Applicant and her legal team took active steps throughout this process to stop or delay my transition—starting with hormones and finishing with my sex change, in full knowledge of its consequences. This was abuse, and the court facilitated it until Your Honour stepped in and made the ruling that allowed my surgery to proceed. This has not stopped them from continuing this by asking for money back in this hearing (and which they have “achieved” through the back door by playing games with cash flow and asking me to pay funds back for legal fees), but my surgery costs were as originally estimated. The stress of this, and its fundamentally discriminatory nature has been a horrific experience, and one that I should have never been given the oxygen that it has.
Persistent misgendering creates a hostile environment
- Sutcliffe v Secretary of State for Education…highlights the deep stress that deliberate misgendering can cause
Given the above, I would like for you to clarify please why you have noted this of me, and not of the Applicant.”
Of course, it was stupid of me to do so. One earns no favours by telling a judge off. But I simply cannot let stand the idea that a trans person should be asked to apologize for her existence. F**k that. And bias is so deeply ingrained, that people don’t even know how offensive it is. And yes, perhaps I should have kept my mouth shut, after all, there were no financial consequences. Or were there?
It’s hard to tell. Once a judge parrots the words of a bigot, nothing is safe. What would you have done? Would you have spoken up? Risked kicking a sleeping bear?
And I will tell you what my dear ex-wife, I will take my version of “unwell” any day over whatever is motivating you.
Author
Discover more from Beyond Non-Binary
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
What happened to you it’s outrageous, and shows how bigotry can be nasty, especially when coupled to barristers and lawyers. Yet, you reached your freedom, and now you are flourishing again for the marvelous person you are.
The astonishing thing is that what you passed is really similar to what happened in my divorce. And, due to how Italian laws about divorce are, I prefer not to give you details here, in public.
That said, again, I am proud of you!
Thank you Raffaello. What amazes me about it is how unthinking these people are. Ask any young person today these same issues and they are horrified. Ask an older person, even an “enlightened” one, and they either don’t get it at all or think it is “no big deal”. Casual racism lives on and when I see it and speak of it with my friends who are victims of it, this seems like the same kind of thing. It is disappointing, however, that a judge, who is paid to be balanced and fair, is so oblivious as to repeat the same nonsense. Shameful really. But the UK has been the worst place in the Western World for me as a trans person…even the US has been better, only. there, I won’t go now, as the risk of some rando deciding to attack is not part of my life plan.