MPs debate transitional state pension arrangements for women

Pollycat

colsten wrote: »

It appears WASPI have a rival now, with a somewhat crude and ridiculous purpose.

STATE PENSION AGE FOR WOMAN TO BE REDUCED FROM 66 TO 60

I am told this petition had over 60,000 signatures today alone, although it seems to have been set up some time ago. A bot-fed parody on WASPI? A break-away faction of disgruntled WASPI supporters?

The petition:

To: Iain Duncan Smith, Secretary of State for Work and Pensions

Put pension age back to 60 for woman, not 66.

Why is this important?

If we have to wait till 66, then us ladies will be losing out on £36 000 until we can officially retire. Where is this money going?
We get more ailments as we get older. How can we enjoy our retirement if we have to work longer?
Shame on the government. Stop it now.

It really is laughable (or it would be if it wasn't so pathetic).

jamesd

Well, I suppose the title is better than the truth that "We want increased gender discrimination in the state pension system".

Of course the money is going to pay for the longer life expectancy that women have now compared to when the age was 60. Paying out for longer has to be funded somehow.

colsten

Pollycat wrote: »

The petition:
It really is laughable (or it would be if it wasn't so pathetic).

Going by their Facebook and some of the sob-articles that appeared in the papers, the sad truth is that many of the WASPIs seem to think in exactly those terms.

I still think the survey is some sort of a parody though.

Paul_Herring

mania112 wrote: »

I've not been following these debates too closely, but i'm sure I understand we're talking about women being unhappy that their SPA's quickly increased, right?

No - WASPI are unhappy that *their* SPA is being equalised with the SPA of the men in their cohort. Sod the older/younger women that aren't in that cohort however (or men of any age.)

Paul_Herring

Pollycat wrote: »

The petition:
It really is laughable (or it would be if it wasn't so pathetic).

I'm not too sure about the site itself...



All those targets less than a minute ago? Right...

Pollycat

Paul_Herring wrote: »

No - WASPI are unhappy that *their* SPA is being equalised with the SPA of the men in their cohort. Sod the older/younger women that aren't in that cohort however (or men of any age.)

But....but....
Let's not forget that women:

get more ailments as we get older. How can we enjoy our retirement if we have to work longer?

Sod the men whose SPA has been 65 all along - I guess they don't get more ailments as they get older.
And shouldn't get to enjoy their retirement.

FTR, I'm a woman born late 1953 so very much impacted by the 1995 & 2011 changes - but most definitely not a supporter of WASPI and certainly not this ridiculous new petition created by Margaret Rimington.

Paul_Herring

Pollycat wrote: »

Sod the men whose SPA has been 65 all along - I guess they don't get more ailments as they get older.

Well men certainly don't get things like breast cancer, stress incontinence and prostate cancer - unlike women.

An MP said so, so it must be true...

jamesd

Well, to be properly correct, in law we must recognise that women really can suffer from prostate cancer and men really can suffer from menopause, fibroids and hysterectomy.

I'm unsure how WASPI would want a male -> female pre- or post-operative individual treated, nor the female -> male equivalent. Maybe a requirement that to be considered a woman there must be no prostate and to be considered a man there must be no uterus and also not have had a hysterectomy?

I'm also unsure how they would want an intersex individual handled.

Should a ladyboy by other means such as transvestism or cross-dressing be considered a woman for this purpose? And the converse or other parts of the spectrum of gender identity and possible surgical interventions?

These are groups that tend to suffer from far broader discrimination than those more straightforwardly being defined as man or woman so I do hope that WASPI will be generous in their decisions on these matters.

Paul_Herring

jamesd wrote: »

Should a ladyboy by other means such as transvestism or cross-dressing be considered a woman for this purpose? And the converse or other parts of the spectrum of gender identity and possible surgical interventions?

Depends. Were they born in 1950?

jamesd

Paul_Herring wrote: »

Depends. Were they born in 1950?

I'm not certain that's sufficient. What happens if they have the surgery and legal change from male to female in the gap nine months or the years of difference between male and female state pension ages? Do they automatically get treated as having deferred for the years they weren't considered female or have they lost that state pension money?

Or what about a person who was a woman who changes to being a man after claiming her state pension. Does he have to pay back the amounts she already received as a woman? Can he continue to receive his state pension even though he's younger than the male state pension age and not entitled to it as a man?

There's actually a somewhat interesting real question here, since such changes can happen now. Anyone know how F-M and M-F are actually handled under current rules if it happens during the difference between the two state pension ages?