Why can't transmen inherit over males?

I wonder why no trans lobby groups are campaigning about this obvious and very specific discrimination?

I'm guessing because 1. It's only cunty people 2. If they get this removed the bill will never pass through the House of Lords.

I guess it was added by the house of lords? But it's telling that of all the potential problems allowing people to change their birth certificate, this is one situation that wasn't left to trust.

Those pesky 'born females' and their deceitful ways.

Passing it on Floisme
(Bump)

I'm unashamedly bumping this for the op. Not only because it's pure comedy gold (thank you so much snappity) but because it exposes the hypocrisy and misogyny at the heart of this movement.

Even people who believe in gender identity know that self ID will be abused - it's just that they only think it matters when men are affected or when money and rank are involved. Pass it on.

Interesting article in Tatler

www.tatler.com/article/trans-toffs

Still loving this thread! - couldn't make this shite up!

No one believes the legal fiction they are about to create.

Where are all the transmen screaming shouting about this? - oh yeah wait- they're women and 'lived experience from birth' an' all that!

Please someone make sure this question is asked on the Penny Mordant thread, it's really important in showing how our rulers don't really believe the bullshit they're pretending to

By 'you' I mean the Government.

No, not an alliance with right wing fascists. That is totally missing the point.
How can you say Transwomen = women, but also say Transmen = unequal to men. That's reflecting the male bias.
If you want equality then both have to apply. Transmen = men (even if that means taking a heritary title from your younger brother)

"The real answer is that the Bill is so bad because it is based on a deception. The whole idea is a deception. My noble friend Lord Tebbit, who regrettably is not here, has said this all along. It is based on a deception whereby you say, "Here is a person who was born a female," and then you say, "We have decided 40 years later that he was born a male". That is a deception. "

Snappity Because if someone could change sex to get a peerage and a multi-million pound estate there's potential for abuse. Or worse, someone could be pressured or blackmailed into changing sex so that that don't inherit. It's about peerages not sex.

Good grief, alliance with right wing racists now?

It's simply a case of two wrongs not making a right.

The question is, as stated in the OP
'Why is this the exception to 'trans people ARE the opposite sex they identify as?''

Why is this the exception rather than the rule, that transitioning does not override other people's sex-based rights?

I do not think that a female who identifies as a man should be privileged over a female who does not. How is that something that any feminist can support? confused And I certainly don't think that a female who pretends to identify as a man should either.

I agree. Why on earth would you push for women who pretend to be men, to have different rights to other women. While I do believe that no one should be discriminated against (not the same as having access to female areas/posts), I’m not doing anything to push the fantasy that people can change sex. That would be an own goal, as the TRAs would use it to say that feminists are sexist.

snappity said....Because if someone could change sex to get a peerage and a multi-million pound estate there's potential for abuse

So women might pretend to be trans to abuse the system ...but men woukd never pretend to be trans to abuse the system

Have i got that right?

(But yeah agree that the whole system of primogeniture needs amending)

'Because if someone could change sex to get something they wanted but weren't entitled to a peerage and a multi-million pound estate there's potential for abuse.'

Absolutely. If someone female could identify in to the old boys club and gain the privilage therein, that would be awful 😮

Illuminating. Well, not to us, but might give some a wake up call and realised the rationale for this needs to be more widely considered:
'Because if someone could change sex to get something they wanted but weren't entitled to a peerage and a multi-million pound estate there's potential for abuse.'

Agreed Errol, however it’s fascinating that this is the one acceptance to the ‘I am who I am’ acceptance, is it not

TBH though, sorting out primogeniture isn't top of my to-do list.

There were a few issues like this one though like the trans woman not entitled to pentions that as only just been resolved in courts. So I suspect that this one will also need a case to push it through and change the law

Agree.

Because they are born female and have vaginas and therefore will always be lower than any born male. It really is as simple as that

Well we could promote. It Ereshkigal get everyone on here to get. Behind it so that we can make. This importent change happen

I will get behind it Bespin.

Totally support this
I believe that the sexist discrimination in primogeniture should be scrapped entirely.

I don't think this should be promoted. The correct solution is the one I gave upthread.
'The correct cure for the primogeniture problem is of course to stop discriminating against women,as has already been done in the case of royal succession, so that this provision would be rendered completely unnecessary.'

I do not think that a female who identifies as a man should be privileged over a female who does not. How is that something that any feminist can support? And I certainly don't think that a female who pretends to identify as a man should either.

I believe this anomaly should be publicised.

I believe that the sexist discrimination in primogeniture should be scrapped entirely.

Because the case was held in great secrecy, with the effect that it was unable to be considered in other judgments on the legal recognition of gender variance.

It couldn't be used as precedent for transmen (or presumably even intersex males misidentified at birth) but that in no way implies what you stated, that this case ' is the reason that trans men can not'. It seems to be irrelevant. Other than, perhaps, alerting the powers that be to the possibility of such a claim, but that's not what you seemed to be saying. (I'm afraid I find your posts a bit hard to follow)

Well we could promote. It Ereshkigal get everyone on here to get. Behind it so that we can make. This importent change happen