Why can't transmen inherit over males?

The people who passed the law, I mean. And this clause doesn't appear to be on the table for change, nor have I come across many TRAs discussing it.

As to why - patriarchy :-(

What do you think it says about their belief in transgenderism?

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.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/SirEwannForbes,11thhBaronet

'Sir Ewan Forbes of Craigievar, 11th Baronet (6 September 1912 – 12 September 1991) was a Scottish nobleman, general practitioner and farmer. Due to the presence of an intersex condition at birth, he was officially registered as the youngest daughter of John, Lord Sempill'

The medical evidence was that his sex was 'indeterminate at birth' and therefore his re-registration as male was valid and he did inherit. I'm not sure exactly how this relates to the question of transmen not being able to inherit.

I’m feeling very concerned for Snappity. Given what Snappity has just said, I fear that Snappity may be just about to peak. 😟 It’s ok Snappity, we’ll be waiting for you in the GC bar. First round is on me. 😉

This as been a test case in 1950 and is the reason that trans men can not as a Scottish lord was challenged In court by there family. Member who was not entitled and won the case was kept mostly secret. I've. Talked about it before it's easy to find on. The Internet.

Why is this the exception to 'trans people ARE the opposite sex they identify as?'

Looks like genderism to me and extremely transphobic.

I agree :-) Another area of the GRA which should be reformed.

As to why - patriarchy :-(

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.

Thanks Snappity, you've done an excellent job of explaining that to us. It really helps put everything into perspective when you give your side of the picture.

1. is Queen Regnant
2. is Queen Consort

But you still can't have a Queen Regnant with a King Consort, because the very fact that he has a penis is king makes him More Important

Though the law on succession was changed just before Prince George was born, so if Charlotte had come first she would have been first in line to the throne after William. And, importantly, Louis has not skipped over her the way that Andrew and Edward skipped over Anne to move up the line of succession because they were born with a penis

They are still called a Queen. You wouldn't get a King with a Princess consort wife. Like the current Queen and Prince consort husband. Maybe Prince Charles would change this as there is so much complication following the divorce etc.

I was under the impression that there were two sorts of queens:

1. The monarch who is HM The Queen. Not a lesser status than HM The King.

1. The King's wife, ie a Queen consort

Isn’t it just Datun.

Like they say, once you can see it, you can’t unsee it.

I always think of that monarchy example though as one way I was inculcated into the unquestioning acceptance of the principle of male primacy as somehow just the natural order of things. I remember vividly asking my mother why Prince Phillip wasn’t King Phillip, and her explaining to me, effectively, that men are just more important than women - even though she was very consciously a “women’s libber” and always very aggrieved about the injustices she experienced as a woman herself, she’d had it drummed into her so deeply that there was a level where she just didn’t question it.

And I think that happens to all of us. Which explains a lot of the libfem enabling of and collusion with male primacy.

It’s painful to wake up and see how bad things really are. Easier to stay asleep, sometimes.

Why is this the exception
You know why. Because no one , and I do mean no one, actually believes that people can change sex (because they can’t). It only becomes important when it threatens men, rich men.
And Snappity, I'm embarrassed for you.

TalkingintheDark

It's everywhere. Absolutely everywhere.

It's like suddenly being able to look through the matrix. Profoundly disturbing.

Oh and great work, Snappity! Magnificent own goal there 😂

Why? As others have said, because everybody KNOWS you can’t really, actually change sex. Because everybody KNOWS that whatever you do with it ultimately, being born with a penis makes you more important than those born without one. It’s just there. Just a fact of life in patriarchal society.

Why is Queen Elizabeth’s husband Prince Phillip and not King Phillip? Because King trumps Queen. If a man is the hereditary monarch, his wife is automatically Queen, because as a queen her status is still lower than his = doesn’t threaten or lessen his. But if a woman is the hereditary monarch, her husband cannot be a king. His status would then be higher than hers, so it cannot be allowed.

Because all other things being equal, those born with a penis are more important, count for more, than those born with a vagina.

And even if Princess Charlotte had been born first, this rule would still have applied, so despite the apparent equality in succession now, the monarchy still embodies the values of patriarchy.

And obviously, status in the monarchy is going to personally affect even fewer of us than succession in the aristocracy(!) but this is one of those strands of misogyny that stands out when you look at it closely and see that absolute reality of male primacy woven into the fabric of our society; the unquestioning acceptance of it that permeates our culture through and through.

I still think we should be raising this every single time someone says twaw and have to be treated identically. If the law can make exceptions for when trans men are not actually men then there is no reason we can’t have laws for when natal sex not gender feels matters!

Hackmum - Ferrers is a great pub quiz answer, having held office in every Conservative government between 1962 and 1997, and then one of the 90 elected hereditary peers that stayed in the Lords in 1999. Unforunately he died in 2012.

However, Lord Tebbitt is still around, and is very accessible (his Telegraph column is worth reading if only to see how he engages with BTL comments). It would be interesting to know if his views have changed since the debate in which he said that giving birth was a pretty clear way to tell if someone was female...

actual lol
wipes tear

Thanks Snappity you're on fire tonight!

It would be hilarious except it’s deadly serious and depressing. I was cheered up by Snappity’s amazing hypocrisy but it’s an example of how misogynistic the world is and how willing so many people are to expose women to the risk of abuse but care desperately about protecting men’s money and men’s status.

And the irony is that the primogeniture laws are unjust towards women anyway. So you know any woman falsely IDing as a man would be doing so to get equality.

Can’t have that can we?

At least it shows the absolute hypocrisy at play.

Still can't stop smiling at this : Women ID as men to abuse inheritance laws, BUT predatory men would never do the same to abuse women & girls.
Haaaa Haaaa!

Such irony. But what an excellent comparison.