Why can't transmen inherit over males?

I can't believe Snappity is suggesting that all trans men are selfish, greedy money grabbers.

That was the sound of my irony-meter exploding. It has now been replaced by the gentle flutter of cardboard drifting to the floor, which I think must be the sound of Snappity's house of cards collapsing round Snappity's ears.*

x2

hackmum

I know right?

Fermats

I overuse it, but "hoist by their own petard" sums it up nicely

There are only two instances where women might identify as men and gain something that is currently denied to them, and these are both exceptions in the GRA or Equality Act. Most women are not in the position to inherit a peerage or wish to be a Catholic priest, so it would be a very rare occurrence for a woman to take advantage of this.

Meanwhile there is enormous potential for abuse by predatory males who might identify as women. Women are supposed to just accept this.

The law, as it stands, and under the changes being considered, is incredibly sexist.

So Snappity is now asserting that no man would change gender to prey on women, or to advance in sport, but damn right women can't be trusted not to change just to piss off their younger brothers & grab the family wonga?

To be fair, if our dear old dad was a belted earl I can see the temptation to wind up kid bro a bit...

Gosh. So the two big exceptions (primogeniture and the priesthood) both affect women rather than men. Sheer fucking coincidence.

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.

That was the sound of my irony-meter exploding. It has now been replaced by the gentle flutter of cardboard drifting to the floor, which I think must be the sound of Snappity's house of cards collapsing round Snappity's ears.

Don't religious organisations also have exemptions? A female couldn't identify as a man and become a Catholic priest or an Imam etc.

Yes, there's an exception in the Equality Act for Ministers of Religion.

snappity that would never happen

Of course not. And it would only affect a tiny number of people.

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

Where's your sliding scale on where there is "potential for abuse"? I thought we just have to take people's word for it?

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

The primogeniture rule applies to the nobility title. It does not apply to other assets or land the deceased person might own. Being the successor to the title does not mean the other assets are inherited unless a will includes them.

Intestacy (where there is no will) rules do not favour sons over daughters.

Don't religious organisations also have exemptions? A female couldn't identify as a man and become a Catholic priest or an Imam etc.

A link to an article in the Tatler:
www.tatler.com/article/trans-toffs

Invisible

I know, who'd a thunk it?

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

Because no-one involved in passing the GRA believed that people can change biological sex. They just wanted to make a few legal matters easier for trans people.

They were not the slightest bit concerned as how this would affect women, but really anxious to make sure it did not affect a man's inheritance and seat in the House of Lords.

And I think it is really important to start flagging this up in the name of equality. Whatever applies to transwomen should also apply to transmen.

#ManFriday has clearly shown that the men do not like it when they are the ones asked to give up their privileges.

It is sex that is a protected characteristic in the Equality Act and that applies to both men and women.

snappity that would never happen

And ya know, it’s one thing that the ruling class might actually give a shit about.
If they don’t want to shit on their own doorstep with this, then it’s pretty reasonable for us not to want to let them shit on ours.

I think that this is one of the things that needs to be really flagged - because if they can make an exception for this then it shows that at a very basic level there is a flaw with their argument that TWAW because they're not if they are the eldest son and set to inherit a title. Because it works both ways - means that a trans woman doesn't lose out on their inheritance, but likewise a trans man doesn't gain an inheritance.

Given that the line to the throne is now done by birth position and not sex then birth position, maybe there is an argument for all hereditary peerages to go with age rather than sex, which would remove the problem of sex and gender and people changing in order to gain or lose money and title...

But definitely a stop and think moment for many people because it's the arguments as to why it is important that are also the arguments as to why this whole GRA thing is unfair. A case of having their cake and expecting to eat it too methinks.

OT but have people seen this, linked from the one winterlight gives?

www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-40713645

What would happen if an eldest son transitioned to become a transwoman?

Would they then be stripped of their inheritance in favour of a younger brother and if not wouldn't that be similar to deadnaming?

This could make an interesting test case;

www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-42182747

Hm, I'm not sure this situation is exactly covered by any of the rules. Perhaps because in real life, women abusing rules to harm men is a vanishingly rare phenomenon whereas the other way round isn't?

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

So you define abuse as only pertaining to money. You think there is nothing women have which men want, aside from money?

Hansard is fascinating. You could spend all afternoon and beyond on there.

"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. "