'Mumsnet to argue in court that TWAM'

Yes but the right to be called Lord Snooty Duke of Snootydom does not mean that the money and land of the deceased Lord Snooty goes to the eldest male born child of Lord Snooty unless directed by a will or trust.

I’ve always thought that the GRA doesn’t affect peerages, titles, and entailed estates is a dead giveaway.

Transmen are men, unless they are the eldest daughter of a duke, and then they are always women.

Gra sayspropertyand peerages or am I reading that wrong

Essentially yes, you are. If someone wants to leave property to their eldest son it would have to be specifically set up somewhere.

Oh boy, oh boy, oh boy...

The law states that they should be treated for all purposes as their 'acquired gender', not that they are the acquired gender.

Yes, aGRC is a fiction that the GRA makes legal in certain circumstances. In other circumstances they are exempt from being considered as the legal gender, and their sex is recognised. Such as women’s refuges etc etc.

Human beings cannot change sex, no amount of posturing and rhetoric and fucking stupid statements on Twitter will ever change the basic biological fact that Women cannot become Men. Men cannot become Women.
To me it really doesn't matter if a person has a GRC, they will always be of the sex of the body they were born into, not assigned at birth.
Go well STEPH and take Stephs to make sure that you're ok 🤣

There is no primogeniture rule in who inherits land, money and assets

Gra says property and peerages or am I reading that wrong

www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2004/7/section/16

I saw that Twitter comment. I think Someone is making things up.

There is no primogeniture rule in who inherits land, money and assets.

How does it work with taking their seats in the House of Lords?

“I'm not sure about this - doesn't the fact that some men are allowed demonstrate that it's NOT discriminating against men”

No it doesn't. An action is discriminatory on sex grounds if it disproportionately affects one sex. It doesn't have to exclude or affect all members of one sex class.

A job condition that all applicants must be at least 5'9" when there is no rational need or justification for this on practical or aesthetic grounds discriminates against women as far more women will fail to meet it. It doesn't matter that some women are taller and some men are shorter.

Primogeniture ignores gender reassignment. A male will inherit even if he has changed sex. A female cannot change her place in the inheritance pecking order by changing sex to male

You do know this relates only to the right to be called Lord, Duke etc? It doesn't apply to actual money and assets. There is no primogeniture rule in who inherits land, money and assets.

“I'm not sure about this - doesn't the fact that some men are allowed demonstrate that it's NOT discriminating against men”

Well, obviously, it will be for a court to decide. But I would argue that if they aren’t relying on the single sex exclusions of the equality act, then a requirement that people “identify as female” is going to adversary impact people of the male sex as the vast majority don’t identify as female.

Sex discrimation doesn’t have to be direct. If you exclude women from a service by requiring that, say, participants have ample facial hair (and such hair is not actually needed for the service to be performed), then you are engaging in sex discrimination even if there are a few women who have ample facial hair and can participate.

Ummmm?? Mumsnet backed down? What? This whole thread (linked and attached) reads like wishful thinking. Is MN doing a reverse ferret??

mobile.twitter.com/flyinglawyer73/status/1185241904016973824

Stephanie Hayden @ flyinglawyer73
After an about turn #Mumsnet have decided against litigating that #transgender women holding a GRC are not to be considered as having the sex of a woman. Sensible decision.

Repeal the GRA and end this fucking farce

It was primogeniture which made me realise that for all the bleating that TWAW, this is nothing more than a men's right's movement.

Some animals are more equal than others, eh?

Wow Walthamstow! I knew I'd read something.

youllhavehadyourtea 😂😂

'...stephs are being taken...'

Of course Big Steph would never make anything up for attention!

Ie some men (legally men through having no GRC) are allowed to do something (be on an all woman shortlist) which other men aren't allowed to do.

I'm not sure about this - doesn't the fact that some men are allowed demonstrate that it's NOT discriminating against men - I don't think all men need to be allowed. I'm not sure whether "gender reassignment" works both ways, e.g. can you argue you're being discriminated against because your gender has not been reassigned, e.g. a man claiming discrimination on the basis of gender reassignment because a transwoman is allowed on an all woman shortlist and they are not because their gender hasn't been reassigned?!

So if a transmans GRC means nothing In cases of primogeniture, why should I believe anyone's GRC, either the GRC is a fact or it's not.

Wednesday No it has not. Primogeniture ignores gender reassignment. A male will inherit even if he has changed sex. A female cannot change her place in the inheritance pecking order by changing sex to male.

Isn't that SO telling?

Apropos of my previous post, here is the thread I was referring to:

www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/3418617-mumsnet-is-breaching-section-26-of-the-equality-act-2010-harassment-by-hosting-feminist-forums-that-discuss-gender-critical-issues-legal-case?pg=1

But the law around primogeniture still says TMAW & TWAM doesn't it? or has the law been updated?

I just skim read this thread

www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/3536131-If-men-s-sex-based-rights-i-e-peerages-money-power-and-position-are-protected-by-the-GRA-why-can-t-women-s-be?pg=2

which seems to indicate that an older Transman couldn't inherit Instead of his younger brother. The law concerning inheriting money and power says women are always women no matter what certificates they hold or how they personally identify.

Shouldn't the law be consistent or how are we ever to put our faith in it?

Huh.
I wonder how this case will go....