First trans peer a step closer as hereditary candidate claims seat

I remember there being discussion about primogeniture in the HoL when the GRA was being thrashed out, and me thinking it was far too far-fetched to ever actually be an issue.

Who knew?

I'm almost sad we didn't get more of this during the female civil rights movement.

Or was there perhaps a "first female voter in a General Election!" article, featuring a similar person, back at the start of the 20th century, that's since been forgotten?

Thanks for that, @OldCrone. I was obviously confused!

Yes.

Sorry, that link doesn't work. Try this one.

Christine Goodwin v. UK

The GRA was passed because the Labour government at the time had to do something quickly in response to an ECHR judgement in favour of a UK citizen who wanted to get married. The citizen was female but had for years lived under a male name. The citizen's partner was female and living as such. Both birth certificates said female, so they couldn't get married.

This is correct apart from the sex of the people involved. Christine Goodwin was a MtF transsexual (who had followed the now familiar route of being married to a woman, fathering children, then coming out as trans when middle aged).

This is the judgment from that case:
hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng#{%22itemid%22:[%22001-60596%22]}

Increasingly seeing female used to describe TW where even a year back (I think) woman would have been used but female was left for ... you know... females.

Bad reporting and scope creep.

The GRA was passed because the Labour government at the time had to do something quickly in response to an ECHR judgement in favour of a UK citizen who wanted to get married. The citizen was female but had for years lived under a male name. The citizen's partner was female and living as such. Both birth certificates said female, so they couldn't get married. The ECHR said everybody has a right to a family life, including marriage, so the UK government should make it possible for the citizen and partner to marry. The obvious solution was to introduce same-sex marriage, but they didn't think they could get that through Parliament at the time, so they decided to railroad through the GRA with very little time allowed in either the Commons or the Lords for discussion.

A few MPs and Lords did their best to point out all sorts of possible problems with this new law, many of which have indeed come to pass, but they were fobbed off with assurances that this would only affect a tiny number of people. Experts said there were unlikely to be more than 5000 people in the whole of the UK who would qualify to get a GRC. This was an accurate estimate, as that's about the number of GRCs issued in the 18 years since.

The government's line was that this was a 'legal fiction' designed to make life easier for a tiny group of people with an intractable psychological problem. It was never intended that the people with GRCs would be considered literally to have changed sex.

However, from what I've read about the lobbying process that led up to the GRA, the activists who'd been pushing for something like this for a while never intended to stop there. The GRA was a foot in the door, a springboard for far more extensive changes they wanted to push through. And look where we are now. No more pretence that this huge societal change is a niche matter to help a few thousand adults suffering from gender dysphoria as certified by a psychiatrist. The lobbyists want the GRA scrapped not because it's unnecessary now, given we do have same-sex marriage, but because it doesn't go anywhere near as far as they believe it should. They want no gatekeeping at all, no requirement to have dysphoria, self-ID for all.

Above totally agree.

Has anyone put this example to Stonewall? Surely this is a great talking point to blow a hole in the 'theory'. If twaw then how come a tw can inherit a hereditary title that is for men only? And if they believe they are women, shouldn't they reject the title?

Might send an email...

What this does show is that the GRA 2004 was intended as a massive deceit on society. The Peerages clause makes it plain that this law means no-one can change biological sex and no-one changes legal sex either:

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

That the Labour Party wrote a law with the expressed intent to deceive our entire society is utterly shameful.

We need to Repeal the GRA 2004.

As my husband memorably said once, 'Hey, I didn't make the rules!'

This takes the biscuit, and it's such an admission that this person is definitely not female. I think this is an example of using the rules when it suits them.

It's very telling in that all the furore surrounding the GRA reform I've never seen a TRA individual or org try to change this exception. They went hard for the spousal exit clause but this - not a peep, not even in defence of transmen.

Yes a thorough belt and braces approach surrounding the gender recognition act. Amazing that this exception was acceptable.

Hmmm, ironic that biological women I believe aren’t allowed to proclaim that they’re men and inherit a dukedom, etc. Even if they legally change gender.

but obviously a biological man can do what he likes, have his cake and eat it!

My head's just exploded all over again. I had quite a job putting it together after seeing on Twitter a screenshot of a transman in a relationship with a transwoman saying on Reddit (I think) that the transwoman had told the transman that it wasn't the transman's place to comment on the abortion debate because the transman has male privilege. The transwoman of course could comment. The transman was trying very tentatively to make the point that only one of the two of them stood any risk of becoming pregnant and deciding to have a termination of pregnancy, and surely that person should have the right to comment on this issue. So close, so close ...

Mostly male MPs can imagine someone pretending to be a different sex to get power and money, but they can't imagine someone pretending in order to get access to victims to abuse. Or scholarships, Olympic medals and women-only shortlists (so power then).

'Pretending' never happens as long as it affects someone else then? Or is it that they can imagine women pretending but not men?

You'd think a commentator who was obsessed with class and gender would love this subject and write at length about the unfairness. Wherefore art thou LOJ?

I would pay good money to see that! How would the TWAW crowd spin this, presumably that must believe the opposite and that all TMAM.

And we're not supposed to call it a men's rights movement

What happens if the older sister suddenly comes out as Trans?

And if trans women are women then Matilda shouldn’t inherit, surely.

Clearly none of you appreciate how hard it is to be born white, male, and an upper class Oxbridge educated socialist, in this day and age. Have a heart!

He finally said he was done with the church when our daughter was born, he said if the church wouldn't consider her for Pope it wasn't the church for him.

I couldn't decide if it was hilarious or quite touching.

Neither.
He is completely in the right.

My husband always had a bit of a difficult relationship with the RC church, unhappy memories from childhood. He had quite an unpleasant parish priest whereas I had a lovely priest so we viewed things differently.

He finally said he was done with the church when our daughter was born, he said if the church wouldn't consider her for Pope it wasn't the church for him.

I couldn't decide if it was hilarious or quite touching.

Another female first that would have been significant gone to a male.

How marginalised.

Yes, but the title, estate, and everything else still passes to Matilda, s/he just won't get to sit in the (aptly named) House of Lords as well.

@RoobarbandCustud
Given that Mathilda retweeted the comment below, Mathilda must, like the rest of us, agree that hereditary titles are a load of bobbins and will be refusing to accept such an obscenity:

"Today, an unelected member of a royal family stood up in a chamber of unelected Lords (while disproportionately elected MPs watched on) to announce that in the name of an unelected monarch, a corrupt government would be scrapping the human rights act.

Isn't the UK great?"