Daughters excluded from peerage due to gender outraged by trans woman standing for Lords seat

Quick correction to the history of LG/B and T rights under Labour: Labour did introduce civil partnerships in 2004 (not the Tories). It was marriage they thought was a step too far. The GRA was also 2004.

I think they either need to obey the rules that apply and award Lady Simons peerage to her elder sister as the inheritor now she only has a sister.

Or change the rule and allow women too. One or the other. Can't have neither.

Has a trans boy applied to Eton yet?

Gah - this makes me so angry but it is an example where clear male privilege is unrefutable to illustrate the bonkersness that is GI

Aren’t the Freemasons the same. They accept transwomen but not biological women.

Because, obviously, sex matters.

Thanks for this clear explanation of why the lunatic GRA became law. I never heard of it till years later, despite trying to keep up with feminist news (I hadn’t yet discovered Mumsnet).

Did politicians imagine that normal gay people would claim to be the opposite sex in order to marry? Or that the public would be happier with men in women’s changing rooms etc than with gay marriage?

They are, but they have to be appointed , or enrolled as one of the judiciary or religious peers.

this is about the pathetic hangover of hereditary peers, who are entitled * by sex.

• entitled in three senses!

Ah I understand- it’s the hereditary peerages that only go to men.

it’s all bloody outrageous.

'Currently, no women sit among of the 92 hereditary peers in the House. Less than a third of all peers in the House of Lords are female.

https://lordslibrary.parliament.uk/women-hereditary-peerages-and-gender-inequality-in-the-line-of-succession/

'Fewer than 90 peerages can be inherited by a female heir thereby limiting the number of women eligible to stand and be elected to the House of Lords as hereditary peers'

I don’t understand - I thought women were allowed in the House of Lords?

I mean really, we should be celebrating! Come on, feminists:

'If successful, they would become the only woman, self-identified, among the chamber’s 92 hereditary peers, despite holding a title because they were born a man.'

It's a great day for women!

I think this is the relevant clause in the GRA:

'Males have the right to do whatever the fuck they want, when they want, and its women's place to accept it as the lesser sex. Moreover, women are required to ostentatiously applaud their bravery when they graciously deign to pretend to be more oppressed than we are. '

Yes. Protecting male privilege is a feature of genderism, not a bug.

I read that ‘feature, not bug’ expression on Mumsnet, and loved the way it summed the whole damn thing up so neatly.

Yep.

There is no "legal loophole" as per that article. It's precisely how the GRA was drafted by Labour.

And now we are meant to accept Haldane saying a GRC changes "gender" "for all purposes". The GRA clearly does not and this specific example is a good one.

So does it change things for when males want things or not? Females who transition should - on the face of Haldane - be denied maternity leave.

Or is perhaps the GRA a total mess of a piece of law? Feels like the chickens are coming home to roost.

Quite. It's the only way to retain any sanity and coherence.

Sex is sex, it's fixed, some things are done by sex and that's the end of it.

Gender people can fuck about with to their heart's content, but it's not anyone else's problem and where sex matters, gender choices are irrelevant.

dcbc1234 · Today 11:11
We need to maintain the principal that it is biological sex which matters though as TWANW*.

That makes sense.

principle even

We need to maintain the principal that it is biological sex which matters though as TWANW.

Two disgraces going on.

Transwoman keeping their title squired as a male.

The seat of Parliament being given guidance to ignore the Equality Act Sex based exceptions

We've said this before, but it bears repetition. Way back in the early 2000s a UK national went all the way through the courts and ended up at the European Court of Human Rights seeking the legal right to marry their partner, and won. The person concerned was male, identified as a woman, and wanted to marry a man. This was impossible at the time because birth certificates were required and same sex marriage was not allowed in law.

One way round this would have been to introduce same-sex marriage, but the Labour government felt the UK public was not ready to accept that. (A mistake, I think. Civil partnerships were very readily accepted a few years later when the Tories introduced them.)

Instead, they drew up the Gender Recognition Act, making it possible for people with a psychiatric diagnosis of gender dysphoria to apply to a panel for permission to get a new birth certificate showing the sex they identified with, not their actual biological sex as recorded on their original birth certificate.

Like most British people, I was barely aware this was happening at the time. The House of Commons and the House of Lords had to debate the proposed new law but they weren't given a lot of time to do it, because the government had a big majority at the time and knew they could get this through with minimal opposition. Some MPs and Lords did raise concerns, all recorded in Hansard, but the government's response was (more or less) that this was scaremongering. They were doing this to be kind to a tiny minority of people. Their own experts said there were unlikely to be more than 5000 people in the whole of the UK who would qualify for a gender recognition certificate. They were spot on there, as in nearly 20 years it's been barely more than that issued altogether, I believe.

However, what the government had totally failed to grasp was that activists regarded the GRA as a foot in the door and never intended to stop there, and of course they didn't, as we have seen in the last few years. Self-ID was always the goal, and if you take away the safeguards of panel, psychiatric reports, gender dysphoria diagnosis and so on, and the effect of social media and social contagion, suddenly there are hundreds of thousands of people who don't identify as their birth sex.

Anyway, going back to the debates - having waved aside all concerns about single-sex services and spaces, women's sport, integrity of birth records etc etc - Parliament did make at least one amendment to the GRA before it passed into law. Getting a GRC would have no effect whatsoever on the individual's right to inherit a peerage.

Suppose Lord Marmaduke Bloggs has three children: daughter Araminta, son Josiah, son Ebenezer, born in that order. Josiah is the one in line to inherit the title, as the elder son. If Josiah predeceased Marmaduke, Ebenezer would inherit. Araminta has no chance, because she is a girl. Ludicrous system all round, but that's what we have.

Now suppose in adult life Josiah identifies as trans and takes the name Josie Bloggs. Josie gets a GRC and has a new birth certificate showing that Josie Bloggs is female. Marmaduke dies. It might have been expected that the title would now pass to Ebenezer. Josiah is legally female for all purposes now, after all - but no! Legally female for all purposes, except inheritance of a title! So the title that couldn't pass to Araminta still goes to Josie.

And naturally enough, if Araminta also got a GRC and became Aramis Bloggs, certified male - yes, you've guessed it. Still not entitled to inherit a title, in spite of being legally male and older than Josie.

What a farce.

Male fucking privilege. They are just laughing at us.

If Lady Simon is so convinced he's a woman, why hasn't he fought for his older sister to inherit their father's title? After all ... oh wait. What a load of bollocks. Literally, in this case.

Couldn't it force them to accept women too?

Of course not. This isn't the sudden reveal of an accidental consequence - it was specifically written into the GRA legislation that transition in either direction wouldn't affect hereditary male titles. They set things up this way on purpose.