Meet the Other Phone. Child-safe in minutes.

Meet the Other Phone.
Child-safe in minutes.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

To wonder why older daughters of the landed, don't just identify as men to avoid being discriminated against because of their sex and to inherit?

79 replies

Pangurban1 · 11/08/2016 21:01

It is in the news that the Duke of Westminster has died, leaving oodles of dosh, property and a title. As primogeniture, for males only, was brought in by the Normans and remains unchanged in an inheritance like this, 2 women were passed by in favour of their young brother.

As identifying as someone of the opposite sex seems to be quite a moveable feast, I don't know why they don't just use this in order not to be discriminated against because of their sex.

Many people who say their are of the opposite sex have lived lives in complete accordance with their biology. Men who say they identify as a woman having provided and imparted their male gametes to sire children in the same way as any man does. Similarly, women who say they identify as being a man, have had their own female gametes fertilized and gestated a baby just like any other woman reproduces.

So, why doesn't a woman who is passed over, simply say she identifies as a man (for the purposes of inheritance, anyway) and not be discriminated against on the basis of her sex. You can change your birth certificate now, too. And it seems you don't have to do a thing differently except say you don't really identify as the sex you appear to be or have even reproduced as.

It would be interesting to see what would happen.

AIBU to think that something that would benefit a woman and prevent her from being discriminated against based on her sex would somehow not be recognized and would be the one time someone of one sex insisting they are really the other would be called out as a crock?

OP posts:
splendide · 12/08/2016 07:48

How interesting, there's a specific carve out.

OhtoblazeswithElvira · 12/08/2016 07:50

There was something resembling a class action at European level a few years ago - three elder daughters joined forces. They lost

It is an interesting idea OP.

IcedVanillaLatte · 12/08/2016 07:59

"It's a burden"

  • well, so what? If we want equality, that means equality in everything. Women are as capable of carrying that burden as men are.
OreosAreTasty · 12/08/2016 08:18

How the hell does this help with discrimination against women? :S
If anything it makes a mockery of the lgbt community and women in one go :S

mimishimmi · 12/08/2016 08:35

Maybe they don't want to identify as a man? Maybe they are fine with the property passing down the male line? Since a lot of these properties are held in trust and the family members only receives an income on it so as to reduce tax burden, maybe they already get an equal or fair portion of that income? Maybe it's none of our business? Confused

Gini99 · 12/08/2016 08:39

That seems a strange clause to put in - I wonder if it was added in the Lords?

I'm not sure exactly how it got in but I had a quick look and there was some debate about it in the Lords here

Actually there are similar clauses in lots of legislation. So (more shockingly) adopted children aren't treated as heirs for peerages see here :

"Property devolving with peerages etc.

(1)An adoption does not affect the descent of any peerage or dignity or title of honour.
(2)An adoption does not affect the devolution of any property limited (expressly or not) to devolve (as nearly as the law permits) along with any peerage or dignity or title of honour."

Similarly if you use donated sperm/eggs the child is excluded (see the end of the section here :

"nothing in the provisions [that define motherhood and fatherhood in donation cases] affects—
(a)the succession to any dignity or title of honour or renders any person capable of succeeding to or transmitting a right to succeed to any such dignity or title, or
(b)the devolution of any property limited (expressly or not) to devolve (as nearly as the law permits) along with any dignity or title of honour.

So essentially if William the Conqueror wouldn't have recognised your marriage then nor will we... it probably shouldn't be a surprise that the law on peerages seems stuck in the 11th C...

alltouchedout · 12/08/2016 08:39

Because people aren't trans for financial gain or to make a political statement. As you well know.

Gini99 · 12/08/2016 08:40

whoops meant your 'claim' not 'marriage' in the last bit

Egosumquisum · 12/08/2016 08:41

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

Felascloak · 12/08/2016 09:06

I don't think illegitimate children can inherit.

Felascloak · 12/08/2016 09:09

Children from civil partnership also couldn't because of donated sperm/eggs rule Shock
Jesus how old fashioned.....

splendide · 12/08/2016 09:39

The thing is though, inheritance rules are not meant to be fair. People can set trusts and things up however they like.

Egosumquisum · 12/08/2016 09:45

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

splendide · 12/08/2016 09:55

Yes I agree Ego it would be really interesting to see what would happen if George was gay or something.

Blatant discrimination is also allowed when dealing with inheritance - plenty of people disinherited for marrying the wrong race or being gay. It's one of those things that I can't really see how you fix it. I suppose you could have the strict rules that other countries have where you can't chose where your money goes at all.

Dapplegrey2 · 12/08/2016 10:15

"It's ridiculous to inhereit any title or job just for being born into a family."

Aussiemum - family owned companies such as JCB, Swires and Wetherbys Bank (which administers racing's finances) to name but three, are successful companies which provide jobs.
Do you think they should be confiscated by the government because they are family owned?

Pangurban1 · 12/08/2016 10:15

So the one place this legal device cannot be used is to allow women to prevent themselves being discriminated against by law because of their sex. Legislation allowing a changed sex identity to be recognized in practically all other cases, and birth certs to be rewritten, contains a section that upholds and actively discriminates against women based on their sex. Not recognizing tg or the device of an acquired opposite gender or sex identity when it would come down to getting rid of discrimination against women.

Plus ca change.

Discrimination against women based on their sex not anybody's business?

Ego, It wouldn't matter if anyone came out as LGB in this discrimination. Inheritance is not based on sexuality. As for a person's sex, T wouldn't matter either. They don't recognize it to disinherit men or to avoid discrimination against women.

OP posts:
Pangurban1 · 12/08/2016 10:20

Is there legislation that upholds someone being disbarred from inheriting because they marry someone of another race? Like there is for women being disbarred bacause of their sex.

The Longleat guy hasn't being disinherited.

OP posts:
Pangurban1 · 12/08/2016 10:23

Like for like, half the population is disbarred based on their sex.

OP posts:
MadameCholetsDirtySecret · 12/08/2016 10:26

Primogeniture was a nonsense for pre dna testing generations, as there was no way to determine without doubt, who the father was. The mother is indisputable. However the misogyny of ages has used every method to subdue women and it still happens today.

That said I wouldn't want to be a duchess for anything.

Batteriesallgone · 12/08/2016 10:58

Oooh I would love if a monarch was atheist and so the Church of England would lose its hold on the state/government.

But...that whole 'oh I must be meant to have all these fine things and opportunities oh and stonking piles of cash because God made it that way is just so appealing isn't it? So I can't see that happening anytime soon.

Pangurban1 · 12/08/2016 11:13

Seeing that changing your sex is not recognized legally when it would avoid discrimination against women or disinherit men/a male line, the question has changed.

Why is tg and/or an acquired sex/gender identity of the opposite sex expressly not recognized in order to uphold a legal discrimination against women based on their sex? Considering that it is recognized for most other things.

OP posts:
VestalVirgin · 12/08/2016 11:14

This sexist inheritance law really shouldn't be legal in the first place.

Titles are one thing, they're just a stupid little game those people play, one that has no significance ... but land and houses and money aren't playthings, they are real resources that are withheld from women on basis of their sex, and that should not be legal.

Inheriting things because you are related to the people who owned them makes sense because people should have a right to leave their stuff to those they care about, and in most cases, that's their children. (But I am totally in favour of changing laws so that it becomes easier to leave stuff to non-related people. Some people don't like their relatives.)

Egosumquisum · 12/08/2016 11:16

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

VestalVirgin · 12/08/2016 11:17

Why is tg and/or an acquired sex/gender identity of the opposite sex expressly not recognized in order to uphold a legal discrimination against women based on their sex? Considering that it is recognized for most other things.

Because we live in a patriarchy. Thusly, acquired gender identity is recognized by the law in cases where it makes absolutely no sense but harms women (i.e. when it comes to allowing males who identify as women into women's prisons, shelters, public pool showers and changing rooms, etc.) but not in cases where it would give an advantage to women, i.e. female sexed people.

Feminism achieved much, but patriarchy is still alive and kicking, and will erase much of what feminism fought for with the Trojan horse of transgenderism.

Pangurban1 · 12/08/2016 11:46

"You'd be better off asking the House of Lords who came up with this clause."

Does it not go back to the commons for consideration of the amendments? Did the Equalities Minister and others not object to this legislation that explicitly discriminates against women based on their sex, to prevent it being passed?

Both houses voted to pass legislation that discriminates against and upholds disinheritance of women based on their sex. Only a few years ago.

Titles matter when they entitle you to sit in the lords and legislate. I know this has reduced no, but still exists.

OP posts:
Swipe left for the next trending thread