GRA - is the primogeniture clause still there?

[Lovelyusername]

I am thinking perhaps only the way to put this into the clear light of day is start protesting regards to the primogeniture clause on the Propsed GRA.

Ie a biological man in a dress is a woman for the All women shortlist’s, plus all women’s safe spaces but a man who has had surgery to be a trans man isn’t.

Is there a petition I can sign?

I agree that politicians are weak on this issue. Because it shows up the hypocrisy so clearly. While politicians from all parties are lecturing women about the need to be 'inclusive' and proudly portraying themselves as champions of this new era of 'gender fluidity', they are quietly going about ensuring that the definition of 'man' stays decidedly unfluid, when it comes to things that men actually care about.

It really shows that they don't believe the stuff they are spouting on the trans issue, not for one moment. If 'gender' really is fluid, and it's a human rights abuse to deny a trans-identified person's gender, why is it not a monstrous injustice to deny the trans-sons of the aristocracy their rightful inheritance? Either biological sex is meaningful in law or it isn't.

Agreed. Maybe we should start a petition to convey this, if there isn’t one.

Strange how everyone is silent on this this clause.

I do find it unbelievable that the only way this whole thing could be of any benefit to females by allowing them to 'self-identify' into a title is very conveniently an exception. Apparently transmen activists are too busy pushing for transwomen to be admitted on AWS from which they will themselves be excluded, to be bothered about primogeniture.

If you start a petition, do link it on this board.
I still dont know why the primogeniture clause doesn't breach the EU human rights act, but UK politicians just opted out of that.

Religious institutions also have an exemption. There will be no TIF priests in the catholic church for example.

This is the tipping point for me!

I've kept my head under the parapet but if anything highlights how male centric this whole thing is - this does.

So it almost sounds like there are no benefits for women and only ones for men.

Why can’t any one else see or admit this?

Blatant misogyny

If all else fails, the solution might be to launch a full on assault on primogeniture, Eton, men's clubs and the church, with cries of 'trans exclusionary!' and 'bigot!'

It might be quite fun

Sorry ! I meant no benefit for men and only benefit for women in trans friendly speech.

Or to be clearer and ‘teansphobic’ no benefit for (trans) men and only benefit for (trans) women.

But as such a large point of this is change the meaning of speech this cannot he pointed out.

And those golf clubs that don’t admit women

transmen are men

the only concern is I don't want some poor transman having to go to a male prison for a dody tax return otherwise I'd go for this full pelt. You get sent to a high security prison whilst they sort out the 'right' prison for you which can take a few months.

We could argue that it's unreasonable to incarcerate transmen in men's prisons despite the fact they're men because they're at risk of transphobic violence and also male pregnancy in the male estate.

There's already a precedent for putting legally male people in the women's estate to protect them from transphobic violence (Tara Hudson et al)

That is an interesting point tho. Have any transmen committed crimes?

Agree OP. It's unbelievably hypocritical.

A TIF should not end up in a men's prison, that would be very bad. On the other hand, perhaps if gender confused teenage girls are informed that, should they commit a prison-worthy crime in the future, that's where they will end up, perhaps it would give them pause for thought about how male they are.

We remain signed up to the ECHR don't we Crow? Do you mean the Charter of Fundamental Rights?