Why can't transmen inherit over males?

[Pratchet]

Why is this the exception to 'trans people ARE the opposite sex they identify as?'

Looks like genderism to me and extremely transphobic.

Well, quite.

I think the “official” answer I have seen referenced is that it would not be fair to the hitherto oldest son.

Because God forbid we tell someone that their whole understanding of themselves and their place in society based on how their body’s been perceived since birth is no longer valid on another’s say so

So what? They ARE men. It's never fair to younger sons. That's life.

Because transmen are ................... men?

When is a man a not a man?

I think this should be on the AIBU board

Why is this the exception to 'trans people ARE the opposite sex they identify as?'

Because if someone could change sex to get a peerage and a multi-million pound estate there's potential for abuse. Or worse, someone could be pressured or blackmailed into changing sex so that that don't inherit. It's about peerages not sex.

Or worst of all, a man could pretend to be a woman to gain access to female spaces and sexually or violently assault a woman. Never mind the money. That's what matters.

Because definitions can only be changed if it benefits men

Yes, imagine the potential for abuse if someone could easily access something that society’s rules say isn’t for them.

Cui —boner— bono indeed

Oh, so they might change sex to bag a nice big inheritance, but predatory men wouldn’t dream of doing it to further their predation on women…
Oh snap, blown up by your own Bomb.

All the LOLs!

It's worth ploughing through the Hansard discussion of the Lords committee consideration of the GR Bill back in 2004 here (If you just want to skip to the peerage bit, there's a search function - try ).

I rather agree with this point: "I felt that either the Bill is so good that it should apply to everyone or that it is so bad that the Government cannot find a way of getting round the issue without making an exception for hereditary Peers."

there's potential for abuse

And heaven help us if we allow a female to abuse a male. The other way round...not so much.

Imagine someone changing gender to abuse the system

Well i never

Ah yes, being a money grabbing woman and taking away entitled man money is far worse than anything a man could do, including and especially rape and sexual assault.
I’m sure this is one of the rules of misogyny but I can’t remember which.

Hansard is fascinating. You could spend all afternoon and beyond on there.

"The real answer is that the Bill is so bad because it is based on a deception. The whole idea is a deception. My noble friend Lord Tebbit, who regrettably is not here, has said this all along. It is based on a deception whereby you say, "Here is a person who was born a female," and then you say, "We have decided 40 years later that he was born a male". That is a deception. "

Because if someone could change sex to get a peerage and a multi-million pound estate there's potential for abuse. Or worse, someone could be pressured or blackmailed into changing sex so that that don't inherit. It's about peerages not sex

So you define abuse as only pertaining to money. You think there is nothing women have which men want, aside from money?

Hm, I'm not sure this situation is exactly covered by any of the rules. Perhaps because in real life, women abusing rules to harm men is a vanishingly rare phenomenon whereas the other way round isn't?

This could make an interesting test case;

www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-42182747

What would happen if an eldest son transitioned to become a transwoman?

Would they then be stripped of their inheritance in favour of a younger brother and if not wouldn't that be similar to deadnaming?

Ooh that's good

OT but have people seen this, linked from the one winterlight gives?

www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-40713645

I think that this is one of the things that needs to be really flagged - because if they can make an exception for this then it shows that at a very basic level there is a flaw with their argument that TWAW because they're not if they are the eldest son and set to inherit a title. Because it works both ways - means that a trans woman doesn't lose out on their inheritance, but likewise a trans man doesn't gain an inheritance.

Given that the line to the throne is now done by birth position and not sex then birth position, maybe there is an argument for all hereditary peerages to go with age rather than sex, which would remove the problem of sex and gender and people changing in order to gain or lose money and title...

But definitely a stop and think moment for many people because it's the arguments as to why it is important that are also the arguments as to why this whole GRA thing is unfair. A case of having their cake and expecting to eat it too methinks.

And ya know, it’s one thing that the ruling class might actually give a shit about.
If they don’t want to shit on their own doorstep with this, then it’s pretty reasonable for us not to want to let them shit on ours.

snappity that would never happen

Why is this the exception to 'trans people ARE the opposite sex they identify as?'

Because no-one involved in passing the GRA believed that people can change biological sex. They just wanted to make a few legal matters easier for trans people.

They were not the slightest bit concerned as how this would affect women, but really anxious to make sure it did not affect a man's inheritance and seat in the House of Lords.

And I think it is really important to start flagging this up in the name of equality. Whatever applies to transwomen should also apply to transmen.

#ManFriday has clearly shown that the men do not like it when they are the ones asked to give up their privileges.

It is sex that is a protected characteristic in the Equality Act and that applies to both men and women.