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.

Invisible

I know, who'd a thunk it?

A link to an article in the Tatler:
www.tatler.com/article/trans-toffs

Don't religious organisations also have exemptions? A female couldn't identify as a man and become a Catholic priest or an Imam etc.

Because if someone could change sex to get a peerage and a multi-million pound estate there's potential for abuse

The primogeniture rule applies to the nobility title. It does not apply to other assets or land the deceased person might own. Being the successor to the title does not mean the other assets are inherited unless a will includes them.

Intestacy (where there is no will) rules do not favour sons over daughters.

Because if someone could change sex to get a peerage and a multi-million pound estate there's potential for abuse.

Where's your sliding scale on where there is "potential for abuse"? I thought we just have to take people's word for it?

snappity that would never happen

Of course not. And it would only affect a tiny number of people.

Don't religious organisations also have exemptions? A female couldn't identify as a man and become a Catholic priest or an Imam etc.

Yes, there's an exception in the Equality Act for Ministers of Religion.

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.

That was the sound of my irony-meter exploding. It has now been replaced by the gentle flutter of cardboard drifting to the floor, which I think must be the sound of Snappity's house of cards collapsing round Snappity's ears.

Gosh. So the two big exceptions (primogeniture and the priesthood) both affect women rather than men. Sheer fucking coincidence.

So Snappity is now asserting that no man would change gender to prey on women, or to advance in sport, but damn right women can't be trusted not to change just to piss off their younger brothers & grab the family wonga?

To be fair, if our dear old dad was a belted earl I can see the temptation to wind up kid bro a bit...

There are only two instances where women might identify as men and gain something that is currently denied to them, and these are both exceptions in the GRA or Equality Act. Most women are not in the position to inherit a peerage or wish to be a Catholic priest, so it would be a very rare occurrence for a woman to take advantage of this.

Meanwhile there is enormous potential for abuse by predatory males who might identify as women. Women are supposed to just accept this.

The law, as it stands, and under the changes being considered, is incredibly sexist.

hackmum

I know right?

Fermats

I overuse it, but "hoist by their own petard" sums it up nicely

That was the sound of my irony-meter exploding. It has now been replaced by the gentle flutter of cardboard drifting to the floor, which I think must be the sound of Snappity's house of cards collapsing round Snappity's ears.*

x2

I can't believe Snappity is suggesting that all trans men are selfish, greedy money grabbers.

jellyfrizz

Yes. Transphobe

I think the exception for transmen stands because no-one truly believes it's possible to change sex.

This is all hilarious and goes to prove what we have all been saying all along. No-one actually believes that you can change your biological sex.

No-one actually believes that you can change your biological sex.

And they most certainly don't believe the notion that a trans person was 'misassigned' at birth so that a transman really and truly was always a man merely 'trapped in the wrong body'.

This proposed legislation is one of the biggest pieces of straight male activism ever.

Transwomen are women but also transmen are women.

It shunts all those gender non conforming men into the box ticked women but also keeps gender non conforming women still in the box ticked women (if it looks like they might gain something by claiming male status).

This is a massive win for gender conforming men.

This and snappitys response perfectly illustrates the utter hypocrisy that surrounds this whole issue.

I, for one, am glad snappity has acknowledged that people may abuse the system.

Men and non-men. Yup.

The consultation asks what other parts of the GRA should be changed. This is probably one ripe for deletion.

Yes, the last question basically says "Anything else?" Primogeniture and ministers of religion are the obvious things to mention (though I'm sure that they will be ruled out of scope for the consultation, as they say on multiple occasions it's only about the process for getting a GRC...)

This is probably one ripe for deletion.

Sorry, do you mean you think that protections against potential abuse should be removed rather than extended to cover possible abuses by males?

The correct cure for the primogeniture problem is of course to stop discriminating against women,as has already been done in the case of royal succession, so that this provision would be rendered completely unnecessary.