Please or to access all these features

Add post

Watch this thread

Save thread

Start a new thread

Flip thread

Hide thread

My feed

Active Unanswered threads

Getting started FAQ's

Unanswered threads Acronyms Talk guidelines

Hide shortcut buttons

Talk

Feminism: Sex and gender discussions

Feminism: chat

Flip

1 2 3 4 5

Original poster

Why can't transmen inherit over males?

114 replies

Pratchet · 03/07/2018 15:44

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

Looks like genderism to me and extremely transphobic.

OP posts:

Judashascomeintosomemoney · 04/07/2018 12:44

Why is this the exception
You know why. Because no one , and I do mean no one, actually believes that people can change sex (because they can’t). It only becomes important when it threatens men, rich men.
And Snappity, I'm embarrassed for you.

GardenGeek · 04/07/2018 12:45

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

TalkingintheDark · 04/07/2018 12:48

Isn’t it just Datun.

Like they say, once you can see it, you can’t unsee it.

I always think of that monarchy example though as one way I was inculcated into the unquestioning acceptance of the principle of male primacy as somehow just the natural order of things. I remember vividly asking my mother why Prince Phillip wasn’t King Phillip, and her explaining to me, effectively, that men are just more important than women - even though she was very consciously a “women’s libber” and always very aggrieved about the injustices she experienced as a woman herself, she’d had it drummed into her so deeply that there was a level where she just didn’t question it.

And I think that happens to all of us. Which explains a lot of the libfem enabling of and collusion with male primacy.

It’s painful to wake up and see how bad things really are. Easier to stay asleep, sometimes.

TimeLady · 04/07/2018 13:20

I was under the impression that there were two sorts of queens:

The monarch who is HM The Queen. Not a lesser status than HM The King.

The King's wife, ie a Queen consort

Melamin · 04/07/2018 13:25

They are still called a Queen. You wouldn't get a King with a Princess consort wife. Like the current Queen and Prince consort husband. Maybe Prince Charles would change this as there is so much complication following the divorce etc.

OlennasWimple · 04/07/2018 13:35

is Queen Regnant
is Queen Consort

But you still can't have a Queen Regnant with a King Consort, because the very fact that he has a penis is king makes him More Important

Though the law on succession was changed just before Prince George was born, so if Charlotte had come first she would have been first in line to the throne after William. And, importantly, Louis has not skipped over her the way that Andrew and Edward skipped over Anne to move up the line of succession because they were born with a penis

stealthsquirrelnutkin · 04/07/2018 23:55

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.

Thanks Snappity, you've done an excellent job of explaining that to us. It really helps put everything into perspective when you give your side of the picture.

SarahAr · 05/07/2018 00:11

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

Looks like genderism to me and extremely transphobic.

I agree :-) Another area of the GRA which should be reformed.

As to why - patriarchy :-(

Bespin · 05/07/2018 00:20

This as been a test case in 1950 and is the reason that trans men can not as a Scottish lord was challenged In court by there family. Member who was not entitled and won the case was kept mostly secret. I've. Talked about it before it's easy to find on. The Internet.

PositivelyPERF · 05/07/2018 00:23

I’m feeling very concerned for Snappity. Given what Snappity has just said, I fear that Snappity may be just about to peak. 😟 It’s ok Snappity, we’ll be waiting for you in the GC bar. First round is on me. 😉

ErrolTheDragon · 05/07/2018 00:38

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sir EwannForbes,11thhBaronet

'Sir Ewan Forbes of Craigievar, 11th Baronet (6 September 1912 – 12 September 1991) was a Scottish nobleman, general practitioner and farmer. Due to the presence of an intersex condition at birth, he was officially registered as the youngest daughter of John, Lord Sempill'

The medical evidence was that his sex was 'indeterminate at birth' and therefore his re-registration as male was valid and he did inherit. I'm not sure exactly how this relates to the question of transmen not being able to inherit.

Bespin · 05/07/2018 00:45

Because the case was held in great secrecy, with the effect that it was unable to be considered in other judgments on the legal recognition of gender variance.

Ereshkigal · 05/07/2018 00:51

As to why - patriarchy :-(

What do you think it says about their belief in transgenderism?

Ereshkigal · 05/07/2018 00:53

The people who passed the law, I mean. And this clause doesn't appear to be on the table for change, nor have I come across many TRAs discussing it.

Bespin · 05/07/2018 00:55

Well we could promote. It Ereshkigal get everyone on here to get. Behind it so that we can make. This importent change happen

ErrolTheDragon · 05/07/2018 00:58

Because the case was held in great secrecy, with the effect that it was unable to be considered in other judgments on the legal recognition of gender variance.

It couldn't be used as precedent for transmen (or presumably even intersex males misidentified at birth) but that in no way implies what you stated, that this case ' is the reason that trans men can not'. It seems to be irrelevant. Other than, perhaps, alerting the powers that be to the possibility of such a claim, but that's not what you seemed to be saying. (I'm afraid I find your posts a bit hard to follow)

ErrolTheDragon · 05/07/2018 01:07

I don't think this should be promoted. The correct solution is the one I gave upthread.
'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.'

I do not think that a female who identifies as a man should be privileged over a female who does not. How is that something that any feminist can support? And I certainly don't think that a female who pretends to identify as a man should either.

I believe this anomaly should be publicised.

I believe that the sexist discrimination in primogeniture should be scrapped entirely.

Bespin · 05/07/2018 01:09

Totally support this
I believe that the sexist discrimination in primogeniture should be scrapped entirely.

Ereshkigal · 05/07/2018 01:10

Well we could promote. It Ereshkigal get everyone on here to get. Behind it so that we can make. This importent change happen

I will get behind it Bespin.

ChiefClerkDrumknott · 05/07/2018 01:10

Because they are born female and have vaginas and therefore will always be lower than any born male. It really is as simple as that

Ereshkigal · 05/07/2018 01:11

Agree.

Bespin · 05/07/2018 01:21

There were a few issues like this one though like the trans woman not entitled to pentions that as only just been resolved in courts. So I suspect that this one will also need a case to push it through and change the law

ErrolTheDragon · 05/07/2018 01:21

TBH though, sorting out primogeniture isn't top of my to-do list.

ChiefClerkDrumknott · 05/07/2018 01:31

Agreed Errol, however it’s fascinating that this is the one acceptance to the ‘I am who I am’ acceptance, is it not

ErrolTheDragon · 05/07/2018 01:40

Illuminating. Well, not to us, but might give some a wake up call and realised the rationale for this needs to be more widely considered:
'Because if someone could change sex to get something they wanted but weren't entitled to a peerage and a multi-million pound estate there's potential for abuse.'

Flip

1 2 3 4 5