If men’s sex based rights (i.e. peerages, money, power and position) are protected by the GRA why can’t women’s be?

[Figureof80]

I’ve been a regular lurker around this board since the BMA decided that “expectant mother” was an offensive term.

Penny Mordaunt’s recent obfuscation in response to Mumsnetters genuine concerns about the GRA has raised some questions in my mind that I hoped you might be able to answer. I did do a site search on peerages and the GRA but couldn’t find a recent thread on the topic and didn’t want to resurrect a zombie one.

The GRA is very clear, transmen cannot inherit peerages. It is spelled out in this paragraph from the act
“16) Peerages etc.
The fact that a person’s gender has become the acquired gender under this Act— (a) does not affect the descent of any peerage or dignity or title of honour, and (b) does not affect the devolution of any property limited (expressly or not) by a will or other instrument to devolve (as nearly as the law permits) along with any peerage or dignity or title of honour unless an intention that it should do so is expressed in the will or other instrument.”

Questions:

1. This is quite blatant discrimination against transmen why are there no outraged twitter storms about it? Penny Mordaunt stated that she believes transwomen are women. Does she also believe that transmen are men because the GRA is telling us that not all transmen are men. There is a subset that are not man enough to inherit peerages. How is this possible? All transwomen are women but not all transmen are men?
2. We are told that the UK lags behind other countries such as Canada, Ireland and Malta in self-ID and this is why the GRA should be reformed. If it is so important to keep up with other countries how can the government support such an anachronistic and discriminatory exemption within the act? If reform of the GRA is necessary surely the government should take the opportunity to remove this clause. Will it do so? Has the subject come up in the recent consultation on the Act?

A quick google shows me that the Duke of Westminster inherited his title and 9 billion pounds in 2016. He has two older sisters. Earl Spencer inherited his title in 1992 he had three older sisters.

3. I wonder if the fact that peerages are ring fenced from transmen suggests someone suspected the prospect of a large inheritance might tempt someone who was not genuinely trans to self ID for personal gain? But we are constantly told that no man is going to self ID as female just to gain access to female spaces. Why the difference? Why are transmen more suspect than transwomen?
4. If the government insists that protection of hereditary peerages must remain in the act then surely they can put in place equal exemptions to maintain female sex based protections i.e. it can’t only be possible to protect things that matter to men?

Does anyone know if these questions have been answered by the government and if so where and what was said?

Thanks

Literally a million dollar (pound) question.

I would so LOVE to sue the government on this one. Blatant sexism and looking after their own and throwing women to the wolves.

Very well said, Figureof80.

So, the GRA can clearly distinguish between men and women when it comes to male peerages, male titles, male inheritance etc.

So, why is it unable to distinguish between men and women when it comes to women's safety, security, dignity and privacy?

Talk about having your cake and eating it; having both the penny and the bun.

Yet another facet to this bonkers ideology. Thanks for sharing

They are excellent questions.

Id assume it is because nobody actually believes people change sex, so they don't care about the rights of transmen because they are female. Trans rights activists are only concerned with male rights.

Because women having sex based rights and being treated as equal human beings gets in the way of powerful and monied men's sexual freedoms.

This is indeed the million dollar question! When I read on here that the priesthood, peerage etc were exempt from accepting gender recognition certificates, that confirmed to me that the entire TRA movement is a joke. How can they bleat on about equality when transmen are being discriminated against to an egregious degree?

It just shows that society does uphold sex-based protections - but only for biological Males. Women are, as always, thrown under the bus.

I've often wondered why this point is never raised in media discussions of this issue. I mean talk about a Peak Trans moment! It exposes the entire farce for what it is- the object is to co-opt and remove women's sex based rights.

Excellent thread op. But you've answered your own question really - transmen are women and therefore don't really matter. Trans women are men who are women and therefore retain all the privilege that comes with a penis.

A group of women have lodged a case about hereditary peerages at the ECHR. Their website doesn't mention using the gender recognition act as a basis for any part of their suit (maybe they are and its just not on their website seems stupid not to use it as a basis).

(If you read the BBC link, you'll see a quote from their barrister, it depresses me no end that hes is still saying gender in place of sex when hes involved in a case that hinges on it)

www.bbc.com/news/uk-44844335
daughtersrights.co.uk/facts/

Because men will do whatever it takes to preserve their power.

Excellent question op.

I also think organisations like the masons have been very successful at not having to admit transmen. I know they
allow brothers transwomen to stay in if they transition. But not transmen to enter. Always protect your own. Wasn't that Edward north guy involved in that?

Meanwhile women's organisations have to admit everyone. Such a joke.

Tweet the usual TRAs who are mentioned on this board - Lily and co. Trans people being discriminated against! See if they run with it.

This has always irked me

Yes OP! And you're absolutely right, the time has come to make more of it. It's impossible not to see through the duplicity.

There are women I'm sure, who would absolutely identify as male to inherit millions of pounds worth of property, a title and, I'm assuming, a seat in of the House of Lords?

It goes straight to the nerve centre of men's power. And will be hotly contested.

And there are enough people now
who although questioning, are still slightly on the fence.

This will have them jumping off the fence faster than you can say I'll take mine in ermine.

Can trans women inherit peerages? I mean, is their biological sex recognised for the purposes of inheritance?

I'd be willing to bet a lot of money that they are male when it comes to inheritance

Wikipedia says there are 820 hereditary peers. If we suppose at any one point in time in 50 percent of those the eldest child of the current holder is female. With 1 in every 1000 people being transgender, and with a title being inherited once every 30 years or so, that means approximately once every 60 years this might be a problem. For one man.

Of course there is the possibility that the eldest child who is a boy might be transgender. But they can avoid their own issue by not getting a GRC if they want to keep the peerage.

Is my maths right? We have legislation to prevent possible harm that might occur to one man in the entire population once every 60 years. And yet Karen White assaulted four women in prison and prison policy hasn’t substantially changed yet?

Thanks for raising this, OP - I've been banging on about this for ages. Mostly in my own head, admittedly, but occasionally online.

The Act basically admits that the ability to legally change one's sex is open to abuse. So it does everything in its power to make sure that the law can't be abused - by women! And absolutely nothing to make sure it can't be abused by men.

It's almost comical, to be honest. If you wanted the perfect illustration of the word "patriarchy", you have it right there.

There was a priest ( I assume C of E) who came out as a transwoman. I remember hearing about it because Jenni Murray interviewed said priest on Woman's Hour, and expressed surprise at the reverend's lack of interest in how difficult the struggle had been for women to become ordained. This minister, who had not faced any discrimination in following the calling, knew nothing about women's issues in the established church. Jenni later got taken to task for her interviewing style.

What would happen if a Catholic priest came out as a trans woman?

We missed a trick in not asking Penny Mordaunt this question. It could have been another one that wasn't her Department to answer.

The Earl of Balfour suggested that under self ID his eldest daughter (he has four) should identify as male to enable her to inherit as otherwise it all goes to her uncle.

This was denounced as making a mockery of the struggle by some TRAs. I wonder if they also thought that Karen White was making a mockery?

Women could inherit if they change gender, says Earl www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-42182747

The Earl of Balfour suggested that under self ID his eldest daughter (he has four) should identify as male to enable her to inherit as otherwise it all goes to her uncle.

I don't understand the fuss. It seems logical to me: if men can "identify" as women and take places on all-women shortlists and roles reserved for women then women should be able to "identify" as men and have the rights that come with that.

Sauce, goose, gander and all that.

Of course that's not logical. Women can't take advantage of this in the same way as men can, where wpuld it all end!?!

Well exactly stealth. It's a one way street