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

It makes me laugh that they can clearly see the risks in providing a financial incentive for opportunistic female peers to use the GRA to snaffle an entire family fortune but they absolutely deny that there is even the smallest chance that a male abuser might be similarly opportunistic in making use of the GRA to get access to vulnerable women.

Because 'that never happens'.

Even though we know that the male sex abuser population are endlessly obsessive and opportunistic in their pursuit of ways to access women and children, to the point that they will spend their entire lives masquerading as friendly pop stars / TV presenters / priests / sports coaches / boy scout leaders for the sole purpose of being able to sexually abuse women or children.

But anyway, that never happens...

I didn't know about this, it's blatant sexism.

"Five daughters of hereditary peers are to challenge a law that stops them from being elected to the House of Lords. They are taking the government to the European Court of Human Rights in a bid to end the system of male primogeniture which has resulted in almost all titles being passed to male heirs." July 2018 - did they lose the case?

Daughters in legal bid for House of Lords seat rights

Fuck me... every time I think I’ve hit the peak there is a major geological shift and I realise I was not actually at the top

Good spot OP- I remember this being called out ages ago but it was before the denial of biological reality really hit, now it looks every more appalling.

July 2018 - did they lose the case?

Looks like it's still going through parliament.

hansard.parliament.uk/commons/2019-03-05/debates/8209EC9C-5FA2-4693-89A4-90F10662AB51/HereditaryTitles(FemaleSuccession)

Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 22 March and to be printed (Bill 349).

Ordered, That Philip Davies, Ms Harriet Harman, Sir Christopher Chope, Jess Phillips, Esther McVey, Christine Jardine, Tim Loughton, Mrs Maria Miller, Vicky Ford, Sarah Champion and Jo Swinson present the Bill.

Do any of them actually know what a woman is, though?

The peerage exemption in combination with transwomen's special access to Freemasons says everything anyone needs to know about this particular men's rights movement. It's gender pick 'n' mix. For men.

I remember reading about a peer who wanted the law changed so that his daughter could inherit the title as he didn't have any sons. I'll try and find the article.

Nobody raises this in interviews and in the media but yes OP, it’s a gaping hole in the ideology.
Men get to keep the rights and privileges afforded the male sex. They also gain all the advantages of their new declared gender, with bonus access to all protections women have fought for, all the activities and events of our own and the keys to all our spaces.

Women stay female and nobody gives a toss what gender they assume.

See also C Jenner’s achievements under previous ID being retained and celebrated, despite some of those sporting awards not even being eligible for women to compete for.

Neat trick Bro’s

It's such bollocks isn't it? Pun intended

Hi, you've raised a very interesting question and one I'm surprised has not been picked up on before. As you correctly say, the GRA exempts children of peers from being able to recognise their assigned gender - this is because hereditary titles are done through 'male heirs body' and 'male' is defined by your chromosomes. It is disgraceful that this became law in 2004. Daughters' Rights is challenging the government over the existence of male primogeniture, the most serious consequence of this being women's ineligibility to stand in the by elections to the House of Lords but the more powerful symbolism that the we ask the government to lead by example and say that it is no longer permissible to treat daughters with prejudice. Legalised sex discrimination within the walls of parliament will end, sending a message to all communities that daughters are worth the same as sons. This will also make the exemption of hereditary peers children from the GRA redundant because it won't matter what gender you are. We are not saying this is the best system to have, but that this is the way our society is structured and we can improve it to make it fairer in incremental steps, the way most reforms are made. Philip Davies MP is presenting a second reading of our bill on the 22nd March, this Friday asking for an extension of the Succession to the Crown Act which makes sex irrelevant regarding hereditary inheritance. If you would like to know more, please contact me. Many thanks, Charlotte Carew Pole, Director of Daughters' Rights

DaughtersRights aka Charlotte, thank you so much for appearing here. It's always fascinating to hear from the horse's mouth, so to speak, but many experts here have to be carefully pseudonymous lest they lose employment as lawyers, teachers, academics, social workers, doctors etc.

Are you aware of A. any peers who genuinely believe themselves to be trans? (What with epidemics of social contagion going round tight communities such as girls' boarding schools, I can't believe the elite are immune to ROGD for example) and B. any daughters of peers who are planning to become trans men (possibly without any great changes to their lives) and test the law?

Hi, I am not aware of any trans heirs or any daughters who would undergo irreversible surgery to test the law but our bill is having a second reading this Friday which negates this exemption. Chloe Smith, Minister for the Constitution has given the position that the government do not support the bill but Penny Mordaunt, Minister for Women and Equalities has offered her full support. We are hoping the government do not object on Friday and the bill can pass to committee stage - if you feel you want to get in touch with your MP to express support for the bill I can send you a letter. Email me on [email protected] Many thanks, Charlotte

Hi Charlotte, thanks for your input to this discussion. Are you aware that it would not be necessary for a daughter to have any surgery to identify as a man? Penny Mordaunt was quite clear on this subject in the answers she gave last week on Mumsnet when she confirmed that male bodied people with male genitalia are women. She said:

“The Gender recognition Act 2004 does not require trans people to have genital surgery to legally change their gender. This law has been in place since 2005. At the time it was world leading for not requiring trans people to be sterilised in order to legally change their gender – because of course that is what genital surgery effectively does. Many other countries follow a similar approach or go further than the UK position.”

I did not know that. Our bill however is seeking an end to the last state sanctioned sex discrimination, which is male primogeniture and will negate the exemption from the GRA as well so I'm not sure it makes a difference to our goal or the outcome which benefits everyone. I'd be very interested on your thoughts on the matter. Many thanks, Charlotte

Another thing that is interesting in the GRA act is the religious exemption - priests etc do not need to marry a couple who are same sex, even if one has a GRC if they ‘reasonable believe that they were born in the opposite gender’. I paraphrase but that is the gist.

So not only does the law recognise there are differences (obviously) between women and transwomen, men and transmen, it also recognises that people can tell the difference (by sight, presumably).

It's absolutely blatant. Priests get to keep their dubious opinions but a woman must be re-educated.
How on earth can such a one sided situation be legal???

Her dignity, PTSD etc all calls for re-education and his views based on imaginary friends are valid.

Hi Charlotte. My thoughts?

I can see no justification in the 21st century for a system of male primogeniture. If we take the government at face value and accept its assertion they want to be “world leading” in terms of equalities legislation then they have no excuse for your bill not passing. They can’t cherry pick the equalities they want to support and still be a shining example of modern democracy.

But what do I know? I am just a female who refuses to believe that humans can change sex. The government has made it very clear that this is wrongthink but irrelevant anyway as female opinions do not matter when they interfere with male needs and desires.

I might be guilty of wokephobic wrongthink but the government is guilty of at best catastrophic naiveté, at worst venal opportunism depending on who is the puppet master behind this shit show. How can politicians who have just passed legislation to make upskirting illegal possibly consider revisions to the GRA which will effectively eliminate single sex toilets, changing rooms, shelters and prisons? How can they not see the damage this will do? The answer is they see very clearly but they don’t care because it is only female safety, privacy and dignity that is at risk. And if they don’t care about the wellbeing of the entirety of the UK female population I doubt that they will give much genuine consideration to a subsection of that population requesting equality in inheritances. Did I say the Government can’t cherry pick the equalities they want to support? My mistake, yes they can and have done so already when they ring fenced male privileges in the GRA 2004. I am sorry but I don’t think your bill will pass because it has too much negative impact on the people that do matter to our politicians i.e. the ones with power, position and most importantly penises.

A snap general election is a possibility and I will be unable to vote as there is not a single party that seems to care about the damage being done to women’s rights. Penny Mordaunt complained that there weren’t enough boxes on birth certificates, well there won’t be enough boxes on my ballot paper, no matter how many candidates stand, because there won’t be one saying, “none of you useless buggers”.

Bump - this goes before Parliament tomorrow (Friday 22 March).