Primogeniture- who is a woman?

[Mumofgirlswholiketoplaywithmud]

I was wondering if anyone knew whether the Scottish Government's redefinition of the word "woman" affected Primogeniture, or whether they still know what a woman is when they want to exclude them from things?

No - they are just attempting to redefine the word "woman" for the purposes of the Gender Representation on Public Boards (Scotland) Act 2018.

Primogeniture is still covered by s16 GRA 2004, and as you would expect Parliament decided that it would not be affected even if one obtains a GRC:
www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2004/7/section/16

I would not imagine it could because the provision that primogeniture is unaffected by a GRC is part of UK legislation (GRA).

I don't think the Scottish parliament has powers over peerages anyway.

I thought that the Scottish definition was just specific to the Gender Representation on Public Boards thing. I'm not sure of all the details but didn't one of the women's groups fighting this lose in court because the judge said it was only this one piece of legislation so wouldn't have a wider effect on women? Which is obviously nonsense. But yes, everyone certainly does seem to go all vague about who is a woman when it's about giving our stuff away to males, but get crystal clear again when it's about excluding actual women from equality and power. Who could have guessed?

The government QC also said that the government would consider transwomen as women in all cases EXCEPT where it was explicitly stated otherwise, which has not been consulted upon, legislated for or agreed in any way.

The Scottish Gov were and are looking for set down cases as precedent.

[quote TiredAndGrumpy85]No - they are just attempting to redefine the word "woman" for the purposes of the Gender Representation on Public Boards (Scotland) Act 2018.

Primogeniture is still covered by s16 GRA 2004, and as you would expect Parliament decided that it would not be affected even if one obtains a GRC:
www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2004/7/section/16[/quote]
thanks- that is useful/ disappointingly unsurprising

I mean I'm disappointed in the law/ not in you tiredandgrumpy*. Ps your username= my life

No women cant actually 'trans' themselves in to male privilage, shocker right!

@dyslek

No women cant actually 'trans' themselves in to male privilage, shocker right!

Wow, who'd have thought it, crikey, blow me down.

I wonder if pushing to get this bit of the law changed might focus some minds? I suppose it's so niche most people don't care. It's just so BLOODY OBVIOUS that it's all set up to benefit one sex but not the other.

It also makes it obvious that the lawmakers themselves don't believe a word of what they're doing.

didn't one of the women's groups fighting this lose in court because the judge said it was only this one piece of legislation so wouldn't have a wider effect on women?

That is the Scottish Government's argument in court. The judicial review has not yet been decided.

@Floisme

It also makes it obvious that the lawmakers themselves don't believe a word of what they're doing.

I really want someone who makes these laws explain how this fits in with the doctrine "transmen are men"

Thats interesting because it creates an unequal outcome that discriminates against women, which goes against The Equality Act...

I mean I'm disappointed in the law/ not in you tiredandgrumpy. Ps your username= my life

Haha I understood!

The other thing to highlight is that a woman cannot become a man for the purposes of primogeniture even if they go to the effort of obtaining a GRC, whereas my understanding is that men can count as women for the purposes of the Scottish legislation if they merely indicate that they intend to transition.

Thats interesting because it creates an unequal outcome that discriminates against women, which goes against The Equality Act...

Ah but it's primary legislation created prior to the Equality Act 2010, and the Equality Act only actually (contrary to popular belief) covers discrimination in certain context - eg education, provision of good and services, employment etc. - nothing that would be relevant for primogeniture.

There was equality legislation before The Equality Act, and I understood the Govt is an organisation that is bound by the anti discrimination legislation?

Yep, females can't identify into male privilege, but males can identify into female spaces.

Reminds me of the rules for the Freemasons, who were applauded for their inclusivity because they decided to allow trans women who'd joined the masons as men to continue their membership. So... continuing to include biological males. While our equivalent (continuing to welcome females based on the fact they're female, however they identify/present) is branded transphobic, of course.

The other thing to highlight is that a woman cannot become a man for the purposes of primogeniture even if they go to the effort of obtaining a GRC, whereas my understanding is that men can count as women for the purposes of the Scottish legislation if they merely indicate that they intend to transition.

And also, if a man who is due to inherit a peerage transitions, even with a GRC (which makes him legally female) he will be viewed as a man for the purposes of primogeniture.

(or I should say, not allowed)

Well the old legislation was the Sex Discrimination Act, but again it's very similar to the Equality Act and I only applies in certain contexts and there are also exemptions in any event when doing something required by another Act of Parliament.

The Equality Act applies to the Government in various ways - eg DWP's provision of benefits counts as a "service" under the Act, and the Public Sector Equality Duty applies to many Government decisions, but it doesn't stop Parliament from making whatever laws it likes. The anti-discrimination provisions in the Human Rights Act can limit what Parliament is supposed to do in some limited circumstances though to be fair.

Its almost as if people can pick and choose which laws to make or keep or uphold and yet somehow the outcome only works in men's favour.

@ChChChChChangesToUsername

Yep, females can't identify into male privilege, but males can identify into female spaces.

Reminds me of the rules for the Freemasons, who were applauded for their inclusivity because they decided to allow trans women who'd joined the masons as men to continue their membership. So... continuing to include biological males. While our equivalent (continuing to welcome females based on the fact they're female, however they identify/present) is branded transphobic, of course.

Forgive my ignorance, but what does primogeniture still convey? Estates in the absence of a will no longer go to the eldest male now, nor does the crown in the British monarchy. Is it just titles, like Lord and earl etc?

@MountainWitch

Forgive my ignorance, but what does primogeniture still convey? Estates in the absence of a will no longer go to the eldest male now, nor does the crown in the British monarchy. Is it just titles, like Lord and earl etc?

It affects hereditary peerages. This means that it reduces the number of women eligible to sit in the House of Lords.

lordslibrary.parliament.uk/women-hereditary-peerages-and-gender-inequality-in-the-line-of-succession/

Adopted children can't transition themselves into inherited privilege either. So many parallels between these legal fictions except the one where we don't lie to adopted children about their biology.

Thanks OldCrone