Journalists- now we’ve had the Cervix Q - ask why transmen can’t inherit Hereditary Peerages

[ShadesOfMagenta]

Is now the right time to unleash upon hapless politicians in interviews:

‘Is it transphobic that transmen cannot inherit Hereditary Peerages’

Niche subject, sure but the sheer brass neck that in the GRA it was specifically excluded that women who then become transmen cannot inherit Hereditary Peerages ahead of their brothers!

@Deliriumoftheendless

Yet transmen seem to dislike the term “breastfeeding” so accepting “cervix haver” seems inconsistent- especially as men have breasts too, but not a cervix.

As far as I can tell, trans people (and allies) are fine with you calling the opposite sex things like that.

So calling women "bodies with cervixes" is absolutely fine with transwomen. Transmen might don't like it, but they don't get much of a say at the Lancet.

Transwomen's opinion overrules transmen's generally.

In a few specific contexts there are more transmen (or female NBs) than transwomen, like personal female healthcare stuff, so they get to have their way with "chestfeeding". It's only the lack of transwomen that lets them get away with it.

But YOU must never use that language for trans people. It's transphobic.

I saw someone the other day being accused of transphobia for calling a "trans girl" a "person with a penis". Screenshots enclosed.

can I just add, that a cervix haver can not join the Masons either.

the Masons allow TW to join, because they didn't want to expel their brothers who transitioned. But they will not allow a TM to join because.......well err........because ..... they are not..... actual men.

unless things have changed in the last few years, seriously doubt it

@NewYearNewTwatName

can I just add, that a cervix haver can not join the Masons either.

the Masons allow TW to join, because they didn't want to expel their brothers who transitioned. But they will not allow a TM to join because.......well err........because ..... they are not..... actual men.

unless things have changed in the last few years, seriously doubt it

Last I heard they were now okay with men, transwomen and transmen but still not okay with women who 'identify' as women.

I could be wrong.

Not sure where they stand on non-binary.

Seriously, when is this ridiculous house of cards going to fall?

Last I heard they were now okay with men, transwomen and transmen

well I am surprised!

I wonder how many TM have been initiated?

@MurielSpriggs

These all obviously point to the biological differences between women and transwomen and cause a breakdown in the TWAW argument and thus I assume for the TRAs these items must be "de-sexed" - hence the issue??

I think it's a big stretch to pin this one on transwomen.

There is a tendency on this board to regard trans politics as a misogynistic plot orchestrated by males. But I think you may have to accept that this particularly rude and objectionable piece of linguistic butchery (cervix-havers, bodies with vaginas, etc) comes from females, or at least is about protecting the feelings of females who identify as men. If anything labelling people like this emphasises that transwomen with male anatomy aren't in the club.

I disagree. This seems to be all about delinking biology from womanhood. So that TW can be validated as women/are not excluded.

It’s why politicians always immediately jump to TWAW when asked these questions (apart from Emily Thornberry, who realised that actually it should be because it’s more inclusive to remember that TM also have a cervix).

And I think a more pertinent question to have them squirm would be whether women can have a penis…

As yes the hereditary aspect is easily dismissed as just what they had to do to get the bill through.

It is however, useful when debating whether TWAW, in law. Because it’s clear from this, that they are not. GRC or no GRC, the exceptions (which also include single sex spaces) mean that they remain legally men, when it comes down to it.

Necessary Scene yes, I don’t think the inconsistency is an accident.

Neither is overlooking hereditary peerages. The general public may be unaware but I can’t believe trans orgs are. Yet very little noise about it.

That screenshot about penis havers is entirely unsurprising.

I think it is a killer question because it clearly shows how this is a men's rights campaign and how the politicians don't really believe what they are enforcing. They don't care about male predators or bad faith actors identifying as women because NAMALT or women being raped and killed is just white noise, but they have thought about a few women identifying as men to get their hands on a title and any concomitant privileges because, presumably, they see women as scheming gold diggers and property as worth protecting. They don't care if a woman loses out by being raped and murdered but they do care if a man loses out on a title and a stately home.

Ask them the question. If a convicted sexual predator can be transferred to a women's prison if he declares himself a woman, why can't the eldest child of a duke inherit the dukedom if she declares herself a man? If they really believe TMAM then they have to change the law. Sod getting it through the Lords. If the Lords doesn't pass it, it means they don't actually believe it.

I suspect transmen were an afterthought, and the real reason is making sure a man doesn’t lose out on his expectations of inheritance by transitioning to being a woman - after all, can’t have chaps missing out just because they like to put on stockings occasionally…

Also TMAM except when it comes to prisons.

Whilst our prisons system has a dozen or so violent and/or sexually violent men who claim to be transwomen in our women's prisons.

Not one Transman would be allowed in our men prisons. The interview I heard discuss this issue made two interesting points.

1. No transman had ever asked to be placed in the male estate.
2. Even if a transman made such a request im the future, it would be denied on safety grounds.

Clearly prisons still know the difference between men and women. So how can that be rounded with letting in men into women's prisons?

Funny how this rare instance of actual 'rights hoarding dinosaurs' turn out to be hoarding entirely discriminatory male rights from females.

It's all very simple. Men would never lie and pretend to be trans in order to gain access to women's single-sex spaces and activities. Men are all honourable and decent, even sex abusers. Nay, especially sex abusers. Any of you dinosaurs who says otherwise is a bigot.

But women are terrible, dishonest, untrustworthy beings who are very likely to pretend to be trans in order to gain an inheritance. If you doubt this, then you are clearly a very naive person who doesn't understand the ways of the world and the wickedness of women.

Everyone got that?

www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/4168284-Staniland-Question-is-so-good-Can-we-think-of-others?pg=20

More questions on here

Yes, this might have been a small clause negotiated by the Lords to get the bill through, but doesn't that fact in itself say a lot? The logic seems to be:

• Both sexes and all genders must be treated equally
• There can exceptions to this where needed for safety (eg spaces for women) or to keep long standing traditions and [reasons] ie rights to peerages
• Where exceptions have been made for the protection of women, the law says TWAW. There is no way anyone with a penis would abuse this- anyone who says they might or is uncomfortable with people with penises in women's spaces is transphobic. Actual biology is irrelevant- even if this is the factor that poses the danger (eg rape). If a few females are hurt by this, it is a price worth paying to avoid upsetting transwomen.
• Where exceptions have been made for tradition/[reasons] relating to rights over men's property, then clearly this must also be an exception from the TWAW rule. Where property and tradition is concerned, obviously biology IS important.

@RoyalCorgi

It's all very simple. Men would never lie and pretend to be trans in order to gain access to women's single-sex spaces and activities. Men are all honourable and decent, even sex abusers. Nay, especially sex abusers. Any of you dinosaurs who says otherwise is a bigot.

But women are terrible, dishonest, untrustworthy beings who are very likely to pretend to be trans in order to gain an inheritance. If you doubt this, then you are clearly a very naive person who doesn't understand the ways of the world and the wickedness of women.

Everyone got that?

But that gets confusing because if TWAW, then they must be untrustworthy, dishonest gold diggers too, who would play pretend for their own gain?!

@foxgoosefinch

I suspect transmen were an afterthought, and the real reason is making sure a man doesn’t lose out on his expectations of inheritance by transitioning to being a woman - after all, can’t have chaps missing out just because they like to put on stockings occasionally…

Quite. Not to forget their kids. You can only inherit if you are the direct heir of the previous heir. Given how many TW are late transitioners, who have already sired their heirs, and given the demographic make up of the Beaumont Society, I can see why they were keen to keep the exception…

(It’s not just the title. It’s the house/castle and estate too. Eg consider that the Duke of Westminster owns half of London or whatever - it can be a pretty big deal…)

I suspect transmen were an afterthought, and the real reason is making sure a man doesn’t lose out on his expectations of inheritance by transitioning to being a woman - after all, can’t have chaps missing out just because they like to put on stockings occasionally

Yes, absolutely.

@MurielSpriggs

Trans women object to the naming of female body parts as belonging to women - sure! #bekind

Not directly relevant, but I assumed that all of this was transmen objecting, or at least so as not to offend transmen?

Saying that cervices only belong to women makes it rather embarrassing for transmen who want to ask about having a smear.

The "cervix-haver" label doesn't really make any difference to transwomen - no amount of linguistic adjustment will give them a cervix. But it makes services involving cervices (I like that!) more inclusive for transmen.

Do I deny biological reality so that some people are not embarrassed? Nope. Only natal females have a cervix.

As we are often told (by actual transphobes, perhaps?), no one would choose to be trans, i.e to access women’s prisons.

Except, apparently, when it comes to oldest children who happen to be biologically female inheriting peerages.

What a load of shite.

There is a tendency on this board to regard trans politics as a misogynistic plot orchestrated by males.

It's not a tendency, it's an observation. There are a tiny number of female transsexuals at the forefront of this movement, but most of the prominent activists are men.

Think critically and ask yourself who benefits and who is harmed and you might understand why we also call it a men's rights movement. Some radical feminists are much more frank and call it a men's sexual rights movement.

As for your statement that it is a stretch to pin the separation of womenhood from female biology, cast your mind back a few years to the women's marches in the US. They centred female reproductive rights as a women's rights issue and talked about issues arising from female biology as a women's health issues.

The organisers were taken to task that this was transphobic as it excluded male transgender people from womanhood. Pussy hats as a symbol of womanhood were shunned or banned, because they sent the wrong signal - that all women had vulvas. This criticism was later extended to the names of all kinds of things.

If it was just about female transgender people feeling dysphoric, you might want to look at what a lot of them said about the issue - Buck Angel started talking about this fairly early - many of them don't want to be reminded of their female biology by people saying, "oh but it's not just a woman's issue, men get periods, too." No, men don't have periods and female transsexuals don't want to be singled out from all other men by this emphasis on their female reproductive system.

And if what you say was true, we'd see far more widespread use of "people with penises" or "prostate havers" or "ejaculators" so as to consciously fight and eventually change the public's understanding of men as having male biology.

@podgydalmatian

So if Price Charles became Princess Charlene would we get King Andrew instead of Queen Anne - seeing as the changes made to royal succession rules a few years back weren't retrospective?

Yes, we'd still get Charles, irrespective of how he identifies. The Act doesn't even to pretend to believe this changing gender stuff when it comes to male privilege discriminating against women.

A woman is denied being able to identify herself out of discrimination against her sex. They're not having it for one minute that she is not a woman, even if she claims to be a man under the act.

A man will not lose the privilege over women, irrespective of an acquired opposite 'gender identity'. He can play it any way he wants and will be recognised as a man for peerage inheritance purposes.

They made sure male privilege and discrimination against females (for a few peers) was not affected at all. David Lammy was not bleating about that. No Lammy, Keir or his mates being shocked over that. While they appear to not give a sh1t about women's everyday experience of safety, dignity and fairness.

It's a good question.

Similarly does anyone know if transmen can be masons?

Sorry meant dinosaurs hoarding the rights to safety, dignity and fairness. Almost as if we think we deserve these as much as men. Lammy, Starmer, et al will see us right about that. Manage our expectations of being regarded as fully human in law and in life.

Sorry that should be:

As for your statement that it is a stretch to pin the separation of womanhood from female biology on male transgender people, etc