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!

@CharlieParley

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.

This.

In plain, practical terms, whatever the initial intentions, it does work as male supremacism.

Its working terrifying effectively.

The way to fix this is not to moan at female people for noticing and resisting, but to fix the whopping hatred of women and enjoyment of the effects of this in men who are all too enthusiastic about it.

@ImaBraveNhsHero

It's a good question.

Similarly does anyone know if transmen can be masons?

Yes, looks like they accept men, ftm transitioners and mtf transitioners:

www.google.com/amp/s/www.nytimes.com/2018/08/01/world/europe/uk-freemasons-transgender.amp.html

The only people they don't accept are the little ladies who know their place.

I'm fairly sure at this point if women stamped about it enough, and fought hard enough, we would probably get the trans card entry changed so that women can be masons, go to Eton and other top boys schools, etc etc etc.

Misses the point totally that this shift in legislation and disappearing sex worked entirely to get male people into female spaces absolutely ignoring any impact on females in the process. Worked like a charm.

Female people though have still had to repeatedly point out that the same legislation does not work in the same way for them . There are multiple boundaries they cannot cross equal to male transitioners. Anyone still failing to see the massive sexism in that this is an agenda that benefits males and is to the detriment of females every single time? While insisting sex doesn't exist?

@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

I wonder if those TW go to a single sex, masonic brotherhood quite happily, yet rant at any women looking askew at them in a woman's single sex space.

The "cervix-haver" label doesn't really make any difference to transwomen - no amount of linguistic adjustment will give them a cervix.

Of course it makes a huge difference to them. If "woman" is understood to be the sex designator word for female adults of the human species, no different from vixen, cow, doe, hen or sow, then they cannot be women.

So first of all, the word "woman" must be separated from female biology. So it's not a campaign for women to take up their invitation for cervical screening, it's an invitation to cervix-havers instead.

But it makes services involving cervices (I like that!) more inclusive for transmen.

It doesn't. Female transgender people face a whole range of barriers in accessing cervical screening. Healthcare campaigns about cervical cancer being framed as a women's health issue is a tiny problem on that list, and changing the language to cervix-havers so they feel more included is a shallow and inconsequential solution. Inconsequential for them.

However, we have large numbers of women in hard-to-reach groups that are put at higher risk of cancer by using that language. As cervical cancer charities, both national and international, keep emphasising, between 40% and 50% of women do not know what a cervix is, what it does and that they have one. So if you're talking to "cervix-havers", at best you're reaching only half your target group. Uptake of invitations has been falling for ten years and we cannot remedy that by no longer talking to the target group in language that communicates clearly.

Shouldn't the question be turned slightly?

If the eldest son of a peer decide to transition, shouldn't she then automatically relinquish all rights associated with being a man?

Indeed SvartePetter
Looks suspiciously like men hoarding their rights.

It seems the state made sure a GRA cert isn't worth the paper it is written on when it comes to allowing women a device to avoid sex based discrimination. Can't be done, babes! You cannot pretend you are not of your immutable biological sex.

However, you can run a coach and four through and dismantle women's safeguards. Women had better play nice if it means men wanting access to female single sex spaces.

Any politician invited to answer this question can simply choose to say that it's wrong and that inheritance should follow gender identity. They can give it an example, of one of many, of how the current laws in favour of gender identity don't go far enough.

The only people to lose out will be a theoretical handful of highly privileged white men every decade. Very discardable in the current climate.

It's an invitation to promise something that can delivered at zero cost that will enhance the reputation of the promiser. About the most favourite thing in the world for a politician. It's also an invitation to criticise those in the past who didn't fully embrace the gender identity ideology: "Look at how much more progressive we are compared to those dinosaurs! But there's still much to do!"

Maybe the question should be why females are still discriminated against (for inheritance and political purposes, HOL) and completely passed over, all for the benefit of their male relatives.

Not that a woman who identifies as a man should be able to gain the male privilege. While another woman who doesn't engage in this 'identity' ideology would still be discriminated against.

I’d like to hear the answers to the question framed thus: “Why do you think the GRA explicitly carves out peerages”?

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.
On a recent thread a transman explained how triggering it was to their dysphoria to be faced by phrases such as " womb/ cervix/vagina haver,therefore I don't really accept,that the pressure for this has come entirely from this group. Moreover, as there has been no similar campaign from transwomen to be included as prostate/penis/testicle havers, when discussing male health issues, I feel that the removal of the word woman is driven more by the fact that transwomen object to it being used in a way that excludes them.

On a recent thread a transman explained how triggering it was to their dysphoria to be faced by phrases such as " womb/ cervix/vagina haver,therefore I don't really accept,that the pressure for this has come entirely from this group.

Some of it seems to have come from 'nonbinaries' , who perhaps should be called 'bodies with self-examined navels'.

@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!

It's almost as if the whole system of hereditary peerages is fundamentally flawed!

But this being a women's rights board, the subject under discussion is not: is the whole system flawed it's wtf is this massive example of misogyny demonstrating the whole 'changed sex' thing is for the convenience of men only, and quite blatantly not equal in how it sees women which totally destroys any lingering impression anyone who wrote it really actually believes anyone changes sex

This is a giveaway that it's a luxury belief indulged to enable men's freedoms. That's the point under discussion here. Being a women's rights forum and all.

@Artichokeleaves - yes you’ve nailed it there I think.

Good to keep this thread going during the Conservative party conference too.

Will any journalists ask about this?

@SpindleWorld

It is a good question. I presume the remaining 92 hereditary peers in 2004 and their sexist mates in the Lords didn't give a fuck about any part of the impact of the GRA other than this?

this

This is a giveaway that it's a luxury belief indulged to enable men's freedoms. That's the point under discussion here. Being a women's rights forum and all.

Exactly.

If the Duke of Cornwall did transition, woukd that automatically exclude the Cambridge and Sussex Dukes from the succession, I wonder, or would they be safe being heirs male of the formerly male heir?

Wonderful field for speculation!

I think male hereditary rights are fully protected so I would assume the second one.

Transmen can't prolong The b genetic line can they? Or at least not without outside help from a third party.

@NewlyGranny

If the Duke of Cornwall did transition, woukd that automatically exclude the Cambridge and Sussex Dukes from the succession, I wonder, or would they be safe being heirs male of the formerly male heir?

Wonderful field for speculation!

No one pretends to believe (not even by a legal fiction) that people can change sex if it has serious consequences for men and men's privileges over women.

Yet if women are endangered or discomforted, it is 'they are literally women' you uppity sex class hoarding your rights to safety formerly known as woman.

Maybe the question should be why females are still discriminated against (for inheritance and political purposes, HOL) and completely passed over, all for the benefit of their male relatives.

Yes, it is more than time that any role or title that excludes women should be removed from HoL. Are the religious Lords all roles women can take yet?

This does not surprise me at all.
Men will insist women give up our spaces and protections while ensuring they are protected from losing theirs

But that ok. And if we object, were transphobic.

I expect every transwoman screaming terf will be equally vocal about this. After all, transmen are men and it is literal violence to deny them their birthright.

I love this question. It's so obvious that the originators of the GRA considered that someone might fake it to make it - at least when it came to money. And yet we are constantly assured that men wouldn't do it for their orgasms. We all know that is bollocks. And the hereditary exemption proves that they do too surely?