Why would anyone not become a legal man?

[Skinterior]

Gender recognition reform bill to be tabled at Holyrood www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-60589578

I can't wait for this. I'm definitely going to change my legal gender.

It would be much easier to achieve equality this way, just think of all that administrative male privilege I'll be able to access. Im pretty sure I'll get a pay rise almost straight away, as soon as HR run the numbers and see that I'm a financial anomaly compared to my male peers.

I could report a crime and be taken seriously. It's all very exciting.

Im not worried about health care, obviously I still have my cervix, so that's not a concern.

One thing though, DH is refusing to change to be a legal woman - I can't imagine why.

Im not homophobic, Im happy to become a lesbian. But it means DS technically won't have a mother. It might be a bit of a difficult one for him.

I guess Mermaids have a handy pamphlet that will sort all this out.

I really can't understand what everyone is complaining about...

I've done absolutely nothing different to when I was a woman - but I identify as a man. So it would be transphobic to expect me to have short hair or wear 'male' clothes.

I look forward to my 20% pay rise, and being allowed to work at half the level of effectiveness that my female colleagues are capable of (I appreciate that may be specific to my sector of work only!)

I also look forward to challenging established definitions of what it means to be male, and applying to join the Masons. Oh wait, they've already ruled out transmen from joining. Funny how that's ok, but women having male-free spaces is absolutely unacceptable.

In regards to primogeniture in Scotland, despite it being abolished in 1964, there is still an anomaly between heritable (I.e. land and estates) and moveable property (which I assume means money etc) -

'The MacKintosh Committee recommendations formed the basis of the Succession (Scotland) Act 1964, which abolished primogeniture and made some improvements in the position of spouses and children. However, the Act did not remove the distinction between heritable and moveable property, except with regard to the marital home. This Act as amended continues to govern the legal position today and thus spouses and issue have legal rights to a share of moveable property, but still not of heritable property.'

Quoted from - www.gov.scot/publications/land-reform-review-group-final-report-land-scotland-common-good/pages/19/

@WeeBisom

Remember as per the new law you have to prove you’ve lived “as a man”’for at least three months. Make sure you keep a diary to show them all the manly things you’ve been doing. I’m sure they have an objective criteria to test whether you have behaved manly enough for three months in a row.

Ooh that's easy. I'll just tell them I haven't been able to find my wallet without help for three months.

I'll need to be more careful when I've got all that extra money.

Make sure to change back to a woman before retirement/pension age

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

I have been wondering what would happen if we ever had a war where there was conscription.

Would self-ID be accepted by governments?

@ScrollingLeaves

I have been wondering what would happen if we ever had a war where there was conscription.

Would self-ID be accepted by governments?

What does the Equality Act say about conscription? If it's not specifically mentioned, then wouldn't conscription of one sex only be illegal discrimination?

@purpleboy

Make sure to change back to a woman before retirement/pension age

Pension age is equal now in the UK.

@ScrollingLeaves

I have been wondering what would happen if we ever had a war where there was conscription.

Would self-ID be accepted by governments?

I saw an article online yesterday about a transwoman unable to leave Ukraine as their passport says male, and only women, children and elderly can leave.

Next time you cook something, use every pot. pan and utensil in the kitchen;
Next time you do a food shop, present your purchases to your spouse in the manner of Indiana Jones having found the Holy Grail;
Never be able to find your own car keys, wallet, phone;
"Babysit" your own children and expect lots of praise for this (and reserve the right to call in the assistance of your female relatives, because it's too much to do on your own);
According to a thread on Feminist Chat, take regular wank breaks at work.

[quote Waitwhat23]'Women could inherit if they change gender, says Earl' - www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-42182747.amp[/quote]
He doesn't seem to have read the bit in the GRA about inheritance of titles not being affected by someone having a GRC.

'He suggested that proposed amendments to the Gender Recognition Act could offer a legal loophole for his eldest daughter, Lady Willa Franks.'

But later in the article, it's claimed that this is 'making a mockery of transgender rights'.

Which seems rather, dare I say it, transphobic to me. Who's to say that Willa self id'ing as a man is not valid? She could even do a Pip Bunce and switch when she fancies a wee holiday from managing the estate.

“OldCrone

ScrollingLeaves
I have been wondering what would happen if we ever had a war where there was conscription.

Would self-ID be accepted by governments?
What does the Equality Act say about conscription? If it's not specifically mentioned, then wouldn't conscription of one sex only be illegal discrimination?“

Do you mean that legally women would have to all be conscripted too?

Or that all self-ID trans women could be exempt legally?

@334bu

Sorry when it comes to inheriting a title they still want to know if you ever had a penis. No penis no title.

Depends on how the peerage was created - some English peerages can be passed to females if there are no male heirs.

Scottish peerages have even more variations - they can pass to “heirs general” which again can be females if there are no male heirs (Lady Dysart for example).

Do you mean that legally women would have to all be conscripted too?

Or that all self-ID trans women could be exempt legally?

If the EA2010 doesn't specifically mention conscription, then conscription of only one sex (men) would be illegal sex discrimination, wouldn't it? So both men and women would have to be conscripted and identifying as the opposite sex would make no difference.

So the weans have what they want. Now what? They will get bored and will start making further demands.

Free ice cream in Sundays (but no tha mingin cola flavour ya get in that nardinis in Largs)
No school on Mondays and longer summer holidays (but no fur that wee swat Sandra in 3F, and her pal Amy in 3G - theyd fair bawl if rhey couldne go to school)
Free work and music streaming service ‘fae me an ma pals’

He doesn't seem to have read the bit in the GRA about inheritance of titles not being affected by someone having a GRC.

True. One thing that strikes me
is that organisations like Scottish Trans Alliance, Stonewall etc aren't tackling this clear injustice. If transmen are actually men, then surely this is something to be addressed?

Anyone seen any chat by them about it? Even tangentially?

Oh good idea op and don’t forget to email your SNP about women’s rights- maybe you’ll be taken more seriously now you’re a man.

Hopefully you’ll now be safer in the event of a car accident now too! Or don’t you actually change sex?

There's an exception for general recruitment to the armed forces:

www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2010/15/schedule/9/part/1/crossheading/armed-forces

www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2010/15/notes/division/3/16/26/1/3

There's also a general exception for the purpose of national security:

www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2010/15/section/192

www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2010/15/notes/division/3/14/2

Sorry I'm feeling very dense today, @LangClegsInSpace

Does that mean that males could get out of conscription by obtaining a GRC and becoming "legally female"?

They wouldn't need to get a GRC, just say they're trans.

It depends though, the armed forces wouldn't have to use that exception if they decided it was not proportionate. They could, for instance, decide to conscript men who say they are trans as long as they are not on medication and have not had genital surgery (having to dilate every day could be tricky on the battlefield!)

But yes, if they got a GRC and were legally female they would presumably not be called up in the first place (assuming only men were being conscripted)

Tache - check

Short hair - check

vest, no bra - check

no make up - check

no nails - check

men's hoodie - check

sensible shoes - check

hairy everything - check

swears like a squaddie - check

ticks "male" on every box that asks about my "gender" and not "sex" - check

I'm not sure if I'm a man, or just WFH

“@LangClegsInSpace

There's an exception for general recruitment to the armed forces:

www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2010/15/schedule/9/part/1/crossheading/armed-forces

www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2010/15/notes/division/3/16/26/1/3

There's also a general exception for the purpose of national security:

www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2010/15/section/192

www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2010/15/notes/division/3/14/2”

Thank you for that.

“4(1)A person does not contravene section 39(1)(a) or (c) or (2)(b) by applying in relation to service in the armed forces a relevant requirement if the person shows that the application is a proportionate means of ensuring the combat effectiveness of the armed forces.

(2)A relevant requirement is—

(a)a requirement to be a man;

(b)a requirement not to be a transsexual person.”

Does anyone know the definition of transsexual here? Would it include self-ID?

Yes, it's the good old woolly definition of gender reassignment:

www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2010/15/section/7