First trans peer a step closer as hereditary candidate claims seat

[ChristinaXYZ]

Interesting article in the Telegraph

www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2022/05/20/first-trans-peer-step-closer-hereditary-candidate-claims-seat/

"Matilda Simon will contest the next by-election for one of the upper chamber’s 92 hereditary seats...

"...The House of Lords could shortly welcome its first trans peer and only female hereditary member.

Matilda Simon was this week given permission to contest the next by-election for one of the upper chamber’s remaining 92 hereditary seats.

If she wins, she will doubtless become the envy of peers’ daughters across the country, because the vast majority of titles may only be passed to a male heir.

However, because of a legal loophole, the candidate, born Matthew Simon in 1955, has inherited and retains the Barony of Wythenshawe, despite being in all other legal respects a woman...

"...Lady Simon winning a future by-election - which will take place upon the death or retirement of a hereditary member - would be likely to reignite the debate over the persistence of primogeniture among the aristocracy.

In 2013, in the aftermath of the marriage of the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge, Parliament passed a law to allow a first born child to inherit the throne, but this principle only applies to the Royal Family, not the peerage.

In recent years, Lord Balfour spoke of his anger that his Earldom would pass to his younger brother upon his death, rather than any of his daughters.
Indeed, he joked that a cunning ruse to ensure one of them succeeds would be if they transitioned to become a man.
However, according to a source close to the current process, that would not work, as the case of Lady Simon proves....

"...And in what the source close to the process described as an “irony”, she [Matilda Simon] has a sister born two years earlier.

“If the title had been inheritable by a woman, it would have gone to Margaret, the older sister, rather than the younger sister,” he said..."

Read the full article on the Telegraph website.

If you read the Hansard debates about the gender recognition act , the issue about peerages gets a LOT of attention. They were exceptionally concerned that women would identify as men to steal their brothers title. Of course they were extra careful to make an exception where sex matters to them.

It does lead to an odd state of affairs though. We’ve heard in the Alison Bailey case that calling transwomen male is apparently bigoted and nasty. Except in this case it seems ?

ifs also wonderful that this person doesn’t suffer from crippling dysphoria by being called male and from being in a position that no woman could find herself in.

Christ no, that's the joy of being a trans woman isn't it? Get lauded for being so brave whilst knowing full well none of the shit that comes along with being an actual female will ever disturb your life.

"So many things to be cross about I don’t know where to start."

My thoughts too but I reckon this is a spectacular own goal as it exposes quite a few of them

Hypocrisy springs to mind.

Frankly I cannot wait to see how the TRA justify this breathtaking level of hypocrisy

I do hope lil oj takes up this very worthy issue with his brethren. This poor transwoman who has to recognise her sex as male to inherit a title.

This just capsules TRA in a nutshell - it is about more privileges for men and nothing more.

Speechless.

Tbh it's disgraceful and perverse that peerage was left out of the GRA and don't expect any trans people would disagree. There should be no primogeniture anyway. The TW in question is acting within the law by retaining the title, but could the TW have renounced it like Tony Benn did? If he has chosen not to renounce that makes a mockery of a mockery.

@RoobarbandCustud
Given that Mathilda retweeted the comment below, Mathilda must, like the rest of us, agree that hereditary titles are a load of bobbins and will be refusing to accept such an obscenity:

"Today, an unelected member of a royal family stood up in a chamber of unelected Lords (while disproportionately elected MPs watched on) to announce that in the name of an unelected monarch, a corrupt government would be scrapping the human rights act.

Isn't the UK great?"

Yes, but the title, estate, and everything else still passes to Matilda, s/he just won't get to sit in the (aptly named) House of Lords as well.

Another female first that would have been significant gone to a male.

How marginalised.

My husband always had a bit of a difficult relationship with the RC church, unhappy memories from childhood. He had quite an unpleasant parish priest whereas I had a lovely priest so we viewed things differently.

He finally said he was done with the church when our daughter was born, he said if the church wouldn't consider her for Pope it wasn't the church for him.

I couldn't decide if it was hilarious or quite touching.

He finally said he was done with the church when our daughter was born, he said if the church wouldn't consider her for Pope it wasn't the church for him.

I couldn't decide if it was hilarious or quite touching.

Neither.
He is completely in the right.

Clearly none of you appreciate how hard it is to be born white, male, and an upper class Oxbridge educated socialist, in this day and age. Have a heart!

What happens if the older sister suddenly comes out as Trans?

And if trans women are women then Matilda shouldn’t inherit, surely.

And we're not supposed to call it a men's rights movement

I would pay good money to see that! How would the TWAW crowd spin this, presumably that must believe the opposite and that all TMAM.

Mostly male MPs can imagine someone pretending to be a different sex to get power and money, but they can't imagine someone pretending in order to get access to victims to abuse. Or scholarships, Olympic medals and women-only shortlists (so power then).

'Pretending' never happens as long as it affects someone else then? Or is it that they can imagine women pretending but not men?

You'd think a commentator who was obsessed with class and gender would love this subject and write at length about the unfairness. Wherefore art thou LOJ?

My head's just exploded all over again. I had quite a job putting it together after seeing on Twitter a screenshot of a transman in a relationship with a transwoman saying on Reddit (I think) that the transwoman had told the transman that it wasn't the transman's place to comment on the abortion debate because the transman has male privilege. The transwoman of course could comment. The transman was trying very tentatively to make the point that only one of the two of them stood any risk of becoming pregnant and deciding to have a termination of pregnancy, and surely that person should have the right to comment on this issue. So close, so close ...

Hmmm, ironic that biological women I believe aren’t allowed to proclaim that they’re men and inherit a dukedom, etc. Even if they legally change gender.

but obviously a biological man can do what he likes, have his cake and eat it!

Yes a thorough belt and braces approach surrounding the gender recognition act. Amazing that this exception was acceptable.

It's very telling in that all the furore surrounding the GRA reform I've never seen a TRA individual or org try to change this exception. They went hard for the spousal exit clause but this - not a peep, not even in defence of transmen.

As my husband memorably said once, 'Hey, I didn't make the rules!'

This takes the biscuit, and it's such an admission that this person is definitely not female. I think this is an example of using the rules when it suits them.

What this does show is that the GRA 2004 was intended as a massive deceit on society. The Peerages clause makes it plain that this law means no-one can change biological sex and no-one changes legal sex either:

www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2004/7/section/16

That the Labour Party wrote a law with the expressed intent to deceive our entire society is utterly shameful.

We need to Repeal the GRA 2004.