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.

Above totally agree.

Has anyone put this example to Stonewall? Surely this is a great talking point to blow a hole in the 'theory'. If twaw then how come a tw can inherit a hereditary title that is for men only? And if they believe they are women, shouldn't they reject the title?

Might send an email...

The GRA was passed because the Labour government at the time had to do something quickly in response to an ECHR judgement in favour of a UK citizen who wanted to get married. The citizen was female but had for years lived under a male name. The citizen's partner was female and living as such. Both birth certificates said female, so they couldn't get married. The ECHR said everybody has a right to a family life, including marriage, so the UK government should make it possible for the citizen and partner to marry. The obvious solution was to introduce same-sex marriage, but they didn't think they could get that through Parliament at the time, so they decided to railroad through the GRA with very little time allowed in either the Commons or the Lords for discussion.

A few MPs and Lords did their best to point out all sorts of possible problems with this new law, many of which have indeed come to pass, but they were fobbed off with assurances that this would only affect a tiny number of people. Experts said there were unlikely to be more than 5000 people in the whole of the UK who would qualify to get a GRC. This was an accurate estimate, as that's about the number of GRCs issued in the 18 years since.

The government's line was that this was a 'legal fiction' designed to make life easier for a tiny group of people with an intractable psychological problem. It was never intended that the people with GRCs would be considered literally to have changed sex.

However, from what I've read about the lobbying process that led up to the GRA, the activists who'd been pushing for something like this for a while never intended to stop there. The GRA was a foot in the door, a springboard for far more extensive changes they wanted to push through. And look where we are now. No more pretence that this huge societal change is a niche matter to help a few thousand adults suffering from gender dysphoria as certified by a psychiatrist. The lobbyists want the GRA scrapped not because it's unnecessary now, given we do have same-sex marriage, but because it doesn't go anywhere near as far as they believe it should. They want no gatekeeping at all, no requirement to have dysphoria, self-ID for all.

Increasingly seeing female used to describe TW where even a year back (I think) woman would have been used but female was left for ... you know... females.

Bad reporting and scope creep.

The GRA was passed because the Labour government at the time had to do something quickly in response to an ECHR judgement in favour of a UK citizen who wanted to get married. The citizen was female but had for years lived under a male name. The citizen's partner was female and living as such. Both birth certificates said female, so they couldn't get married.

This is correct apart from the sex of the people involved. Christine Goodwin was a MtF transsexual (who had followed the now familiar route of being married to a woman, fathering children, then coming out as trans when middle aged).

This is the judgment from that case:
hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng#{%22itemid%22:[%22001-60596%22]}

Sorry, that link doesn't work. Try this one.

Christine Goodwin v. UK

Yes.

Thanks for that, @OldCrone. I was obviously confused!

I'm almost sad we didn't get more of this during the female civil rights movement.

Or was there perhaps a "first female voter in a General Election!" article, featuring a similar person, back at the start of the 20th century, that's since been forgotten?

I remember there being discussion about primogeniture in the HoL when the GRA was being thrashed out, and me thinking it was far too far-fetched to ever actually be an issue.

Who knew?

Or is it that they can imagine women pretending but not men?

Bingo! Men can’t possibly be accused of dishonest motives but women are sneaky and underhand.

Same. It seemed very hypothetical and a bit of a gotcha.

Yet it’s happened so quickly.

Nothing. The law is explicit in this case, isn't it? Women can't change sex.

And who pushed for this to remain when the GRA was enacted? I would love to see the FOI on that.

I'd have the hereditaries any day over some of the washed up never-was-a-beans who've been handed peerages over the years. Lord Sewell being but one example.

But it's like the prisons debate. The answer from the further left is to abolish prisons rather than argue about who is placed where, that it proves that talking about sex is talking about oppressive structures that need dismantling. Likewise basing any argument on who gets a hereditary peerage only proves that we're dinosaurs and that the GRA is outdated.

It is true that I believe in a free society what sex you are wouldn't make much difference to your life. I do think we're much further along that road than was the case in the past, due mostly to technology. It's no doubt explainable why this suddenly means that having a sex is suddenly both a trauma and legally/physically malleable for a growing group of people.

The 2004 debate in the House of Commons. Proposed by David Lammy and Labour put a three line whip on it. Lynne Jones (Lab) pushes hard for new birth certificates.
David Lammy looking after the patriarchy. www.theyworkforyou.com/pbc/2003-04/Gender_Recognition_Bill/06-0_2004-03-16a.5.0
"It recognises the unique nature of peerages, dignity and titles of honour in that they descend according to birth. The terms of descent cannot be changed and the expectations of the persons entitled by birth may be defeated if the acquired gender of a sibling were to count in the way that the hon. Gentleman outlined."

Oh of course no one would want to defeat the expectations of aristocratic men.

No problems at all with defeating the expectations of common (not aristocratic) women. What do we matter? What do our feelings or expectations matter? What does our safety matter?

Blimey - Lammy on the side of the real rights-hoarding dinosaurs there!

Tbh I don't think David Lammy held a personal torch for hereditary peers. He was told to bang through this law by any means necessary, and I doubt it was pleasant. I remember thinking early in his career that he was given a huge number of hospital passes in his work and I do wonder if there was a racist element to it - subconsciously that ministers were asking him to jump through more hoops than most junior ministers?

Assuming with that background Matilda would want to stand for a Labour peerage, it could be quite a wait, as there are only two - a Peer can only be elected to replace one of the same party and the number reflects the party allegiances of the hereditarys when the Act was passed.

There are some Peers elected into specific roles by the whole House, but only two of them are Labour.

This means that the only time there has been a by election for a replacement Labour hereditary peer, the electorate was 3. 11 stood. It’s a fairly hilarious procedure in and of itself, but it will leave whoever that tiny group of Peers is (would look it up if not on phone) open to a high level of intense lobbying.

Woman in the bed chamber
Man in the voting chamber

Lammy of the 'hoarding rights' fame?

this is an incredibly niche topic but i've been trying to change the law for 7 years on this. The GRA exemption was because hereditary (male obvs) peers were worried daughters would claim to be men to game the system and inherit over their legit brothers.
but they also had to be exempt because if contested, hereditary titles are done on DNA. and of course you can't change your DNA 😉

Do you mean many aristocrats didn't want anyone taking a close look at their children's DNA? I wonder why not...

if contested, hereditary titles are done on DNA

Well, that is interesting.