Trans sibling in law

Yes - fully trained, not practicing as I got a better career.

And to the other misinformation like schools, this is where again knowing law comes handy, yes schools usually are required to provide single sex bathroom and changing rooms, but that once again is not part of EqA.

And for the other person yelling "but the judgement" please point out by which act of parliament do you think bathroom in a public place, like a store, is sex segregated (hint: does not exist, uk has bathrooms wild west with exceptions of specific acts, like Workplace 92 and few other acts providing some more definition for places like schools).

Are you a solicitor or a barrister, @AidaP?

So tired of these Americans sticking their oar in.

The only thing they should be doing on this forum is learning about feminism.

ECHR strongly disagreed and ruled against you. Whether you like it or not, that is the law, and you have to accept it.

I am unsure what law are you citing about peeing though, bathrooms and changing rooms in the UK are in no way gendered, with exception of those as a part of defined single sex services (which there are only few hundreds of across the entire UK at the very most) and within scope of Workplace 92 (but those obey GRC with law written as is).

People are free to use any bathroom they desire, and trying to change it is discriminatory. That's part of why even in FWS bathrooms were explicitly not mentioned outside of single sex service provisions, as there are no laws to govern.

So yeah, law on those is very clear - crystal even, just not in the way you think.

Note to self. Is AidaP an insomniac Brit (like me) or an American sticking their oar in about something they know fuck all about?

Yes, HE is now your brother in law. But nobody else in MN will agree with me.

ECHR strongly disagreed and ruled against you. Whether you like it or not, that is the law, and you have to accept it.

I am unsure what law are you citing about peeing though, bathrooms and changing rooms in the UK are in no way gendered, with exception of those as a part of defined single sex services (which there are only few hundreds of across the entire UK at the very most) and within scope of Workplace 92 (but those obey GRC with law written as is).

People are free to use any bathroom they desire, and trying to change it is discriminatory. That's part of why even in FWS bathrooms were explicitly not mentioned outside of single sex service provisions, as there are no laws to govern.

So yeah, law on those is very clear - crystal even, just not in the way you think.

ECHR strongly disagreed and ruled against you. Whether you like it or not, that is the law, and you have to accept it.

I am unsure what law are you citing about peeing though, bathrooms and changing rooms in the UK are in no way gendered, with exception of those as a part of defined single sex services (which there are only few hundreds of across the entire UK at the very most) and within scope of Workplace 92 (but those obey GRC with law written as is).

People are free to use any bathroom they desire, and trying to change it is discriminatory. That's part of why even in FWS bathrooms were explicitly not mentioned outside of single sex service provisions, as there are no laws to govern.

So yeah, law on those is very clear - crystal even, just not in the way you think.

ECHR strongly disagreed and ruled against you. Whether you like it or not, that is the law, and you have to accept it.

I am unsure what law are you citing about peeing though, bathrooms and changing rooms in the UK are in no way gendered, with exception of those as a part of defined single sex services (which there are only few hundreds of across the entire UK at the very most) and within scope of Workplace 92 (but those obey GRC with law written as is).

People are free to use any bathroom they desire, and trying to change it is discriminatory. That's part of why even in FWS bathrooms were explicitly not mentioned outside of single sex service provisions, as there are no laws to govern.

So yeah, law on those is very clear - crystal even, just not in the way you think.

Giving people the right to opt in to the pension rights and marriage rights of the other sex - as the GRA was designed to do - didn't infringe on anyone else's human rights.

But taking away same-sex protected services and associations for the 99.98% of the population that doesn't want to pretend it can change sex isn't a "minor inconvenience", it's a major loss of privacy and decency for the entire population. Men don't want to pee next to women, and women certainly don't want to pee next to men, and the law is pretty clear that we don't have to.

Incorrect, you are making up terms based on no idea what, definitely not law, and especially not UK law which in it's wide body uses terms sex and gender interchangeably. FWS 2025 is first time there is attempt at some weird unity, but that only applies in scope of EqA 2010 (which means access to single sex SERVICES only, nothing else) until some court or legislation says otherwise.

What you are presenting is exactly the view had in late 90's after section 28 was abolished, where sure people can be "trans" but people can also just decide to ignore it and there was no legal protection against harassment that comes out of it. That's what was decided in Goodwin 2002 (and later affirmed in cases since) as not acceptable.

It even notes that while this change of sex may be an inconvenience to some of the population, the balance of right of the minor incontinentie for small segment of population vs inability to exist in dignity for transgender people is not proportionate, and thus decided that this must be protected under article 8. Because that's how you balance competing laws, take what one side gains, see what other maybe looses, and weight them together.

This is for example how we arrived at sometimes having to suffer a walk across long accessibility ramp instead of just 5 tall steps where there is no space to put both in, because for able people it's a minor inconvenience vs inability to participate for people with limited mobility.

So while you can still not believe in transgender people and their ability to change sex, just as you do not have to believe in nutrients or even human rights of any sort, acting on it by, for example, intentionally misgendering transgender people in the uk in public life context can be a hate crime, and unlawful harassment in the workplace and direct discrimination. Context and particulars matter of course and particulars, but if you know someone is transgender, and you intentionally misgender them while knowing well they do not invite it, you are almost certainly breaching the law.

It's almost like law is more complicated than a soundbite.

I cannot help you if you do not understand convention of human rights, which guarantees transgender people the right to live in the correct sex (that's why UK lost in Godwin 2002) vs a belief into whatever religion you please, but that is the argument you are making.

You’re mixing up gender and sex. You can’t live “in” sex in any case, can you?

I cannot help you if you do not understand convention of human rights, which guarantees transgender people the right to live in the correct sex (that's why UK lost in Godwin 2002) vs a belief into whatever religion you please, but that is the argument you are making.

Noone is saying trans people don't have a right to exist. They can exist and believe in whatever they want, like everyone else can. And hopefully most people with either belief will respect the others.
But it's like any other belief, if it eradicates other people's rights then its gone too far - the same as if we let an man who has interpretted the muslim religion as meaning all women cover their faces in public, actually imposing that on other people isn't OK. But he's welcome to have that belief if it isn't impacting others.

This is not complicated.

It's not unlike telling someone "you have no right to exist" and then expecting them to meet you in the middle, where they will continue to truly believe, and preach behind your back, how you have no right to exist, but because they smile to your face and "humor you" with pronouns and name, it's fine and we should get along as this is some sort of happy middle ground.

It's not, it's set out in ECtHR as not acceptable (Goodwin vs UK 2002, later reaffirmed in Y.Y. and now against Czech republic 2 days ago), and UK law is mostly compatibile with this idea, at least until labour, maybe, passes the EHRC "interim guidance" into law.

So that's why it's not compatible, because you cannot deny someone's existence, and then expect to get along.

I also did not read the thread and do not plan, just looked at the last few posts, but I am sure it's filled with lies how "everyone detransitions" (rate below 1% in every single study/survey ever conducted, with 80%+ reason for it being lack of acceptance [that's even in cass report]), "no one is happy with medical transition" (98% satisfaction with HRT on 44k people cohort survey, 99% with surgeries on 14k cohort) and all the other bollocks to justify why trans people do not deserve to be treated as people and have their law-given laws respected. Especially when some twitter told them that the law never protected trans people or let them change sex anyway (which is probably why the law let me change my sex marker everywhere, including on medical records, just fine).

Out of this topic again, keep the uneducated sabre waving going!

This is not complicated.

It's not unlike telling someone "you have no right to exist" and then expecting them to meet you in the middle, where they will continue to truly believe, and preach behind your back, how you have no right to exist, but because they smile to your face and "humor you" with pronouns and name, it's fine and we should get along as this is some sort of happy middle ground.

It's not, it's set out in ECtHR as not acceptable (Goodwin vs UK 2002, later reaffirmed in Y.Y. and now against Czech republic 2 days ago), and UK law is mostly compatibile with this idea, at least until labour, maybe, passes the EHRC "interim guidance" into law.

So that's why it's not compatible, because you cannot deny someone's existence, and then expect to get along.

I also did not read the thread and do not plan, just looked at the last few posts, but I am sure it's filled with lies how "everyone detransitions" (rate below 1% in every single study/survey ever conducted, with 80%+ reason for it being lack of acceptance [that's even in cass report]), "no one is happy with medical transition" (98% satisfaction with HRT on 44k people cohort survey, 99% with surgeries on 14k cohort) and all the other bollocks to justify why trans people do not deserve to be treated as people and have their law-given laws respected. Especially when some twitter told them that the law never protected trans people or let them change sex anyway (which is probably why the law let me change my sex marker everywhere, including on medical records, just fine).

Out of this topic again, keep the uneducated sabre waving going!

Well I always wondered this- there are multiple streams of Judaism. Orthodox Jews do not recognize converts who have gone through the masorti, reform or liberal conversions. To them they aren't Jewish. But I haven't heard of orthodox Jews blurting out over shabbat meals to such converts- you aren't Jewish. In fact they are usually quite polite while they probably think they aren't really Jewish. Keir starmer's wife belongs to this category- her mum converted to liberal judaism but everyone regards her as Jewish including outlets like the Jewish chronicle.

Of course non orthodox converts are also not fighting for their right to be buried in orthodox cemeteries or belong to orthodox synagogues, unlike trans people who want to enter female spaces. In Israel they have won the right to make aliyah or immigrate though I suppose being Jewish isn't a prerequisite anyway, just being a grandchild of a Jewish person.

I wonder if there are parallels. This is also probably mirrored in other religions as many religions have different sects and they don't recognize each other's conversions but it would be chaos if they kept telling each other they weren't xxxx just because they converted via xxxx

If you want genuine help, ask on a place that will actually want to help you maintain a relationship with them, like reddit's asktransgender here people will just help you to completely ruin your relationship in promotion of their hatred.

And the reality is that you have to decide, do you want to keep your hate against trans people, or are you willing to genuinely accept your new brother in law and learn. Trans people can spot performative support from miles away, faking it won't work. But if you genuinely are willing to show effort to accept them as they are, they will help you and guide you through it.

If not, well, enjoy being excluded from their life very quickly.

I will give you a starting point on learning to accept checklis:

> Are people really happy identifying as another gender when they wouldn't look like the other gender?

Being transgender isn't a choice, it's a hand you are dealt and have to deal with, and the best treatment for it is coming out and acceptance, for many that also includes all sort of medical interventions but it's not necessary.

If you will keep thinking that it's a choice, or that they are not aware of the presentation issue, but persevere despite it as otherwise the life is just not worth living... Well, that's the performative support trans people just do not fall for, not for any length of time.

You can also DM me if you want to speak more openly in private.