Trans sibling in law

[Primrose86]

DH's sibling has just come out as a man. She is 26 and autistic, lives at home with mum, spends life on the Internet, got kicked out of school at 16 etc etc She has plans to go overseas and transition in germany where apparently you can get surgeries on the public health system while living with her grandpa. Her mum is fully supportive of this.

How should I react to all this. Should I start referring to him as my brother in law? What usually happens after people come out. I assume they progress to hormones and surgery but honestly based on what I read, Germany is quite resistant to health tourists who never paid in even if they are citizens. Are people really happy identifying as another gender when they wouldn't look like the other gender?

Absolute tosh. JKR does not live near that judge, and has never met him. Also there were 5 judges. This wasn't a solo decision.

Transpeople had the entire Scottish Government speaking for them.

If only that were true.

They're not? You could have fooled me. The ones I know seem very upset if I don't affirm them by using their language.

It is true!

Seriously do some research, not just one judge, and JKR has confirmed she doesn't live near them or know them. And the Scottish Government was the voice of trans in the SC case that's the whole bloody point.

I’m sure there’s some room for nuance here. It’s possible to use your relative’s chosen name and pronouns while maintaining a belief that it is not possible for humans to change biological sex.

J K Rowling lives in Cramond, which is really not very close to Merchiston where I'm told the judge in question lives.

I love this tosh about how many trans people on this forum know in real life, as if anyone actually believes it.

I’m a cisgender lesbian who moves in queer circles and I don’t know half as many trans people than some posters on here pretend to.

It’s all true. You can’t just dismiss facts because you don’t like them, you are coming across as an ignorant conspiracy theorist.

I don't much appreciate you implying that I am lying about knowing trans people. One of them is my own son, and I happen to have known him since before he can remember.

Your reading comprehension could do with work. The opening post of this thread starts DH's sibling. The OP is not talking about her boyfriend's sister and this is not a transient relationship. This is her husband and her sister-in-law. And yes, it is something to do with anybody who is expected to use the wrong pronouns for someone they've known for a while and whose sex is perfectly obvious. It's compelled speech.

Don’t be so bloody silly.

a huge percentage of girls with autism think they identify as male. A huge number then detransition.

it’s a social contagion, nothing more.

The Scottish Government and Amnesty International made representations to the Supreme Court that the Equality Act meant men could identify as women and take women's places on boards. The Supreme Court rejected their argument and accepted the arguments of For Women Scotland and other interveners including three organisations representing lesbian and gay people that sex in the Equality Act has to mean biological sex . It's got sweet fa to do with where JK Rowling lives. Go back to Reddit where some dimwits might fall for your nonsense.

Perhaps knowing the damage transgender ideology does to their loved ones is what brings some people to this board in the first place,

I know quite a few through work (creative arts sector). Although they're dwarfed by the number of non-binaries.

Don't know any socially.

I have known her since she was a 15 year old child and I was a 21 year old at university...I am in my 30s now. Basically watched her grow up, even lived in same house as her for a time when I first married (married straight out of uni and stayed a bit while waiting for visa and job seeking and moved out once we bought our flat)..

When she was younger and difficult I told dh that it was teenage blues and would go away. That turned out to be untrue.

Why would performative support be an issue?
Surely any reasonable trans person would be fine with someone saying they love them and understand their feelings, whilst personally not believing in being able to change sex.
It's no different to someone having a religion and knowing their friends or family members don't believe in it but respect their beliefs and love them still.

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

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!

It's not unlike telling someone "you have no right to exist" and then expecting them to meet you in the middle

Well, it’s not like that at all, is it?

Why do you keep coming back to this thing about “not being allowed to exist”? No-one has ever said that — it’s pure hyperbole. The fact that we don’t believe you’ve changed sex is not remotely the same as not allowing you to exist.

I know Donald Trump exists, but I don’t believe all sorts of things he believes. Buddhists, schizophrenics, anarchists, Seventh Day Adventists, antivaxxers, people who believe in 15-minute cities conspiracies, spiritualists, Brexiteers — all of these people exist, and are perfectly well “allowed to” — yet I don’t have to believe their beliefs for them to exist, do I? There’s no law that compels me to also believe in their beliefs.

Presumably when you say “you think trans people shouldn’t be allowed to exist”, what you actually mean is “I’m angry that you aren’t going along with my beliefs”, no?

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.

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?

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.

Clinging onto one court decision from 23 years ago doesn't change the actual facts or current law.
The sexual offenses act in 1967 meant it was criminal for men under 21 to engage in a homosexual relationship. That doesn't mean that people can quote that law to negate current laws, laws are updated based on up to date understanding and current societal issues.

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.