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?

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.

Try to make she really does have INFORMED consent for any procedures she undergoes or hormones she takes as there is a very high failure rate in those treatments

Err…. Did you read the judgement or were the words too big for you?

There really is some stunning misinformation put out there at times!

a few hundred?! Every single school in the country by law must provide single sex changing and loos to all children over a certain age - there you go - just that is 1000s, every pub / theatre / public venue / public loos - which are currently single sex (most of them!) can only be used by people based on their birth sex - that is the vast majority of loos in the country outside private homes

people are not free to use whatever bathroom they want. Biology / law / reality are all aligned - you are born one sex and remain that sex whatever you do to your body with surgery or hormones - and even if you get a GRC and change the label on your ID - for all purposes where it matters you remain your birth sex.

and it is worth remembering that being gender critical (ie believing the truth that you can not change sex) is a protected characteristic. Gender ideology is not. Nor is being gender fluid or trans gender per se.

Bullshit.

You are completely factually incorrect.

Perhaps bother to read the legal judgement YOU don't like.

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

She isn't.
She's a struggling young woman who needs support.

So tired of these Americans sticking their oar in.

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

Are you a solicitor or a barrister, @AidaP?

I see @DramaQueenlady is a fan of India W, didn’t India tweet lie about JKR and the judge living near to each other? I’m going to hazard a guess too that most transmen wee perfectly well

I totally believe there are British posters who post between 3 and 4am. I do occasionally. So I'm open minded to a degree.

But given this subject and how often Americans are sticking their oar in on British law with deliberate misinformation, I'm mindful to keep an eye open for posters who fall into this category.

AidaP has only posted at around 7pm UK time or between midnight and 4am.

I'll leave it to others to decide on whether AidaP is just another restroom poster off Reddit.

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).

Can you confirm which you are? Solicitor, or barrister?

So, all the TRAs wailing that this judgement has taken rights from trans people are talking nonsense then?

Excuse my scepticism but I've never come across a UK qualified solicitor or barrister who writes in American English.

Toilets/changing rooms in a shop or restaurant sports facility etc do not have to be sex segregated by law, except for staff.

But if they are labelled as sex segregated (using the Equality act permitted exemptions to allow discrimination on the basis of sex) then this has to be on the basis of biological sex (as confirmed by the recent Supreme Court ruling).

It was clear that this labelling can be symbols, or words such as man/woman ladies/gentlemen or male/female, or any similar proxy.

It remains to be seen whether businesses choose to continue sex segregating their public toilets, or move en masse to
mixed sex facilities and risk taking a financial hit from people avoiding those businesses and taking their custom elsewhere. Or wait for someone to sue for indirect discrimination against females as they are at most risk of assault or intrusive filming in shared facilities.

Well quite.
“Fully qualified” no less!

Not at all, the judgement absolutely removed rights from us as the change is on definition of what counts as sex/gender in this act, and the FWS specifically reworded it in a way that means possessing a GRA no longer applies. Which means where previously trans person with a GRA could access single sex services just fine, now they cannot, that is a direct loss of rights.

There is of course an issue that it's entirely unenforceable in practice. As per GRA you can only ask about GRC status in exceptional circumstances, it cannot be a routine thing (we literally had judgement in ECHR handed down on that on issue on Wedsnday, in T.H. v. THE CZECH REPUBLIC it finds that doing so violated Article 8 of human rights) and without that, as per even EHRC Falkner's admission on tuesday in front of WEC this type of segregation cannot be enforced.

Maybe worth a small reminder that updating gender marker on almost all documents in the UK, passport included does not require a GRC, and that came from another judgement as UK refused to make GRC process less annoying, so instead made changing of the document markers easier.

@AidaP certainly knows very little about uk law, having entirely falsely asserted 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) - this isn't remotely true.

The law specifically requires single sex lavatories and changing rooms in schools for pupils. Nb we don't call rooms with a toilet but no bath "bathrooms" in the UK which might give a clue as to why @AidaP doesn't know much. In all work places any communal/cubicle type lavatories and changing rooms for employees are legally required to be single sex, although unisex single-occupancy rooms with floor to ceiling enclosure and no communal aspect (eg no separate communal handwashing) is acceptable if there isn't room for or sufficient personnel to warrant larger single sex rooms. Other facilities that aren't schools or facilities for employees are governed by Building Regulations Document T (which also covers many other requirements) for all new buildings. This requires that "toilet accommodation in non-residential buildings is to be separate single-sex toilets, with single-sex shared or individual hand-washing facilities. Unisex toilets can be provided in addition to single-sex provision where space allows." - older buildings that don't already meet this standard are not required to build new facilities to meet the Document T standard if they were built to meet whatever regulations were in place at the time they were built, but they are not allowed to downgrade their provision to be further removed from current Document T requirements.

The judgment didn't remove any rights. Judges can't remove rights which parliament has granted to people in legislation.

What the judgment in fact did is confirmed that the legislation intended sex to mean biological sex and not legal sex, and that some people have been incorrectly applying the law for the last 15 years.

I would expect a solicitor or barrister to understand how these things work, to be honest.

You are telling me that I cannot refer to my son as my son, and that if I do so I am breaking the law. You'd better report me to the Police, then. I am not prepared to deny my son, whom I have loved since his birth. As a matter of pure fact, he is not my daughter. All actual evidence says he is male; only his inner feelings say anything else. Do you accept that if his "identity" trumps facts, that means that my identity as the father of a son is violated, and my wife's identity as the mother of a son is violated? Why do you want to deny our existence?

> But if they are labelled as sex segregated (using the Equality act permitted exemptions to allow discrimination on the basis of sex) then this has to be on the basis of biological sex (as confirmed by the recent Supreme Court ruling).

I will ask my learned colleague to provide on which paragraph of FWS they rely on for this I cannot find it, and I've read it too many times. And the link of application to Workplace 92, which I assume you rely on, is not tested in court, it's possible (and I did caveat that in) but far from a given.

You may be confusing it with EHRC "interim guidance" which is not law (Falkner own admission on Tuesday WEC hearing if you need a source), it's far far away from the law: first finish consultation, deal with lawsuits (I know of 3), present a bill, have it voted through parliament and so on, 6 months+ at the very least.

And I never thought I will have my English as 3rd language throw in my face, or the fact that I learned and practiced it mostly in context of USA. But ah well, what can you do with a strong argument like that.

It’s never been enforceable what toilet people use. This isn’t a new thing. It isn’t a matter of law, it’s a matter of respecting women and girls. Decent men do. No men belong in women’s spaces. It’s a matter of “trans women” following the same rules as all other men.

If English is your third language and you mainly learned it in the US, how did you come to qualify as a solicitor or a barrister in the UK?

And in case you missed my earlier question, which one are you? A solicitor? Or a barrister? If you are either of these things you will know that there is a big difference between the two.

But if the SC judgment has only clarified what the people who wrote the law meant when they used the term "sex" (biological sex) then people with a GRA never had that right in the first place.
Maybe don't try to base laws on lies in the first place and then all this wouldn't have been necessary.
I also don't think FWS reworded any laws.