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?

In a word. Yes.

They never legally had some of these 'rights' in the first place.

FWS are a feminist campaign group. The Supreme Court made the ruling. The poster seems confused.

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!

youve not read the thread so you have no leg to stand on with regard to ‘uneducated’

and if you had read the thread you’d realise that your last paragraph is complete rubbish

(thats not to say your other paragraphs aren’t rubbish…)

And no one thinks the EHRC guidance is the actual law. It’s important though, as it sets expectations for organisations who want to create a female only space, which in itself is generally not obligatory. But when you do, as most women expect, it must be actually female only.

I think Aida is talking about the ECHR, otherwise there'd be no reason to mention the Czech Republic (or Czechia as it is more commonly known these days)

The fact WEC referred to the supreme court ruling as an 'interim ruling' and the Baroness stated that regardless of whatever advice the EHRC give, the law is still the law seems to escape you

The Baroness also made the point that if the EHRC hadn't given advice immediately it would have been criticised.

The Supreme Court Ruling was explicit in saying that anything described as single sex MUST be single sex not gender.

A consultation period for the EHRC advise will not change the paragraph in the the Supreme Court's (final) ruling.

Aida has mentioned both.

True

The WEC are (with a couple of exceptions) a bunch of halfwits with little real power. The Chair didn’t even understand what the ruling applies to. I know it’s gone down very well in trans land to see them bullying Falkner in such an unprofessional way but it’s a mistake to put any faith into them saving the day. Or Jolyon Maugham.

That Committee has been anti women’s rights on this matter for almost a decade. It’s quite funny to see people noticing it for the first time. Caroline Nokes and Maria Miller were the previous two Chairs. Craven and devoted to men’s rights.

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

Don’t forget to leave it behind when you go then.

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.

You aren't really selling the concept of a GRC here.

You seem to be explaining why they infringe on other people's human rights.

I am not here to sell it, to quote Falkner few weeks ago when she was still trying to actively miss-sell her "interim guidance" as law (a position she has since retreated due to amount of lawsuits EHRC is now facing as a result): the law is clear, now everyone should just follow it.

GRC is law, you may not like it but it is.

GRC is law, you may not like it but it is

But not relevant to sex classifications in the law.

Next

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.

More legal illiteracy.

People were interpreting the law incorrectly. But the law said that you COULD exclude for certain exceptions on the basis of sex AND ALWAYS could.

The problem comes with over reach and the wording of the law in defining gender reassignment as:

A person has the protected characteristic of gender reassignment if the person is proposing to undergo, is undergoing or has undergone a process (or part of a process) for the purpose of reassigning the person's sex by changing physiological or other attributes of sex

Thus it lumped everyone with a GRC together with everyone who didn't have one. You cant legally treat someone with a GRC differently from someone who claims they have started transition for this reason.

Thus if the sex of someone in that group on paper is different to the facilities or services they wish to use, they can't use those facilities or services. But since they are the same group they must be treated equally with everyone else in that group.

And the law has sex exemptions. And the biological sex is the relevant point.

How FWS worded it is irrelevant. The Supreme court agree that that unless it meant biological sex the law just didn't work. That was the entire premise of the case BECAUSE the implementation of the law wasn't working for women and was creating situations which were actively discriminating against women.

Why doesn't the law work if you don't recognise sex?

Well for starters, who are the transpeople? How do you tell someone trans from someone who isn't trans if you can't use biological sex as a reference point?! I could claim to be trans and you couldn't argue with it. Anyone could.

Well let's take the doctor with the transwoman patient. If the doctor is acting in the best interests of that patient they HAVE to refer to sex not gender. If they are banned from doing this because of the feelings of the transwoman the doctor is in an impossible position. The transwoman will not receive medical care equal to everyone else if the doctor treats them as female. In a worst case scenario this risks malpractice on the part of the doctor. So the doctor is damned if they do or damned if they don't legally. Treat like a male and they are risking 'discrimination' but treat like a female and they are risking harm to the patient and the legal ramifications of that.

The ruling thus PROTECTS transpeople. Doctors can't pick and choose when the law applies and when it shouldn't.

Or take the lesbian. All lesbian protections are lost the second you decide a male can be a lesbian. Some forms of discrimination include insisting that lesbians should 'try' males.

The Supreme Court ruled that they had NO CHOICE but to rule how they did or the law doesn't protect women, homosexuals OR ironically transpeople.

Yes, a GRC protects a qualified right to privacy.

You seem to be arguing that the right to privacy is absolute. That is where you are on shaky ground.

This is complete nonsense. Falkner has never claimed that the guidance is the law. It’s guidance, and they have enforcement powers. The law is the law and the EHRC are bound to follow it. This is what they are doing. “Trans women” are men and female only spaces are segregated for the benefit of women and girls, not men.

More broadly the EA protects women against sex discrimination. You can't do that if you include people of the opposite sex in the definition of 'women'.

@DramaQueenlady

" Good luck in the loo when you come face to face with a transman, who's drunk and can't wee straight and your next to use the cubicle they come out of! 😂"

The immense majority of transmen don't have a neo-penis, let alone a functional one, so they have to sit down to pee, like most other female people. You'd think they'd sit down even more when drunk...

Yes, I don't like the fact that some people are allowed to retrospectively falsify their birth certificates, and that they aren't subject to the same level of scrutiny as the rest of us when it comes to criminal records checks.

But that's all they are allowed to do.

GRCs mean very little. Once upon a time they meant that trans people could marry someone of the same sex when the gay and lesbian people whose coat tails they had been riding on for years still didn't have that right. But that's no longer the case. You may not like that, but it's true.

Exactly @Merrymouse- the poster is falling into the trap, as many trans rights activists do, of believing there is a hierarchy of rights with “gender reassignment” trumping sex based rights.

@AidaP Can you please answer the question about whether you are a solicitor or a barrister? If you really are one then you should be able to tell us which.

@AidaP

"It's not unlike telling someone "you have no right to exist""

It's totally unlike that, because nobody here is saying trans people don't have a right to exist, let alone advocating for others to think and say so.

I have looked through the whole thread and cannot see any post where @AidaP claimed to be either.

Here you go @RareGoalsVerge.