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?

@AidaP

"So while you can still not believe in transgender people and their ability to change sex,"

Trans people are not magical. We don't have any more ability to change sex than any other human being.

A timely piece from Hannah Barnes https://www.newstatesman.com/the-weekend-report/2025/06/do-our-politicians-understand-the-supreme-courts-gender-ruling

Ah thanks. I was searching for posts specifically by AidaP and containing either of those specific job titles.

Imagine your DH comes home after work and you need to say 'Oh I bumped into John at the train station today. John told me that John is dating a new man. John went out with this guy last week and John seemed totally smitten. I really hope it works out for John.

Very easy, because most people's verbal communication isn't conducted in such convoluted language. Given we're not living our lives in a D. H. Lawrence novel, spoken language rarely sounds like this. Thus:

'Earlier today I bumped into John, who's in a new relationship. Hope it works out for them!' (Them being John + new partner, for the clarification of yet more inaccurate language and using plural pronouns in the singular)'.

There is simply no need to make a big song and dance out of it. Contrary to the above poster's position, avoiding gendered pronouns in this way is the respectful response. No one has to compromise their principles, and no one is at risk of being offended if they're referred to in a way they dislike.

In a profession in which I work with trans people on a semi-regular basis, this kind of linguistic contortionism becomes second nature with practice. It's the safest option for everyone concerned, particularly in settings where people's preferred form of address can't necessarily be remembered en-masse. It's not difficult: you simply switch to the passive voice and keep your language concise (always a good idea anyway).

You are 'respecting' someone's choice of identity in calling them by the name they prefer. The rest is just a whole lot of unnecessary angst, wind and hot air. Believe it or not, as long as the rights of some groups don't encroach on those of others, the rest of the world doesn't greatly care how individuals see themselves.

It is. That is a demonstrable fact, with a whole context behind it in which the Scottish Government has done nothing but speak for trans people, usually to the detriment of women. Cf. Isla Bryson, NHS Fife and a whole raft of other examples.

Thank you @MissScarletInTheBallroom for clarifying that this is about @AidaP replying "Yes - fully trained, not practicing" in response to "Are you a Solicitor or a Barrister?"

We should also recall that @AidaP has mentioned English being a 3rd language and the professions of Solicitor and Barrister are not separated in the same way as the UK in all other countries (as you can see in US legal dramas where the same lawyers perform the functions of both Solicitors and Barristers as an intrinsic part of the drama) so I guess the training in question took place in another country with totally different laws to the UK and where there's no distinction between the legal professionals who are the primary contacts for members of the public needing legal services, giving advice, conducting negotiations, drafting documents etc vs the legal professionals who provide the courtroom advocacy.

So the non-answering of this question is really just more proof that @AidaP just knows very little about UK law and is just here to scold us.

I think the U.K. stopped having public bathrooms at the beginning of the last century.

I

I think we should do @AidaP the courtesy of allowing him/her to answer the question.

I personally know at least four people who are from other countries, speak English as their second or third language, and have qualified as solicitors in the UK. Two of them subsequently moved to other countries to do other things, and one of those has now returned to London and resumed practising as a solicitor. (I personally am a UK qualified solicitor currently practising in another country.)

But all of them would easily be able to confirm that they are qualified solicitors, not barristers, and none of them would post such an obviously wrong interpretation of the law on a public forum and cite the fact that they are a qualified but non-practising solicitor-or-barrister to support their interpretation.

Have I misunderstood the T.H. v. THE CZECH REPUBLIC ruling?
Having only read part of it, it seems to be about the requirement to undergo sterilisation before allowing a person to obtain a GRC (or whatever equivalent they need to change ‘legal’ gender)

We don’t require such drastic measures, so it has no impact on our SC ruling that finally and thankfully, recognises that Woman means a biological born female.

If you don’t don’t think that is a very obvious deviation from how people normally speak, then I can’t help you.

Pronouns exist for a reason and their contrived absence is notable.

It really comes down to what sort of relationship the OP wishes to have with her BIL and his family. But let’s not pretend it’s not going to be obvious to him and everyone around him that her views are hostile to trans people if she speaks the way you suggest.

She might be fine with that, but she shouldn’t do it expecting to be able to retain a close (or indeed any) relationship with her BIL.

Using male pronouns for females is a very obvious deviation from how people speak also.

Rock. Hard place.

But Re application of SC judgement Michael Foran comments:

‘In FWS, the Supreme Court set out the legal test for when a Gender Recognition Certificate does not apply to sex-based legal rules. This test is not confined to the interpretation of the Equality Act and can be used to determine the meaning of sex-based rules in any other area of law. The default in our law is that sex means biological sex. This has been settled and clarified in Corbett v Corbett, Bellinger v Bellinger, A v Chief Constable of West Yorkshire Police, Croft v Royal Mail, Green v Secretary of State for Justice, For Women Scotland No.1, and now again in the second For Women Scotland case.’

As his background in law can be checked, I think it sensible to follow his guidance.

I’m a lecturer in Public Law at the University of Glasgow. I hold a PhD in law from the University of Cambridge, a MSc in Law and Anthropology from the LSE and an LLB from Trinity College Dublin.
My first book, “Equality Before the Law” (Hart 2023) is based on my doctoral thesis which won the Yorke Prize from Cambridge.

When does the SIL magically become the BIL ?

Please provide citation of the "wrong" my learned colleague, as my tutor at law school used to say, the difference between debate club and law school is in the citations, so far you've only engaged in a debate club and attempts, weak one at personal attacks.

I have no interest in doxxing myself as the more you answer, the goalpost will keep moving from then "where did you train" and so on. Been there, done that, provide citations and I will happily engage, I will otherwise keep ignoring most of the debate club posts as before.

Not as much as the nonsensical "they/them", in my opinion.

Sure. But first, please confirm whether you are a solicitor or a barrister. Otherwise we will assume that you are neither. There's no question about "doxxing" here. There are literally tens of thousands of solicitors and barristers in the UK.

@PlanetJanette

"She might be fine with that, but she shouldn’t do it expecting to be able to retain a close (or indeed any) relationship with her BIL."

Only if the sibling-in-law believes that the world should revolve entirely around them. Not all trans people are that self-centered.

Yes there's a fantastic building in Bristol that used to be public bathrooms just here (see image) - thoigh it was still in operation until the 1970s at which point presumably it had become entirely normal for all private residences to have hot water and washing facilities (my dad grew up in a house without a bathroom at all, just access to an outdoor latrine shared between 4 houses, up till the 1960s)

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jacobs_Wells_Baths

I do wonder if they might make a comeback as more houses are built with just showers and no bath, which doesn't bother most people as showers are usually entirely adequate but it's nice to have a bath once in a while - I like a bath once a month or so.

I think the explanation is that they studied/took exams but didn’t qualify to practice?

Poor kid. Lovely, isolated, autistic. I’m sure this happens a lot. Autistic people can often struggle to form relationships in the real world so find connections online with a community who welcome and embraces them.

Here’s what I would do:
Try to use her new name and pronouns.

Speak to her:
This must be really hard
We love you and are here for you and want you to be healthy and happy always - nothing will ever change that
We will try to use your new name but if we slip up please understand it’s not out of malice, it’s just a slip up while we’re all adjusting.

Hopefully this might run its course and she’ll stop short of surgery.

If they didn't qualify then they are not a solicitor or a barrister. They are a law graduate.

It is illegal to say you are a solicitor or a barrister if you are not one.

You do know that there are some actual “fully qualified” lawyers on here? 😆

We don’t have “debate club” in the U.K. And it’s not called “law school”.

Stopping short of surgery is a win, agreed. But don't underestimate the long term effects of cross sex hormones.

I have a family member who sounds very similar to this girl (also autistic) who transitioned and has now detransitioned.

She didn't have surgery (thankfully) but being on T for a period is still causing her health problems, despite her being off hormones for some time now. She is also struggling to find healthcare professionals who can help her. Many don't want to know. Others don't know how to help her. It's a very unfortunate situation.

Yes - I think there may be some confusion here.

Do different countries have different rules about the experience required to qualify?

It’s not believing the world revolves around you to not want a relationship with people who hold views that are harmful to your wellbeing.

In a shocking turn of events, I also don’t want a relationship with the uncle who thought I shouldn’t be allowed to marry my wife. That also does not indicate that I think the world revolves around me.