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?

I honestly thought that after the very, very clear Supreme Court ruling that we had seen the end of ill-informed (or wishful thinking) trans right activists coming on here telling us that the law allows men in women's spaces. Clearly I was over optimistic that they would accept that women have a point, and legal protection, and move on. I don't know why you pick threads where someone has a real life concern to come and spout your incorrect rhetoric. There is something called 'Operation let them speak' so, I suppose, thanks for coming and peaking a few more lurkers.

Whereas some people are able to have relationships with family members who have different religious and political views.

All countries have different rules, yes. But even if you are some sort of qualified lawyer in another country you should know better than to claim any kind of expertise in relation to a matter of UK law, surely.

That's why I kept asking the question.

A bit like if an anti-vaxxer claimed to be a doctor, you'd want to check that they don't mean they have a PhD in underwater basket weaving.

Ah, sometimes I say "law school" to refer to the place where I did the LPC. But none of my tutors ever referred to students as "learned colleague". We'd have thought they were a right prat if they had.

It's also harmful to one's well-being to not only be unable to face confronting views, but to even insulate oneself from such views to the point of cutting off relationships with close ones. When people do that over, say, religion or a new hobby or a new friend, we usually conclude that there's something very wrong going on.

Your example doesn't work, because GC views are protected beliefs while homophobia isn't.

If people can't cope with the reality of their sex, they need to work with a therapist to fix that.

It is not up to the rest of us to pretzel our logic, language, scientific understanding on behalf of their mental health issues.

This is an excellent thread with some of my all-time favourite FWR posters contributing. Thank you all.

So… if the SIL suddenly came out as the Messiah… not only would everyone around her have to acknowledge and support this, but really, truly deep-down believe it too? And nobody would be allowed to say, come on now, that’s not really possible, are you ok, what are you looking for in your life and can I help with that? Because ironically, the SIL actually being the Messiah is more likely than her being a man… because one is a subjective matter that depends entirely on other people’s consent and acceptance, and the other is an objective impossibility. It’s crazy, it really is.

And To answer a PP upthread, I much prefer to consider myself a sex-realist than a transphobe. I’m not anti-trans people at all, unless they or anyone else for that matter try to trample all over other people’s rights and dignity.

Only people that live in cloud cuckoo land would agree with you.

I’m not anti-trans people at all, unless they or anyone else for that matter try to trample all over other people’s rights and dignity.

This is what it means to live in a pluralistic, tolerant society. We don’t have to endorse other people’s beliefs to protect their rights.

I think the situation is similar to if the OP’s relative wanted to become a nun. You can recognise that an adult has the right to make their own decisions within the law, without agreeing that they are a good idea, or aligning yourself with the principles that led to that position.

Good for them. I’m not sure why anyone would want to have a relationship with someone who wants to do them harm but each to their own.

Show me on the doll where the pronoun hurt you.

If your question about how to react to your SIL is coming from a place of genuine curiosity, you would be far better placed seeking this guidance from charities or organisations which work to support trans people. If you weren’t already aware, MN is notoriously a hostile space for trans people. Do your own research around how to be an ally, and as a starting point, simply ask your SIL what pronouns they would like you to use, and if they would like you to continue using their current name or not.

Trans activism is hostile to women, which is why you tend to find opposition to it on one of the world's biggest sites run by and for women.

Why, thank you very much indeed for your help, David Herbert. 😂

But it's now the 21st century. The bizarrely-constructed, wordy passage you used as your 'exemplar' in your previous post is the very obvious deviation from the way in which people communicate verbally. You've convoluted it purposely to make your weak point, thus it sounds as ridiculous as you intended it to sound because this is not how people speak! A throwaway comment of 2 truncated sentences, not a lengthy analysis of 'John's' new relationship, is far more likely the way this happy news would be communicated in everyday 2025 parlance. And any reader encountering that silliness can pick up upon it instantly and draw their own conclusions. Your imaginary example is the only thing that is contrived.

Incidentally, relationships that are conducted solely on condition of others behaving precisely as demanded probably don't fall into the 'healthy' category to start with. And identity politicking fails to grasp that the rest of the world does not necessarily bend to accommodate individual will.

"If you weren’t already aware, MN is notoriously a hostile space for trans people."

Only those trans people who refuse to let other people live in sex-based reality. That's not all trans people, far from it.

@Merrymouse I did think about holy orders actually as I was writing this.

So if I was just plain old ‘Michelle’ now, and I became Sr. Mary Josephine, would I expect all my long-standing friends and family to always refer to me, and speak to me according to my with my new name? I don’t know? And would it matter? Would I and other people scold those who didn’t? I don’t know.

For me taking holy orders has absolutely no impact on anyone else.

But being trans, and expecting 💯 adherence to the new identity by everyone, is expecting others to go along with something that just cannot truly be so. The dissonance there is baked in. This is what I struggle with.

Social affirmation led my cousin's child to medical transition and long term health issues, despite detransitioning.

This unquestioning 'allyship' is dangerous and has caused no end of harm to my relative. We all need to engage our brains and start genuinely protecting these vulnerable young people.

I already provided deatils of how utterly wrong and ill-informed your posts of 03:48 bathrooms and changing rooms in the UK are in no way gendered and 08:47 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 were in my post of 9:05. Do you conceed you were wrong? The Building Regulations to which I referred are established under the Building Act 1984 and the Building Regulations 2010, and they apply to most building work in England and Wales.

You are confusing ‘has different beliefs’ with ‘wants to do harm’. World peace very much depends on tolerance of people with different beliefs.

I think you’ll find opposition to marriage equality meets all of the tests set out in Forstater, so yes, it would be a protected beliefs.

Not that it’s relevant because protected belief has absolutely nothing to do with personal relationships. No one has any obligation to maintain a relationship with anyone else, particularly someone who holds views that harm them, whether those views are ‘protected’ or not is entirely irrelevant.

OP’s BIL doesn’t need to do anything at your instruction.

It’s entirely up to the OP whether she wants her relationship with her BIL and his family to continue or not.

I would be harmed if my uncle who thinks I shouldn’t be allowed to get married had his way. He doesn’t just ‘have a different belief’, his belief is that I should be treated differently because I am gay. That is the harm.

Most posters on here do hold beliefs that would do harm to the OP’s BIL. I don’t know if OP does. But if she does, he would be entirely legitimate in having nothing to do with her.

Well it's entirely up to anyone of us if we want relationships with anyone. That works both ways.

If people need me to pretend they've changed sex for me to have a relationship with them, that could well be an insurmountable barrier. Amy compromises need to work for everyone.

If by 'harm' you mean 'acknowledge biological sex' - then its Mother Nature that you need to take this up with. Not any of us.

Sure. As I said, if holding and expressing transphobic beliefs were more important to OP than her relationship with her BIL and his family, including potentially her DH, that is a choice she is absolutely free to make.