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?

Same reason that you’re so bothered that someone else does, I assume.

When all is said and done, it doesn’t matter what anyone thinks or the reams of nonsensical special pleading they write about it. Legally, “trans women” are considered men.

My cousin came out as a transman in his early 20s and I refer to him as he, by his new name etc. it took a little getting used to and a few misgenderings, and I asked quite a few weird questions I think.

But I think it's respectful to call them their chosen name and gender. They know they're trans, and not the same as being the other bio sex. But it's respectful to address them how they wish.

Do you think it would be safe for a mixed group of sheep and wolves dressed as sheep to share spaces?

I don't think anybody's identity is linked exclusively to sex.
I would say that my biology is female and that is how I know I am a woman.
In addition to that, like everyone else I have a whole range of traits, habits, preferences etc which make up my character.
A lot of these traits would not be coded "masculine" or "feminine" by anyone ( eg I prefer roast parsnips to boiled carrots).
Some might be coded feminine by a lot of people (I like to sew), some masculine (I am irritated by irrationality); for some it would definitely depend who you asked (I like reading and don't consider that either masculine or feminine; but a rebellious teenage boy might say reading is for girls and cissies, and the people who shot Malala Yousafzai would say reading is for men and boys only.)
What I am not clear about is why I or anyone needs to carve out a highly selective subset of these many character traits, call it a "gender" and "identify" with it. I have a physical sex and a character and between them that covers everything.
Frankly, if we are going to talk in terms of gender and be realistic about it, I would say that pretty much everyone is "non-binary"!

Why is lying respectful?

Also, given that you can’t define it, I don’t really take your claimed belief in gender identity as distinct from sex seriously in any sense. I can define my understanding of sex and gender, why can’t you? And “I could but I don’t want to” isn’t at all convincing to anyone, btw.

And btw the only thing I share with all other women in the world is being an adult human female. I share that with good women and with bad, it’s just biology so it has no bearing on anything. I don’t share it with any men, because they are not female.

But they aren't sheep, and that is the point.

You aren't choosing to focus on anything, you are explicitly denying reality and substituting it with fantasy. To the detriment of other women.

Well, they've legally changed their name to a male one so to not use it would be incorrect.

I couldn't give a crap whether other people believe in gender identity.

What bothers me is being forced into a non existent category with people with whom I have nothing in common and whose needs are not the same as mine, on the basis that they believe in it.

I think it’s a bit more complex than dressing like sheep (or like women).

I said I believed identity was real and complex, not a dress code.

@SleeplessInWherever

Okay, so imagine that you go for an interview for a promotion at your company. Afterwards, you bump into the chair of the job panel and they say, “Well, my dear, you were the best qualified candidate by a mile, but we didn’t! appoint you because we really need someone stable in the role and we think you’d just go off and have babies soon anyway!”

Have you been discriminated against, and if so, on the basis of what?

You decide to take your employer to a tribunal. At the tribunal your employer’s counsel argues that there has been no discrimination because the company appointed a trans woman to the role, so there is no discrimination against you on the basis of your being a woman, because they appointed a woman.

Your counsel says that it was sex discrimination based on the fact that as a biological woman the company assumed that you would go off and “have babies”, which isn’t the case for the trans woman. Opposing counsel then argues that to define “woman” as sex, eg. as capable of having babies, is reducing women to biology, so this shouldn’t be a factor at all. In addition, counsel argues that the trans woman is a woman, and also biological, so therefore is also a biological woman, just as you are.

The judge agrees, and rules that there has been no discrimination.

Do you think the judgment is right? Have you suffered any discrimination, or not?

After all, reducing women to sex is painting them as victims of their own biology. And gender identity is more important, so we shouldn’t reduce one to the other, should we? Your employer’s comment is fair game, since everyone is an individual and their individual identity is more important than their sex — and in the context of that, why does it matter why they didn’t appoint you? There are no real commonalities we can draw between candidates because their lived experience is all so different!

Doesn’t this just end up at the (very right wing, individualist) conclusion that everyone is just an individual with their own lived experience which is more important than any characteristics they share, so attempts to improve the experience of particular groups or classes are groundless, even immoral? DEI is just reducing people to being victims of their biology!

It might be complex.

But it still doesn't mean a male is a woman.

Great - so we have established that it’s important to be able to objectively define women! Thank goodness For Wonen Scotland took their case to court!

We also seem to agree that gender identity is a completely subjective concept so can’t be easily categorised.

I concern myself with it in the same way I engage with any other belief system. I feel free to criticise different beliefs but also defend other people’s right to hold them.

Conflict only arises where somebody’s belief affects my rights. Recent events post the SC ruling demonstrate that many people strongly believe that sex based rights should not be protected in the Equality Act.

Respect isn’t important to everyone, unfortunately!

Respect seems to be a one way track...

It's real to them, not to anyone else.

The law doesn't need to take into account people's personal and subjective identities.

A lot of people certainly seem to have none for women, that's for sure.

And then, just to make things really fun, say you are fed up with being a woman and you transition to become a trans man and get a gender recognition certificate.

You subsequently discover that your male colleague who does exactly the same job as you is getting paid twice as much. You try to bring an equal pay claim but your claim is thrown out because, legally speaking, the person whose salary you are using as a comparator is the same sex as you.

We do agree on those points, and both can acknowledge that the law already reflects that sex based rights are protected.

Surely it’s not about whether people think they should be, they are, end of conversation.

With that in mind, in OP’s case, why does it matter what we refer to people as or if they decide to change their name, what they wear - anything. The point was sex based rights, which you have and as you point out the SC confirmed, so what’s the problem now?

The point of the analogy stands, however “complex” you think it is.

Same.

That’s honesty a can of worms.

Do we honestly believe that our existing family and/or family planning has no impact on our employment?

We've got an autistic child, I require (and get) a lot of flexibility that my colleagues don’t need. If I was looking for a new job, that would put employers off.

That’s just reality, and sex doesn’t come into it. It would put new employee off my partner too.

There are implications to employers when people have children, maternity and paternity, staff coverage, childcare plans why they return. It’s again, just fact.

Do you think it's acceptable for employers not to hire women because they might have children either now or in the future