> "A trans woman's biology is a female biology" is just a statement I cannot agree with at all. It creates real problems and exacerbates existing ones. In fina

> "A trans woman's biology is a female biology" is just a statement I cannot agree with at all. It creates real problems and exacerbates existing ones. In finance, you need to predict a person's likely spending, longevity, income, etc. to plan investments, insurance, etc. The best data is from longitudinal (tracking individuals over time) post-retirement surveys. These take decades to run, and you need a large body of people committed to consistently doing lengthy surveys each year. Hopefully we'll get additional research to show where we can safely match trans persons into the larger surveys. The issue is, if you dogmatically make claims about someone's biology, you could be right by chance, but everyone providing these services is ethically (fiduciarily) bound to have a justifiable reason for the advice they give to customers. Some predictions don't seem like they'd be wrong; a trans person is likely to behave the way you'd expect for, e.g., spending on clothing and similar consumer goods. (Though that's pure conjecture.) But there are critical numbers like lifespan that have big effects on your investment strategy, and men and women differ by 7 years. (Err that a person lives longer and they lose out on growth. Err the other way, and they're overly exposed to risk.) I suspect many firms will just say, "you have very specific health needs and need to consult a doctor." But that's the industry standard, "our advice is to figure it out yourself," cop out, technically ethical but useless.