What is "trans" and why does it justify undoing sex in law, society, culture and history?

[FlirtsWithRhinos]

In the Trolls thread @Tandora and I discovered that in a recent thread she had thought she was very clear about what "trans" is while I thought she was simply describing symptoms that could have many causes and did not justify why these symptoms should be treated as actual material facts by others.

• Trolls thread with our interaction on this page: https://www.mumsnet.com/talk/womensrights/5420701-a-little-piece-of-insight?page=15&reply=147554941

• my question on the earlier thread: https://www.mumsnet.com/talk/womens_rights/5420701-a-little-piece-of-insight?page=15&reply=147554941

Clearly I missed something in that earlier thread but I can't go back because it has reached its post limit, so rather than derail the trolls thread, I am restating my question here.

Looking forward to @Tandora engaging with my questions to help me understand what I missed about her position in the original thread.

__
Tandora · 02/10/2025 21:28
Right- this is your question. which is why im trying to explain what being trans is. It's entirely relevant, the reason people can't comprehend the issue is that they simply can't comprehend what it is to be trans.
_

FlirtsWithRhinos · 02/10/2025 23:13
But Tandora you haven't explained what being trans is. All you've done is played the old TRA game of "Not that" when anyone else tries suggest an definition, any definition at all, that appears to fit the random claims you are making that feeling very wrong in the sex you actually are is somehow interchangeable with being the sex you are not, or that a characteristic of the mind somehow overrides the reality and consequences of differences of the body for both the trans person and for others.

You have made all sort of hand wringing emotional claims on behalf of trans people, and roundly insulted everyone who doesn't accept your argument of "they just are, alright" as closed minded and uneducated (which frankly would be hilarious to anyone who'd ever met me), and yet never once explained exactly why this thing makes the differences of sex and the social consequences of those differences, facts that are entirely and unproblematically accepted as real in all other circumstances, suddenly inconsequential and irrelevant in the face of a trans person's mental self image.

So I'll ask you again.

What is "being trans" Tandora?
Is it being one sex but with a deep and aching wish you were the other sex, maybe like a blind person has a deep and aching wish to see, or a lonely little girl has a deep and aching wish that she had been born as one of the popular kids instead?

Or is it actually being, in an innate mental way, in ways we don't yet understand, the other sex, implying that sex is not in fact a descriptor of the body but of the mind?

Because take away the emotional manipulation and neither definition actually justifies the demands being made of women in its name.

Neither definition changes the fact that people with female bodies do exist and do face social and physical consequences because of those bodies, and neither a man's deep feeling that he should have had a female body, nor a man's deep feeling that women don't need to have a female body, changes the embodied experiences and needs and self knowledge of the people who actually have a female body one iota.

Because these are things that are entirely to do with the experiences of women, and so no experience or feeling, no matter how genuine, of a man is relevant to them.

And regardless of which definition you go for, in fact regardless of any definition you go for that places more weight on a man's idea of himself as a woman than the embodied fact of female existence, outside his own mind he is simply not relevant to who women in the original female sense are and what women in the original female sense need at all.

No definition of woman that is stretched to include male people is more relevant to the needs and experiences and reality of female people than the simple old fashioned sex based definition and there is sinply no way round that.
face of a trans person's mental self image.

So I'll ask you again.

What is "being trans" Tandora?

Is it being one sex but with a deep and aching wish you were the other sex, maybe like a blind person has a deep and aching wish to see, or a lonely little girl has a deep and aching wish that she had been born as one of the popular kids instead?

Or is it actually being, in an innate mental way, in ways we don't yet understand, the other sex, implying that sex is not in fact a descriptor of the body but of the mind?

Because take away the emotional manipulation and neither definition actually justifies the demands being made of women in its name.

Neither definition changes the fact that people with female bodies do exist and do face social and physical consequences because of those bodies, and neither a man's deep feeling that he should have had a female body, nor a man's deep feeling that women don't need to have a female body, changes the embodied experiences and needs and self knowledge of the people who actually have a female body one iota.

Because these are things that are entirely to do with the experiences of women, and so no experience or feeling, no matter how genuine, of a man is relevant to them.

And regardless of which definition you go for, in fact regardless of any definition you go for that places more weight on a man's idea of himself as a woman than the embodied fact of female existence, outside his own mind he is simply not relevant to who women in the original female sense are and what women in the original female sense need at all.

No definition of woman that is stretched to include male people is more relevant to the needs and experiences and reality of female people than the simple old fashioned sex based definition and there is sinply no way round that.

_

@Tandora I don't have much free time this afternoon. Please don't take slow replies as bad faith and be assured I will be coming back to this thread when I have to engage properly as I really appreciate you wanting to explain this to me.

Which means no to men in women's spaces, and no to mixed sex spaces, because mixed sex spaces are a greater risk to women, and some naive women might use them because they don't understand the risk.

I've considered it. The implications for safeguarding and basic common sense make it unworkable.

Am at work will respond to this later. Don't worry I'm not ignoring you but I do have deadlines looming.

Consider a hypothesis? Is that seriously all that these pages and pages of posts from you on various threads boil down to? Consider a hypothesis

But you haven't made an argument. You haven't gone any further than suggesting that being trans is physiological. No expertise is required to do that.

Honestly, it's not mumsnet you need to worry about - it's all the people you could be excluding from the trans community with your narrow definition.

Did I say "sex is silly pointless"?

Or did I say -
I neither disagree nor agree with the statement "nobody can change sex", because i consider this to be a silly/ pointless statement.

As the OP, the question is not just what trans in your opinion is, but also how that meaning justiifies undoing sex in law, society, culture and history.

So Taztoy's question is absolutely on topic.

You have mostly addressed the first part, though we still have unanswered the core question of the biochemical hypothesis (and incidentally one I also highlighted in that OP to explain why I felt you had never explained properly): whether a trans women is simply a man, 100% a man, no closer to women than any other man, but with a biochemical misfiring in his brain that affects how he perceives his body, or a person whose brain has what we might call a biochemically female personality that affects not just his body image but his tastes and personality, a man who is actually empirically closer to women in the mind than other men, implying such gender differences are also innate and bichemical.

However, you really have not made much headway on the second. I'm still very unclear what you think here.

As far as I can tell you think there should be boundaries around what trans women can do as "women" but you consider it far too gauche and distressing to trans women to actually articulate or codify them in law or policy. Is that right?

Perhaps, given you believe trans people are suffering great mental distress just in their day to day lives, you believe we do not need to have explicit boundaries because no trans womean - these poor distressed souls - would ever actually push beyond what is reasonable in practice?

I think many people who say TWAW do believe this BTW - they do not think explicit boundaries are required because they do not imagine trans women as anything other than pathetically grateful to be accepted. It's a trap women often fall in to with men of all sorts - the woman thinks she is being kind and supportive and expects consideration and gratitude in return, while the man just thinks he's getting his due and never thinks about what it costs her to give it.

The point would be, for me, a bit more background on whether your claims of neurological basis etc etc etc are grounded in any kind of proof or reality, or just sounding a bit sciencey but actually more Judith Butler-adjacent wishful thinking.

Either way: like most on this board I can accept that some trans-identifying people sincerely believe they are, or should be, the opposite sex. I sympathise with the ones who are distressed by this. I think society could make provision in the form of alternative accommodation.

At the same time, I recognise laws are based on biology and reality and I completely reject distorting that, and depriving women like Taz, on the basis of the feelings of others.

You keep saying you don't want to get into the practical implications and that's your right, but I'm not going to take seriously anyone who makes extraordinary claims, offers no evidence at all to back them up, advances a theory that would undermine existing law and then handwaves away the knock-on effects.

So unless you're going to offer proof or solutions, you're essentially perpetuating wishful thinking and reality denial and therefore are not a credible source.

What I have done is provide you with a coherent and logical explanation (hypothesis as you call it) of what "being trans" is.

PP said that no one can explain what it even is. I have done that for you. You call it a 'hypothesis' and want to see further evidence that this hypothesis is true. That's completely fair. So consider the hypothesis and maybe do some reading.

Up thread Tandora did suggest single sex spaces + single gender spaces - so 4 types of service. I can't remember if any suggestions were made for non-binary people.

In my opinion we must ensure every single mentally unwell person, trans or otherwise, gets the very best treatment.

In my opinion we must ensure every single paraphiliac, trans or otherwise, understands that private places with consenting adults (where the law allows - many paraphilias are illegal for good reason) is the only place paraphilias should be acted out.

Can you suggest or recommend any reading?

I think you might have misunderstood - the concern is not that there is no explanation , but that there is no one explanation that encompasses all the people under the trans umbrella.

I'm not really sure where you suggest I start with my reading, but if you would like some pointers for your research, maybe start with looking up 'trans umbrella'.

Yes, you said that being trans is a psychological disorder similar to the case studies described by Oliver Sacks

That seems eminently reasonable and credible.

So - why does a small number of people suffering from a psychological disorder justify (indeed necessitate) undoing sex in law society culture and history?

Particularly in view of this informed clinical consideration that most if not all those disordered people can be helped to recover? x.com/Psychgirl211/status/1808825717204922755

There are 100,000s of research papers articles/ books on this subject, that you will find in any academic library/ scientific database.
Read any of them - as many as you can!

The reason I'm not pointing to specifics is because every time I do that it becomes a distraction to the discussion.
I cannot provide you one single article/ resource/ book that will provide comprehensive "proof" to you of what it is to be trans. I can't do this anymore than I could do this for Autism or ADHD or anything else.

Each research paper/ article/ book focuses on a specific issue/ area / topic of interest - they are all part of wider understanding of trans experience.

When I have posted specific resources before it just gets into pp's pointing out all the limits of each specific study and expecting me to defend them

• oh but that doesn't prove this point it just focuses on that point;

-that sample is only this big; -that method only did that; -that study is only in that journal -oh I've seen that study before and I've read and online blog that disproves it all, etc, etc, etc,

All studies have their strengths and limitations of course.
I haven't got to where I am because I read one paper/ book - it's the weight of the body of the evidence.
(Also people don't read/ understand the studies, they just glance at the abstract and misunderstand them).

I'm lucky enough that I've never been a victim of serious sexual violence. Nor have I so far suffered many serious gynaecological issues - I have had one miscarriage and haven't yet reached the menopause.

I want the 'special single sex' women's toilets, women's sports, women's services, etc. Except because my foremothers already fought bloody hard to get them, I'll just have those ones thanks. Happy for them to be called special single sex spaces/services for women who can't or don't want to tolerate male people in these settings, that's fine. I wouldn't experience that as 'outing' or derogatory because that's the simple truth of the matter.

I think the single gender spaces for lovely inclusive women will not be as popular as some other people seem to think, but I'm perfectly happy for those also to be available.

Sounds like we've got a winning solution that will suit everyone 👍

I can't imaging a single scientist who wants to support their own hypothesis reacting with a general handwave and the suggestion to just read anything out there, or suggesting that specifics are a distraction. That is simply not how science works.

Well I think lots of people think there is no explanation.

But in terms of your concern - is it that my explanation as provided on this thread doesn't incorporate non-binary people? That makes sense. We can definitely discuss that. I really do have to go, but will try to return to this point later.

Actually that's really good science - to read as widely/ diversely as possible.
I'm pointing you to read everything/ as much as you can, because the overwhelming body of what's out there is consistent with what I am trying to share with/ explain to you.

Particularly the empirical work. That's one steer I would give. Read the empirical work/ studies not the theory/ philosophy.

Could you provide a link to one empirical study that you think it would be useful to read

What I have done is provide you with a coherent and logical explanation (hypothesis as you call it) of what "being trans" is.

No you haven't.

You've comprehensively described a delusion, and then said it's not a delusion.

You've claimed there is scientific evidence that it's a neurological condition, and then not provided any.

And that you are in a minority of one, to such an extent, that you would be instantly identified as the author. Where is this evidence being discussed? Written about? Duplicated?

Plus You've entirely ignored arguably the greater number of transwomen, who have AGP. Even those men who claim to represent the trans movement! And freely admit that porn made them trans, or that they've got a sexual fetish. You just pretend they don't exist

Plus all the de-transitioners who explain in remarkably similar detail the reason why they transitioned in the first place.

You've also ignored all the Tavistock staff who assert that homophobia is at the root of many a transition.

You're actually ignoring all the evidence in favour of evidence that you say you have, but can't provide.

It's typical transactivism. State you've explained something, when you haven't, claim there is evidence, when there isn't, and ignore all the evidence that there is. And disregard women entirely, from start to finish.

And then complain that people respond negatively and there must be a way.

Ok, let's try this statement.

Human bodies have a physical and observable sex. It is either male or female. In a sub 1% set of humanity that observation may require medical investigation to determine but for more than 99% of people their sex is observable at birth and is a fact known by them throughout their lives. This is true regardless of how the mind may perceive the body.

The sex of the body leads to different physical appearance and different physical capabilities, especially when it comes to the reproductive role.

In most human cultures these differences in physical appearance and capabilties lead to different social roles and from that, assymetric social power, a belief that male bodies and female bodied women were also mentally suited to different tasks and roles, and in many a sense of male entitlement to and ownership of women, both economic and sexual.

This history of sexism and marginalisation of female bodied people is now considered to be a great injustiuce, but even so the social expectations and pressures it lead to still act on us today often in subconscious ways, meaning having a female body carries consequences that a male body does not.

In recognition of this, people with female bodies have sex specific rights and protections that are reserved for them because of their body sex.

Therefore, the belief that humans can change sex, or can "be" a different sex to their body, is significant to female bodied people's rights and indeed self knowledge.

Given the above, would you like to reconsider your assertion that humans cannot change sex is something you neither agree nor disagree with and consider it to be an entirely silly/ pointless statement?

If not, can you please expain why you think it is silly and pointless when women's sex based rights are being claimed by men exactly because they do claim to have changed sex, and so it is foundational to explaining why women's sex based rights must remain based in biological sex because biological sex is the root of the disadvantages for which they exist in the first place?

It might be a good idea to read widely but from the point of a scientist to get their research and conclusions across this is not how it works. If you make a claim you provide the evidence and data and your interpretation why you believe this claim to be true you don't tell someone to read everything that was ever published. It's almost as if you can't back anything you say up. How did you go through exams? Vivas (if there were any and I admit I'm dubious)?

So you commend empirical research on psychological disorders. That's what 'Dr P' is interested in too, particularly wrt helping the disordered to recovery.

https://x.com/Psychgirl211/status/1808825717204922755

But if the welfare of the individual, and their recovery. is what you are interested in, why undo sex?