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.

Completely agree. Take the three most relevant/most important from the literature cited in the introduction of your last paper, or from your favourite and most recent review on the topic.

And she had to clarify because of plenty of confusion.

https://x.com/claireainsworth/status/888365994577735680?s=46

“Two sexes, with a continuum of variation in anatomy/physiology.”

21/7/2017

She corrected it to "Two sexes, with a continuum of variation in anatomy/physiology." on X.

I'd say more of a lumpy mixture than a continuum, but 🤷‍♀️

I want to know why I have to be excluded based on something someone else has done to me and why trans people aren’t expected to obey the law?

I am disabled. I have a choice. Use the ordinary single sex toilet or use the disabled.

if I use the disabled I am outing myself as a disabled person.

Why can’t there be a 4th space for trans people? A unisex toilet space?

Why do I have to accommodate men who have decided they are the same as me, based on how they feel?

There are far higher numbers of women who for whatever reason want and need a single sex space than there are trans women so why do all women have to accommodate a very small number of men?

If there is a problem with those men going into the men’s loos (as an example) why don’t the men have to accommodate by accepting more versions of manhood exist?

Ok, I've seen that three papers have appeared, I'll read them and come back.

Thanks for the response. This is helpful and confirms what I thought.

"and why trans people aren’t expected to obey the law?"

Not the subject of the thread, but very quickly there is nothing unlawful about a trans person entering whatever toilet they chose - they are not breaking the law.

The SC judgement is about the interpretation of the EA 2010. The EA is an area of civil law which places obligations on services providers regarding how they should avoid discrimination in their delivery of services.

In general the whole article seems to be an interesting overview of the science of DSDs. This is the last sentence:

So if the law requires that a person is male or female, should that sex be assigned by anatomy, hormones, cells or chromosomes, and what should be done if they clash? “My feeling is that since there is not one biological parameter that takes over every other parameter, at the end of the day, gender identity seems to be the most reasonable parameter,” says Vilain*. In other words, if you want to know whether someone is male or female, it may be best just to ask.

*Eric Vilain, a clinician and the director of the Center for Gender-Based Biology at the University of California, Los Angeles

As you say, it refers to very rare cases. I imagine it has been deliberately misunderstood.

I am sorry, but if we're going with preference then all toilets need to be single cubicle, with WC, bidet, sink, shower, leather armchair (in case of a need for sit-down) and bed (quick forty winks). As well as dressing table with high quality mirror and lighting.

If one NEEDS "the absolute privacy of an enclosed room" then presumably that is due to incredibly poor mental health to the point that it is or should be regarded as a disability. More disabled facilities makes sense.

If one PREFERS "the absolute privacy of an enclosed room" then, IMHO, that should be treated similarly to how I prefer to be treated like the queen wherever I go, or how I would prefer it if Allwyn UK treated me as the winner of the most recent National Lottery.

Great. It's really helpful to know that people are not objecting to the information in the article itself.

@Tandora

I want to know why my pain at having to learn to adapt to others' view of me as a girl when I was a little child who thought she was a boy is less valid or important than Dr. Upton's distress at adapting to other people's view of DU as a man. I was a little child who not only had gender dysphoria, I was being physically and sexually abused and had no support. DU is an adult who has a lot of support. Yet apparently it is too much to ask him to accommodate others' views (even though he needs to do so as a doctor, a profession that DU chose knowing that DU would need to take patients' POV into account) yet completely ignored that I experienced gender dysphoria and was still able to accept that others viewed me as a girl. If I could do that, why can't DU? Why is DU's distress more important than my distress was? I not only had distress bc of my gender dysphoria, I had a great deal of distress bc of my abuse.

Yet you act like it's too much to expect DU to realize that others view him as a man and adjust his behavior.
Yes, I believe it absolutely is too much in many cases, because of the profound distress that results from this.

Further, I now experience great distress when I encounter men, including transwomen, in single sex spaces like women's loos, changing rooms, support groups, etc. I re-experience the abuse that most likely led to my gender dsyphoria. Why is my distress at encountering a transwoman in single sex spaces less important or valid than the distress of transwomen who have to use the gents?

I'm sorry if I'm rambling or unclear. It's painful to remember. You saying what you did was extremely painful to me. I am still stunned that you were so dismissive of my pain and the pain of other women.

Well a 4th space can also be useful for parents with pushchairs, disabled people with an opposite sex carer, ambulant people with disabilities and frailties etc

@Tandora There are several excellent posts by @FlirtsWithRhinos which you do not seem to have engaged with. Since she is the OP and set up this thread specifically to engage with you, it would be good thread etiquette for you to respond.

However, the conclusion of that last paragraph isn't particularly helpful, in isolation.

If the law requires that a person is male or female, and there is no material foundation for distinguishing between the two, then the logical conclusion is not that gender identity is the best indicator, but that the law shouldn't be distinguishing between male and female.

In reality we distinguish between male and female because in the overwhelming number of cases there is no ambiguity about sex, and the material consequences of being one sex or the other are significant.

There's case law. For people without DSDs, legal biological sex = gonads and genitals at birth. For people with a DSD causing a mismatch between the two, occasioning medical intervention, the court took the pragmatic approach that patient preference could also be taken into account.

@nicepotoftea If the law requires that a person is male or female, and there is no material foundation for distinguishing between the two, then the logical conclusion is not that gender identity is the best indicator, but that the law shouldn't be distinguishing between male and female.

Actually, I've edited my reply because Ithink I may have misunderstood you. Are you saying that for the very small numbers of cases where it is particular hard to determine sex, the person should not be allocated M or F at all?

rather that in a handful of cases involving disorders/differences of development it is difficult to make a quick and easy determination

That is why I said 'in isolation'.

However, I'm not sure whether the article considers things like DSDs in sport.

Sorry, I edited while you posted. I'm going to go and have a nice pot of tea💜

I have already said I will sue any service provider who does not enforce the clarified provisions of the equality act.

furthermore, as I have also already said, should a trans woman enter a toilet I am in I will record me telling said trans woman that she is there in contravention of the provisions of the Equality act and that the presence of the said trans woman is causing me distress and I deem it to be harassment given that the trans woman knows that the provisions of the equality act are such that people are directed to use the toilet that aligns not with their gender, but their sex. I will report the incident to the service provider at that point as well and ask them to check any cctv outside the toilets.

Should they enter a second time, I will record and repeat as above and report the incident to the police as harassment. (Because there have to be 2 incidents for it to qualify as harassment in England and Wales)

The 'empirical' research studies cited seem to depend on an assumption that gender exists. So are basically useless. You might as well do an empirical study on what colour fairies' wings are.

Basically, I wouldn't start from there.

A nice pot of tea is always a good idea.

Actually, I've edited my reply because Ithink I may have misunderstood you. Are you saying that for the very small numbers of cases where it is particular hard to determine sex, the person should not be allocated M or F at all?

No, I'm arguing about the circumstances when it is necessary to distinguish between male and female. Read in isolation without the rest of the article, that paragraph could mean that it's never possible to define sex, so we might as well use gender identity. However, if it's never possible to define sex, then the logical conclusion is that the categories of male and female are unnecessary, not that they can be usefully replaced by gender identity.

If the intention of the paragraph is to say that in the tiny number of cases where it is not possible to determine sex, the wishes of the individual should be the deciding factor, then that is different.

@Tandora

Under the "faulty rolodex" hypothesis, do you envision the trans experience as one of expecting to see ones body is one sex and so feeling constant distress knowing /seeing an actual body of the opposite sex, or is it seeing ones actual body, knowing it is the right body, but nevertheless also knowing it is a body that belongs to the opposite sex, and the distress comes not from ones own cognitive dissonance but from knowing that others do not perceive the truth of one?

Using the man and the wife and the hat as an illustration, the man sees her head as it is but nevertheless knows it is a hat (ie the second option above). He does not expect to see a hat and is surprised when he actually sees a head.

(I realise you are not suggesting whatever he experinced is the same mechanism as transgenderism. I'm just using the scenario as language to illustrate my point).

Basically I am trying to drill down to the core of how you think about sex in relationship to trans.

Is sex a physical attribute which in the case of trans people is wrongly perceived? In this model, trans women have no more in common with female people than any other men. Their trans identity, while genuinely felt, is a personal experience with no connection to the experiences and self knowledge of female people.

Is sex, at least part, a mental attribute beyond the simple self knowledge of the body but more akin to personality traits, which in the case of trans people was triggered in a body where it does not usually occur? In this model, trans women have some mental attribute in common with women that other men do not have. The trans identity shares something with women that exists also in their own experience not just in a trans women's projection of commonality.

Or is it wibble wibble hatstand words can mean anything why does it matter if two people who think they are "women" mean the same things by that or not? Women's rights and spaces are just there by the hand of god ready for anyone who feels like the word "woman" suits them and what's the problem with that?

I couldn't get to the bit where apparently men behaved exactly like women. I was waiting to find what constituted that.

I’d like to know whether I’m entitled to reject dr Upton if they arrive to treat me as I’ve asked for a biological woman.

The trans identity shares something with women that exists also in their own experience not just in a trans women's projection of commonality.

what would that something look like?