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.

I'm quoting this because it sets out the issue very simply.
Along with my constant refrain: why do trans identified males need female spaces. Why can't they argue for third spaces?

So that gives a form of answer original question - "what is trans?". It's the state of being cared about by Tandora.

Exactly. Hence the ever decreasing circles in which Tandora finds themself regarding what constitutes being trans.

Right up to a 'cognitive pathway' that is evidenced, written about, and described by trans people everywhere, but Tandora is unable to provide a single example.

But it absolutely can't be tainted by anything that makes the specific person in question look bad, dangerous, sexist or homophobic. which is pretty hard to do when your entire schtick is about violating women's boundaries.

As I said, it reminds me strongly of Susie Green.

Regarding Eddie Izzard - there is no lack of data. The man talks. Frankly, and a lot. He does not fit Tandora's diagnostic conditions, he is not trans by Tandora's definition. I think if you listen to what they say about themselves carefully a lot of public eye trans people would be rejected.

That's the trouble with definitions. By definition, they exclude.

In other words a delusion that he is a member of the opposite sex.

If you want us to accept that not being able to use womens toilets is trapping trans women in their homes why can't you accept that not having single sex spaces traps some women in their homes??? Several women on this thread have told you this is the case. You are not listening.

Great post.

And women are 51% of the population. The population of women who are excluded from public life if they don't have single sex toilets and changing rooms will always far exceed the population of transwomen. It will be women with trauma, women with religious requirements for single sex spaces, women who have heavy periods, women with disabilities, women going through pregnancy or the menopause, women who are scared of male violence and sexual harassment, women who just want a space away from men. The list goes on.

Trans identified men (transwomen) can have their own, third spaces and often already do. Though that is not women's problem to solve.

The absolute rank hypocritical misogyny of trans ideology lies in the fact that they can say with a straight face the men identifying as trans, despite being able to use mixed sex or men's spaces, will have to stay at home if excluded from single sex spaces is quite breathtaking really. And shows why 'trans' is a movement about removing women's rights which does not see women as full and equal human beings, well not the female ones anyway.

A trans person is any person who claims to be trans, but not including convicted rapists and murderers who real trans people can confirm are not trans, nor including those people who claimed to be trans but were never trans as evidenced by their later detransition, nor those people who are not trans because they do not meets Tandora's rather transphobic high bar of having a profound, automatic, almost subconscious, pervasive, all consuming, direct perception of self as the opposite sex.

None of which is visible to a woman encountering someone who is clearly male bodied in what should be a female only space, so short of have Tandora accompany me everywhere to confirm someone's transness how the hell do I tell if the bloke in the ladies is trans or not 🤷‍♀️? Answers on a postcard please as they used to say.

Yes, I am hoping the point of the post was not missed - it was to counter the idea that TW are cowering behind locked doors, too afraid to leave their homes for fear of being unable to use the ladies loos.

They are clearly not doing so in the town where I live which is not unlike Brighton in its arty, diversity. But these individuals are all living normal lives. They are studying, working, socialising and going about their normal daily business in a tolerant and inclusive bubble.

It’s just women who are compromised: muslim women (we have a high number of asylum seekers housed in the area), the women hiding trauma, women of other faiths and delicate sensibilities (my shy, sheltered and nervous 84yo MiL for eg who no longer goes to M&S alone), women like me who have physiological urinary/gynae issues that require regular visits to public loos where we may have to encounter these men (though I’ve finally been issued medication that means I can now, 20 years post partum go for a meal and not need the loo, yay me).

But our needs don’t matter. Because there MAY be a distressed TW somewhere nearby who must be accommodated.

That makes you unusual. Many people have been accused of being transphobic although they are not. This includes some people who are vocal allies of trans people, and trans people themselves - they depart from one of the doctrines, and they are accused of transphobia. Given your denial that several groups of people under the trans umbrella are trans, I am astonished if you haven't been accused of transphobia.

I was accused of transphobia and bigotry because I struggled to adjust to the demands to use a new name and feminine pronouns about my son. No grace was wasted on me - I was transphobic for not instantly obeying the precepts of trans ideology.

So pointing out inconsistencies is a personal attack now? Really?

@FlirtsWithRhinos

My purpose on this and many other mumsnet threads is to try to explain what it is to be trans. This thread started because you said that no one would/ can explain "what trans is"; I replied that that isn't true.

There are of course implications for policy and that's a valid discussion to have. But we cannot begin to have a reasonable/ meaningful conversation about that when most people completely misunderstand what it is to be trans.

That's why I'm here - to discuss that. Not to sling mud, not to play trauma trumps, to have a reasonable discussion about how we can understand and explain trans experience.

I'm happy to chat to posters who want to do the same.

That is quite shockingly dismissive of people's trauma.

And women's spaces are no longer women's spaces the moment a man walks into them.

But Tandora can't tell you either! Eddie Izzard would be standing there and Tandora would just be shrugging.

Let's move it on then. Let's say your definition of trans is completely accurate.

In our world, where laws are based on biological sex, not trans identity or understanding, what should the policy be? Remember that you must ensure provision for all, which includes people who cannot use mixed sex (SEX, not gender) spaces.

Are you trans (sorry if you said before and I have missed)?

If you are trans then why should I listen to your opinion of "what it is to be trans" and not the hundreds of other trans people who I have listened to over the years? Not least as I don't wish to be bigoted and from what I can make out 90-99% of trans people would find your definition deeply exclusionary and therefore transphobic.

If you are not trans then the above times a million?

There are of course implications for policy and that's a valid discussion to have. But we cannot begin to have a reasonable/ meaningful conversation about that when most people completely misunderstand what it is to be trans.

I think the two problems we have established with your definition are that

1). It doesn't have much practical application. (See inability to decide whether or not Eddie Izzard meets the criteria)
2). It's not universally agreed

I'm not ready to move on yet, as I don't think people do really understand (let alone accept) what I've said at all.

I still have endless comments about how it's a delusion/ wrong, its a projection based on stereotypes, it doesn't apply to most of the trans population, it can't be true because what about those who desist/ detransition, etc, etc.

Stone says that trans is...

"A term to describe people whose gender is not the same as, or does not sit comfortably with, the sex they were assigned at birth. Stonewall uses trans as an umbrella term including (but not limited to) transgender, transsexual, genderqueer, genderfluid, non-binary, agender, trans man, trans woman, trans masculine and trans feminine."

What qualifies you to better define trans than Stonewall?

Stonewall I meant

This flexibility around the definition of trans works well in times of nodebate, or little debate. Everyone can picture their ideal trans person in their mind as they advocate for them.

But as the discussion opens up, it becomes farcical.

People are claiming that single sex toilets have never been possible and women have been sharing them, unknowingly or happily, with men for years.

But now people are saying that trans is an inner feeling, and its impossible to know if someone is trans, and therefore their true sex, just by being with them.

So we still dont know what trans is, its someone who passes as their desired sex, someone who looks trans, something only they know, something they have had to know for a period of time.

Its madness.

But TRA think its all very simple and very clear.

As it is obviously very difficult (well, I would say impossible!) to explain trans in a way which is intellectually rigorous, perhaps it is better to concentrate on the 2nd part of Flirt's question.
Whatever trans is (and the more I listen to the intellectually vacuous explanations, the less I care) why must society accommodate trans-identified males specifically in female spaces? And by spaces, I dont mean just places where females are at physical risk. I mean the organisations which try to show how progressive they are by supporting trans-identified males instead of females. In a patriarchy. Where males are already the power-holders.
So whatever trans is, and whether we accept how sad trans identified males are, why do they need female rights?

@tandora. I have to say, the use of the phrase 'play trauma trumps' was disgusting. You should be ashamed of yourself.

No I'm not trans.

You don't have to listen to my opinion - I'm not in control of that. If you don't want to listen - that's fine. If you want to discuss it that's fine too.

The reason I post on this issue is not because I am trans. It's because of my professional background, which involves extensive scientific research on this issue. It's a subject I know a vast amount about. We don't require medical doctors to have all the exact conditions that they are qualified to treat, or psychologists to have the same, etc. We accept that they have expertise that comes from scientific study and research.

Yes trans people will describe their identities in different ways - like all people do - but that doesn't mean that being trans isn't a real, underlying "condition", that has predictable/ definable traits.
Think of autism - we recognise that autism affects people differently, and that autistic people will describe their experiences in vastly divergent ways. I'm sure you could trail reddit and find all sorts, or pull out a few quotes from autistic celebrities. That doesn't mean that "anything goes"/ it's a free for all when it comes to the scientific/ medical/ clinical understanding/ profile of autism.

Ah, you are financially invested in keeping this issue going. All becomes clear.

My purpose on this and many other mumsnet threads is to try to explain what it is to be trans. This thread started because you said that no one would/ can explain "what trans is"; I replied that that isn't true

What makes you the arbiter of what trans is though? Why do you think you know better than anybody else?