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.

Why don't you ask her with genuine curiosity what she thinks instead of just trying to bully her into submission?

Absolutely, all scientific studies/ papers have their limitations, which is why I recommended to pps that they read as widely and as much as possible.

Unfortunately this does rather suggest that you just can't explain the research.

You could help me to understand your views by giving a nice simple yes or no answer:

is a woman who needs a space away from men (regardless of said men’s gender identity) transphobic?

yes or no?

I don’t want a man - any person born male- in a WSSS with me because I will be traumatised.

The mistake you're making is thinking that you're a real person with feelings who can want or need things for your own reasons, like a trans person can.

I’ve just asked you a question above and I can assure you my curiosity is genuine

It was asked with genuine curiosity. All I’m seeing over more than one thread is denigrating ‘regulars’, making wild accusations and hating on FWR in an abrasive aggressive manner. But continuing to post. Yet no stance on what the majority agree with - women retaining single sex spaces. I find it strange and quite frankly a bizarre use waste of time.

‘Bully’ is doing a lot of heavy lifting here. Asking simple questions seems to be bullying now. We all know how you stand though with changing the meaning of words to suit your own agenda though so that is no surprise.

"There is no single article or research paper that I can share with here that will definitively prove what it is to be trans, that it's a real thing, and/or what causes it."

We knew that before you joined the mumsnet

Transpeople need to have access to basic services like toilets and changing rooms, in accordance with their dignity, privacy, mental health and wellbeing.

So do women victims of male violence, both sexual and physical.
Women and girls need safe SSSs.
Our needs must not be trampled on by men.

There is no logical basis (or evidence base) for believing a man with predatory intentions would pretend to be trans to access these facilities.

Oh, there is.

I’ve asked with genuine curiosity to try to discuss a solution.

And is it possible to be trans and not demand access to wrong sex spaces so......

The fact that not all survivers are triggered but something doesn't mean other aren't or that their reaction is real or valid. Tandora's ability to enter a public toilet that has or may have a man in it doesn't invalidate my mother's in ability to do so. That doesn't mean I am dismissing Tandora's experience - it means that her experience doesn't trump my mother's and more than a transwomen's does.

Tandora doesn't get to consent on my behalf, that isn't me dismissing her experience she is happy to share spaces, good for other but others are not and their rights are Tan's to wave away.

There is no logical basis (or evidence base) for believing a man with predatory intentions would pretend to be trans to access these facilities.

So all those zillions of men posting pictures of themselves wanking off in the ladies is just what? A mirage?

Men wanking on Marks & Spencer knickers? Wanking on toilet paper? The door knob?

An entire genre of porn showing transwomen exposing themselves in women's spaces.

I guess it's all an hallucination.

And there it is.

Tandora has been clinging onto their mask with both hands. But you could hear the clang of that one hitting the floor from space.

There is no logical basis (or evidence base) for believing a man with predatory intentions would pretend to be trans to access these facilities.

Jesus christ. I cannot believe someone typed this.

I think the issue here is that certain posters genuinely do believe that if a male born person states they are trans women [full stop] then they are trans women and a subset of women. Arguing and explaining this is not the case and that MOST women (was 80% posited earlier) do not agree is an irrelevance to their position,

It’s like trying to argue with the most devout of Catholics that the wine in the chalice does not actually turn into the blood of Christ but is mean to be symbolic of it. It is scientifically and indefatigably not transformed into the blood of Christ by virtue of a blessing and 80%+ of the world know and understand this - but we do honour the fact that some people DO believe it because, well, what they do on a Sunday morning is their business and it harms no-one else that they believe this as a matter of faith.

So, there is no reason to continue ‘exploring’ this issue. The belief is so innately and concretely held that it cannot be questioned in any form. The issue however is that in law, and the consensus of society per recent YouGov and other polls, is that men cannot transform into women no matter how deeply held their belief. It is a matter of law. The only way forward is to accept that certain people belief the way they do and take comfort in the fact that the law now offers the majority protection.

I am now no more concerned with the suffering, anger, or pique of TW who may or may not be able to have what they want any more than I am concerned by the same emotions experienced by members of the islamic community who believe Sharia law and the right to have 4 wives should be recognised in the UK. It isn’t. Full stop. [And no I’m not being islamaphobic as my dad and 80% of my family are muslim but, fortunately, liberal westernised ones that respect and accept the parameters of UK law.]

Some people need to get over it. And the rest of us will ensure the law is enforced to protect our rights.

Likewise. Almost weeping with frustration here!

@Tandora

Thought experiment: you know the really massive single-sex multi-user facilities they have at motorway service stations? Imagine dividing one in half and designating the one half "for the use of both trans and cis women" and the other half "for the use of biological females, but not biological males".

What do you think would happen, and why?

To be trans is to have a profound cognitive experience of self as being other to birth sex. Because of this, to insist to a trans person that they are, and must be treated according to, their birth sex causes profound psychological distress and disorientation. It can result in confusion, self-doubt, depression, anxiety, disassociation and even psychosis.

You seem to be describing severe mental illness here. It is not reasonable, practical or responsible to suggest that somebody's mental health must depend on other people maintaining a perception of reality that isn't true.

To deny them this a trans person recognition of their experience of sex is to deny their transness.

This is an odd sentence. It is possible to recognise somebody's feelings about their sex and gender without recognising that they are actually the opposite sex. You are painting a picture of trans people as being too fragile to operate in the real world

Trans people need to have access to basic services like toilets and changing rooms, in accordance with their dignity, privacy, mental health and wellbeing.

Reasonable accommodation is the general measure, and that does not include ignoring their sex.

They are open access, policed only through social convention. There is no logical basis (or evidence base) for believing a man with predatory intentions would pretend to be trans to access these facilities. Why?

No need to pretend to be trans. If the policy is that anyone can use any facility, depending on their preference, he just needs to choose a facility.

People who are observed as female at birth based on observable physical sexual characteristics also need to have access to basic services like toilets and changing rooms, in accordance with their dignity, privacy, mental health and wellbeing.

And they also need to have clear language that refers specifically and exclusively to people who are observed as female at birth based on observable physical sexual characteristics so they can describe, share and make sense of their experiences.

And they need the legal and social ability to speak about their experiences and needs as people who are observed as female at birth based on observable physical sexual characteristics and have their perspective heard, understood and respected as valid.

Do you accept that what you demand on behalf of trans people is not compatible with the fundamental rights and needs of people who are observed as female at birth based on observable physical sexual characteristics?

Likewise. Almost weeping with frustration here!

you're not going get answers that make any logical sense.

It's deliberate.

The only answers will be endless and increasingly more ridiculous justification of why you have to allow men, any man into your space.

And if you don't, you're wrong, ridiculous, transphobic - whatever adjective is necessary to get you to comply.

Why are you constantly harassing me on multiple threads? It’s creepy.

Let me make it very clear for you: I find your posts abhorrent, I’ve no interest in engaging with someone who defends racist, misogynistic bigots just because they align with their views on the politics of gender. You made your views very clear on the Charlie Kirk threads and since then have continued following me into threads, talking about me on threads and trying to goad me into arguments.

It won’t work I’m afraid. I regard you as an irritant who adds zero value to discussions so I will not be ‘engaging’ with you further. And I ask that you stop harassing me, misquoting me and following me around threads.

Followed by taking umbrage and leaving

But they're not trans so they are irrelevant to the discussion. Or something.

Those men who want to be near vulnerable women would go in the one for women in order to receive validation and exercise their power

Why do you accuse posters, as I’m not the first you’ve accused, of ‘harassing’ you (being obsessed with you was another phrase you used to another poster) for merely asking you questions regarding the points (again, doing a bit of heavy lifting here) you post.

It’s a discussion forum. Clue is in the name. I’m genuinely puzzled as to what you get out of posting here. Hence why I asked.
You just seem angry at the majority and what they stand for, accuse everyone of being far right and sea lion our resident reality denier but don’t state where you stand on women and single sex spaces and why defending this and women’s rights is wrong.

I think posting on forums that trigger one so much and brings out such an unpleasant demeanour is pretty creepy.

And as for your edit - take your own advice! I could wax lyrical on why women need and deserve sex based spaces away from men. You are just blowing hot angry air.

The women would go for the biological women one. The transwomen would too re validation as you say. The other would be empty. So some women would start using that. The transwomen would follow as those are the specific women they want validation from. Those women would then move back. As would the transwomen.

And round and round and round we go.