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.

‘Transphobic’ is like ‘tartlet’ now.

I do 'nt think it's accurate. I doubt you object to trans identifying women in your spaces.

That makes us Manphobic if anything. Not transphobic.

I said this the other day on another thread

"The problem is everything is transphobic -unless you are 100 percent TW are Women and there are no circumstances in which they should ever be excluded from womens spaces or treated differently to women you will be seen as transphobic so it could be time to just embrace it. If it is transphobic to think a convicted rapist doesn't belong in the female prison estate then I am prepared to be considered a transphobe."

I stand by it.

I want to know. I’ve been told off for saying it’s against the law for trans women to go into WSSS.

And got a civil vs criminal law lecture.

there cannot be one transwoman in the country who doesn’t know that the law has been clarified and that they are not now and never were allowed into WSSS.

How can it not be harassment then for a trans woman to enter WSSS on more than one occasion?

Forgot to add photo.

photo is a screenshot from the legislation that defines harassment.

Yes but that's transphobic too because by not objecting it means I'm not validating their manly identities.

Exactly this, completely agree. I refuse to let this word have any power over me when its only purpose is to try to elicit shame.

Sorry to those who were involved but all the arguments in this thread about what is and isn't transphobic is effectively just an appeasement towards words used to bully and chide.

Unfortunately you seem quite unable to demonstrate any such thing. I have met plenty of people who were muddled in their thinking (thanks, Stash Andreski, for this phrase and for "pretentious nebulous verbosity") any time this past sixty-five or seventy years in a large number of institutions where higher education was administered to the young and muddled by intellectually rigorous individuals of both sexes, and you are well up there with the worst of them.

And the majority of these muddled folk were convinced they were capable of being intellectually rigorous. It's sad, really. They ended up with third class degrees instead of the firsts they were sure, in spite of all the evidence they got given over three or even four years that they really didn't have first class minds, that they merited.

(BTW, most people can actually leave when they have said "I must go to work now", rather than staying around for an hour and more saying, in effect, "and ANOTHER thing!" like a tiresome adolescent trying to get one up on his mother. You have the most flexible work-start time I've encountered in years. And remind me of Shakespeare's John of Gaunt taking so long to die.)

I've not read the full thread - trying to reduce screen-time! But this really interests me.

When someone does engage more meaningfully - and genuine thanks to Tandora for doing so, even if I find some responses difficult reading - the focus always (and understandably, to a degree) remains on the TW (or TM), with women's (females') needs only addressed relative to them.

But this means that we never seem to get an explicit acknowledgement of what females who believe themselves to be in need of single-sex spaces should think/behave/do.

Is it that we're misunderstanding or catastrophising what Tandora believes here... or is it that putting it into words would be just too damning? We regularly put into words what we believe TW could/should do (whether using the men's, or third/fourth spaces). It would be good to fully understand Tandora's proposals for females in turn.

So... @Tandora, I use numbers in the following so it's easy to respond to / refute etc. I'm genuinely interested to hear your response.

Do you accept the following premises (while excusing my phrasing if you find it offensive)? My understanding from reading maybe a third of a long thread is that you do.

1. Do transwomen exist with recognisably male physical features? Y/N

2. Do women exist who are so traumatised that they may find even the presence of a close male relative in an enclosed space almost unendurable? Y/N

3. Is the response of the female above to perceiving male features in enclosed spaces (eg. a visiting uncle, a transwoman in a public toilet) bigotry? Y/N

4. Is this female's response therefore a moral failing that she needs to overcome or "reframe"? (Y/N)

5. Must this female, while unable to risk encounters with male physical features in enclosed spaces, restrict her movement accordingly? Y/N

Again (genuine) thanks for replying.

Quite. In essence, how can it be denied that all of the above requires a belief in owed female submission to the greater importance of males, on a sexed binary basis?

This.

The bottom line is that some women will consent to follow this belief system and prove, let's be honest, by undressing to provide their bodies as proof to these men of this belief.

Their body their choice.

Not all women believe and not all will consent. This will not ever change.

Third spaces provide the place where women who wish to can do this, and men who wish to be with women can do so. Everyone consents, it's all fine.

What is with this need to harass and bully non consenting women and endlessly witter on about the very special feelings and needs of the men involved as a reason to compel them to shut up and take their clothes off, while totally ignoring the feelings and needs of women?

Women: your feelings are fine, I understand your beliefs matter to you, I don't share them but I'm glad you have a space that works for you, and we can both have our needs met equally
Activists: no beliefs can be permitted except mine, and to disagree makes you a sinner and outcast. You are a bad person to want equality and should surrender your rights. You don't deserve any consideration or accessible place unless you submit. And if you say can't, you must learn to submit and undress for men and put them first in your life, because they matter <endless special pleading and sad stories> and you don't except as a need-meeter for those men <endless accusations of 'weaponising' by mentioning any life experience that might elicit a little humanity in a socially well adjusted person>.

We're back to 'learn to cope'. 'Reframe your trauma'. What did Riley Whatzit used to say about women who had been assaulted could be permitted a short period of recovery before reporting for the duty of indulging the obviously important needs of men. A bit of generous sick leave basically.

It's morally and ethically appalling. As above: it's very difficult indeed to understand this total lack of empathy, equality and tolerance except through the prism of a belief in male supremacism.

What is the answer here? Clue: It cannot involve anyone losing access and equality of consideration, or being used by others without consent. Obviously. And 'anyone' used in this sense is inclusive of women who don't agree with you.

To add to my post above, this is my rationale for the 5 premises, quoting Tandora and referencing other posts.

1)? Do transwomen exist with recognisably male physical features? Y/N

Trans is knowing that actual sex is different from the sex of the body sex as observed at birth based on observable physical sexual characteristics.

2)? Do women exist who are so traumatised that they may find even the presence of a close male relative in an enclosed space almost unendurable? Y/N

Please see Taztoy's and others' posts.

3)? Is the response of the female above to perceiving male features in enclosed spaces (eg. a visiting uncle, a transwoman in a public toilet) bigotry? Y/N

&

4)? Is this female's response therefore a moral failing that she needs to overcome or "reframe"? (Y/N)

It is possible to be a survivor of sexual violence and not be transphobic

There are a lot of people on this thread who use their experiences of SGBV as a justification for transphobia.

5)? Must this female, while unable to risk encounters with male physical features in enclosed spaces, restrict her movement accordingly? Y/N

???

PS

An easy get-out would, of course, be to say that the focus of Tandora's contributions is solely the trans individual and experience, but I hope this won't be used. The trans experience is directly impacted by what we would argue is the female experience (the debate re. access to single-sex spaces etc.), and in any case, in a thread seeking to clarify the former, it feels appropriate and balanced to address the latter.

ETA Edited to try to outwit MN's determination to scupper my numbering. Will it work...?

That’ll be a logical fallacy. Certainly in relation to my trauma experience.

I did on one occasion put your questions to a TW friend. The replies were all Y, and TWF added the following:

Strictly single-sex spaces are not completely forbidden by the faith but just think how expensive they would be: we can't possibly cater for every niche request.

Orthodox Jews and Muslims who ask for them are in the grip of a bigoted backwards belief system (🙄) and need to get with the programme.

So now we know.

Three purposes.

If you don't deny hard and fast when lies are told those lies may later be used against you. "You know it's true. If you didn't agree you would have said so at the time. You didn't because you know it's true."

Something I learned from being in a dysfunctional relationship :(

To be clear, I don't think Tandora was lying when she said had explained before and I am not comparing her to that dysfunctional partner.

But I did think her belief that she had clearly explained and my belief that she had not were not in agreement and I wasn't prepared to let that statement stand uncontested for others to read, so I took her word in good faith, assumed she genuinely had explained and I had simply failed to understand, and invited her to fill in what I was missing.

And while I still think she is dodging the core question of whether she thinks trans people are objectively closer to the opposite sex than others of their sex or simply unable to perceive that they are not, I nevertheless respect her for engaging.

I am much clearer about the way she defines trans people and will make sure I reference that definition when I respond to her in future.

Still no logic or reason from @Tandora then.

Goggle AI...In the UK, voyeurism is illegal and defined by the Sexual Offences Act 2003 and the Voyeurism (Offences) Act 2019, covering both observing and recording private acts without consent for sexual gratification or to cause humiliation, distress, or alarm.

Actually I think she believes it's a DSD that manifests as a mental difference rather than a physical one.

I believe the logic is something like: "we know the mechanisms that control physical sex development can misfire, so obviously the mechanisms that control mental sex development can also misfire."

This of course is based in an unspoken assumption that there are innate mental differences between the sexes that are not simply an emergent quality of the physical differences.

Which is why I am so keen to get to the bottom of whether T believes trans people's personalities are actually, objectively closer to those of the opposite sex than the minds of others of their sex are, or if T believes the trans person's mind is in reality no closer than any other member of their sex, and the difference is in their self perception.

I wouldn't waste too much time trying to work it out if I were you because Tandora will change her mind next week anyway. Remember the old days when Tandy thought sex was a nebulous, multifaceted blah blah blah? So no-one had any idea what sex any one was?

Tandora's 'hypothesis' reminds me of Lostcat's 'automatic cognitive sex' assertion. I just wandered back to one of those threads and Lostcat seemed pretty convinced there was going to be some sort of neurobiological evidence eventually. Cross-dressers were excluded from her definition of trans though.

The same toilet solution was offered: W + TW, M + TM, and a 3rd space for XX women who are transphobic🙄

I think one of the threads deteriorated into trying to assess what proportion of the population is XX transphobic, in order to determine how many toilets to allocate - but that might have been a different poster

To be fair to Tandora, it is perfectly possible, indeed probable, that her ideas on this subject have changed and developed over time. Mine certainly have!

From what I’ve seen on dating apps and places like Quora, the TRAs and their insane followers do believe, and promote, that heterosexuality and homosexuality are bigoted sexual orientations. They have now redefined sexual orientation, and have support from all major medical associations and the legacy media, to mean gender orientation. Even AI spots this nonsense. Even my college age son told me some of his friends believe it’s all about gender.

It is truly terrifying just how far this movement has been able to redefine society to reflect its illogical and depraved beliefs towards women, sexual orientation, and science itself.

Which is why I am so keen to get to the bottom of whether T believes trans people's personalities are actually, objectively closer to those of the opposite sex than the minds of others of their sex are, or if T believes the trans person's mind is in reality no closer than any other member of their sex, and the difference is in their self perception.

Looking at the links she posted I would suggest the former.

Was that T? I thought it was Butters.

As far as I remember, T has tended to be in the "they just are, alright, and that's why you have to #bekind because I have a lovely trans friend and she'd never do any of these awful things and I'd happily get changed with her so you are all big meanies who hate trans people" camp.

Which is actually why I have far more patience with her. Bexause I don't think she sees womanhood as a sexist bunch of stereotypes herself, I just think she's got it into her head that the needs of boring common everyday women matter less than the needs of rare exotic trans people.

And as I said before, I think many women actually adopt that view out of mental self defence because it lets them deny to themselves that they are vulnerable to the structural sexism embedded in our culture simply becase they were born female.