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.

People keep saying that things like it isn't "logically possible" to be born with male physical characteristics like a penis and recognise/ experience oneself as female...

The reason it is not possible is because a man might recognise/experience himself as 'not-male' but he has no reference point to call what he is experiencing 'female'.

Being trans is not "a preference".

Wanting to use opposite sex facilities is though. Trans people may prefer to use wrong sex spaces but they could use gender neutral/mixed sex ones where as a wheelchair user cannot access the only toilet in my house because it is up a flight of stairs.

Of course there is a reference point, just as the there is a reference point for the hat.

Please explain further.

Not wanting to use the toilets appropriate to your sex is a preference. A man can use the urinals or a cubicle in the men's toilets regardless of whether or not he claims to be a woman.

Maybe some people do really recognise themselves as the opposite sex.

But this doesn't mean they have actually changed sex.

So it makes not one iota of difference to keeping single sex spaces.

However, he was mistaken. The man's wife was not a hat. She could not be used as a hat. The man had visual agnosia, a debilitating condition, and his care did not involve his wife pretending to be a hat.

Using examples from the Oliver Sacks book does tend to suggest you are describing a disorder, but if this is the comparison you want to make, or even if you just want to say that trans people have sincerely held beliefs about their sex, this analysis still doesn't include people who describe themselves as trans because of queer theory, (a third of people who identified as trans* in the last census identified as neither male nor female) or people who openly admit that they are enjoying a fetish, or account for the massive rise in referrals for girls.

If you can't see that you are attempting to describe a narrow group of people who may not have much in common with the wider community, then it suggests that you are rather out of touch with the subject you claim to be studying.

*Excluding those who didn't specify a gender identity and may have confused by the question.

This is an extract from a review of the Oliver Sacks book. However, I can't explain what point is trying to be made by the use of this example.

archive.nytimes.com/www.nytimes.com/books/98/12/06/specials/sacks-mistook.html?scp=5&sq=%22the%20man%20who%20mistook%20his%20wife%20for%20a%20hat%22&st=cse

"IN the title story, Dr. P., a distinguished musician and teacher of music, lost the ability to recognize people and common objects at a glance. Although his visual acuity was perfectly normal, he would mistake his wife's head for his hat and act accordingly, attempting to lift it off and put it on. It is important to realize that Dr. P. was in no sense demented. There was no primary disorder of memory; he could carry on an intelligent and entertaining conversation and could play the piano with all his old skill (although he could no longer read music). The ability to recognize objects and scenes was not totally lost, for Dr. P. could still slowly and laboriously work out what an object must be by analyzing out loud what it looked like. He could then, as it were, construct by logic and reasoning the identity of objects in his world."

Yes trans people can use gender neutral/ mixed sex toilets, and they often do.

Of course there aren't always these facilities available. 'So trans people should campaign for them!' you say.

However, there are deeper problems than this. I understand that people on this board face significant barriers to empathising with trans people/ experience, but they find it very easy to empathise with victims of rape/ sexual assault. So let's engage in a thought experiment to help here.

What if the government said - victims of sexual assault/ rape who experience significant trauma reaction to sharing facilities with trans women, you must advocate for third spaces of your own!
We can resolve this problem by having three types of spaces.

• Toilets/ changing rooms for women+ trans women (only).
• Toilets/ changing rooms for men + trans men.
• Toilets/ changing rooms for "birth sex" females who have been victims of sexual violence and therefore don't feel able due to trauma to use the women + trans women toilet.

What would you see as being some of the problematic aspects of this arrangement?

Confidentiality perhaps?
Stigma?
"Othering" of survivors?
Lack of available spaces?
Burden on victim for having to campaign for these in the first instance?

But this doesn't mean they have actually changed sex.

It's not about "changing sex" , that's not what being trans is.

However, he was mistaken. The man's wife was not a hat. She could not be used as a hat.

And no one was suggesting she pretend to be a hat to facilitate his delusion

victims of sexual assault/ rape who experience an significant trauma reaction to sharing facilities with trans women, you must advocate for third spaces of your own. We can resolve this problem by having three types of spaces. Toilets/ changing rooms for women+ trans women. Toilets/ changing rooms for men. Toilets/ changing rooms for birth females who have been victims of sexual violence and therefore don't feel able to use the women + trans women toilet.

So specific toilets for women who want single sex facilities - and enough of them to accommodate everyone who needs them - Deal! Great idea! You would need to provide single sex toilets for men too, to avoid discrimination claims.

I'm not really clear why it's also necessary to have two other groups of mixed sex toilets, but it might catch on.

Also, don't worry, we already campaigned for them, so that box is ticked!

Yes, I remember the book vaguely. Thanks!
I'm actually hoping that @Tandora can explain how having a reference point for a hat is the same as a male having a reference point for 'female' that allows him to determine that he is one.

Empathising with people who believe they are the opposite sex does not mean that accommodating them as if they are actually the opposite sex is the answer.

In no other circumstance would a belief that you are something you objectively are not be accommodated in society.

And of course this is where the analogy breaks down, because perceiving your wife to be a hat has completely different consequences/ ramifications in the world.

The point of the analogy was simply to demonstrate the logical possibility of transgender experience.

So can you at the very least finally accept that?

Or am I going to hear you - in a couple of minutes time - say that being born with male physical characteristics and recognising/ identifying self as female is a logical "impossibility".

Right I have to work today folks x

Trans person - any man or woman who claims to be trans, but not including (1) rapists and murderers who reflect so badly on the trans community that real trans people are able to confirm that they are not really trans, or (2) people who will at some point in the next 20 years go onto transition because they were never trans in the first place.

Then it is entirely a belief.

Single sex spaces are set up for biology not belief.

Why do you place the rights of transgender people above mine?
I don't. It doesn't need to be an either/ or.

It does though. Either they are mixed sex or they are single sex.

There is no third way that means some men get to use women's spaces.

Women are not here to provide validation for a handful of men. Get over that idea.

Your overarching need to try and persuade women to subjugate themselves to your male friends or relatives is extraordinary.

You want women to massively increase their vulnerability, to pander to a male delusion.

And then act outraged when people call it misogynistic.

it's not women's job to make a handful of men feel better about themselves. Get over yourself.

Most (maybe all) of the case studies that Oliver Sacks describes are of people with organic brain disease e.g. after a stroke, alcoholism, syphilis etc Whereas you defined being "trans"

to have a pervasive , profound, unrelenting recognition of self as being the opposite sex

This is the description of a delusion i.e. a psychological disorder not organic brain disease.

Or am I going to hear you - in a couple of minutes time - say that being born with male physical characteristics and recognising/ identifying self as female is a logical "impossibility".

Yes, you are. And no need for the quote marks.

A man can recognise himself as his belief of what female is. Not what it actually is. Because he can never experience that.

The point of the analogy was simply to demonstrate the logical possibility of transgender experience.

If they suffer from visual agnosia?

Yes, that is a logical possibility. It's also logically possible that they have some other kind of cognitive disorder or neurological condition.

However, as explained before, this analysis excludes huge swathes of the trans community.

People keep saying things like it isn't "logically possible" to be born with male physical characteristics like a penis and recognise/ experience oneself as female.
but of course it is possible - there are all kinds of psychological/ cognitive possibilities, that also have roots in biological/ physical processes in the body/ brain. Dr Sacks describes some fascinating and diverse cases of these.

Recognising oneself as the opposite sex is not being the opposite sex.

We differentiate people by actual sex, not the feeling of what we interpret our sex to be.

Its also very dangerous for women and girls to be forced into spaces with men who claim to recognise themselves as women. Its something that they can easily lie about.

No adult is diagnosed as trans without them first declaring that they are. The diagnosis isnt about being female, its all about the mans comfort about his interpretation of 'living/being a woman'. Every man could interpret this a different way, and still have no link to what it is to be female.

You are trying to create a class of people that include all women and some men based on nothing but the mens claims of their perception of themselves.

Saying its possible that men truly believe that they are women is not even close to demonstrating that they are anything like women and need to be accommodated as women.