The liminality of sex perception, sex-based spaces and bodily autonomy.

[polypostwonder]

This thread continues a discussion between BonfireLady (sorry, I wanted to tag you but the system says your username doesn't currently exist) and I on biological sex vs perceived/observed sex in https://www.mumsnet.com/talk/womensrights/5530455-us-to-open-worlds-first-childrens-detransition-clinic-texas-hospital-to-offer-free-services-reversing-the-effects-of-gender-affirming-treatments?page=10&reply=152406258

She has requested I answer the following two questions:

1. would you consider that a viable way forward is for you to self-exclude from women's spaces and instead either advocate for third spaces for anyone to use (e.g. unisex facilities in addition to single-sex) or (probably your least preferred) use the men's?
2. would you support a restriction on anyone under 18 (or 25?) making permanent changes to their body, to match it with their perception of their "gender"? Similar to other restrictions on permanent body changes.

I believe I have previously answered them both. My answers today are superficially the same, but I have better thought out my answers (maybe?). To do this though, I need to share some assumptions.

In the previous thread, I believe there was somewhat of an agreement on the following statements:

1. People can identify a man when dressed in clothes 'traditionally associated' with women. Clothes are superficial to sex.
2. People look at other people and perceive their sex. People are not identifying the gametes/sry/chromosomes/other unobservable immutable biologic factor inside another person.
3. Assumptions about sex are made based on a person’s sex characteristics amongst other observable cues.
4. Pretty much every person in the whole world "exists within the expectations of sex categories". Very rarely it's unclear.
5. If a person exists within the expectations of sex categories, then socially they are treated as that sex whether they wish to be or not.

Building on those statements and previous discussion, some additional thoughts:

1. ‘Biological sex’ is defined by a person’s gametes/chromosomes/sry/other unobservable immutable biologic factor. This cannot be changed.
2. ’Observable sex’ is based upon the perception of sex characteristics rather than known biological sex and influences the placement and treatment of people in social sex categories. Perception is not under control of the observed, nor is it a demand of others.
3. Observable sex can be heavily influenced by biological sex and sex-based function. But sex-based function is not a requirement for the perception of sex.
4. Women’s rights are a cultural accommodation to rebalance access to society and ensure health, fair treatment, safety and/or dignity. Not all women require or access every right, but these rights are a vital benefit to women as a class.
5. Users of a culturally defined space for members of one sex may feel comfort, privacy or protection through separation from non-users. But all users share an equal right to feel comfort, privacy or protection.
6. Misogyny is not biologically based. It is a prejudice directed at women’s observable sex. Sexism can be biologically directed, but it can also be directed at members of an observable sex.
7. Sex realists believe every person should live and be treated by society according to their biological sex, no exceptions.
8. Trans people have a wide range of beliefs and goals. They do not share a single motivation.
9. Better quality research should be done with trans people of all ages.

I think BonfireLady is correct in saying each of us sees the other's "belief" as non-sensical and our own as position as factual. I'm hoping we can discuss this from a somewhat sensical space.

Sex realists believe every person should live and be treated by society according to their biological sex, no exceptions

I can't speak for every sex realist but I believe this only with the qualification that anyone should be allowed to present and behave however they like within the spectrum of gender presentation.

The exceptions being the use of female only facilities, inclusion on female only shortlists and participation in female only sport and female only groups.

I'm unsure what "living as and being treated acording to one's biological sex means in practice"? What does it look like? As mentioned by 'Imdunfer' the only relevence when it comes to biological sex is biologically based/centred matters ( health services etc), and those that cater to, or are predicated upon, the differences in biology and physicality between the sexes - of which toilet and changing facilities and sporting categories are examples.

It was a short cut rather than going into things like pronoun use, which is demonstrably 'biological' and socially contextless by sex realists.

I agree with @Imdunfer when she says "anyone should be allowed to present and behave however they like within the spectrum of gender presentation."

However, there is a line that can be crossed when 'gender presentation' goes beyond androgyny and into an observer's perception of ambiguous or discordant sex characteristics.

'Physicality' is a perception of observed sex.

However, there is a line that can be crossed when 'gender presentation' goes beyond androgyny

You see i don't agree that it's possible to cross that line, because that line, for me, isn't there.

If a man chooses to wear a dress, a bra, lace knickers, stilettos, full make up and a wig that is his choice and none of my business. He can't insist that I tell him he's a woman or call him "she" but he can present how he likes.

Just as it would be none of his business if I chose to glue on a beard and wear a "man's" pinstripe suit.

Nobody has any obligation to conform to any gender limitations of how they present themself.

Sex realists believe every person should live and be treated by society according to their biological sex, no exceptions.

This isn't really accurate, and it's not very clear either.

For me, it's not complicated.

Where sex matters, don't lie about it.

If it genuinely doesn't matter, treat people the same regardless of their sex.

The disagreement arises as to the situations in which it matters.

Spaces where people are vulnerable or undressed - many people think it does matter, based on evidence that one sex is a higher risk of causing harm.

Others disagree and want all spaces to be mixed-sex.

Some people think sex matters when choosing a sexual partner. Others don't and insist people should consider anyone of either sex (or even a different sex than the person wishes to consider).

Some people think sex matters when assessing medical risk or pregnancy risk. Others think this is not important and believe that people should only be treated in accordance with their feelings.

Etc.

That's a lot of words to say you're going to do what you want irrespective of what women think

I 100% agree with you.

Clothing is not a sex characteristic (I would also include a glue-on beard as clothing). It was point one in the first post.

No one can request how they wish to be perceived, that was part of point two in the supplemental list of my assumptions in the first post.

We also agree that nobody has any obligation to conform to any gender limitations.

The 'line' is 'something' that delineates going beyond the above. Breasts on an otherwise observed man, for example.

If a person exists within the expectations of sex categories, then socially they are treated as that sex whether they wish to be or not.

I'm not really clear on this, either. Different people will treat different people differently in different situations.

A person doesn't receive a consistent "societal treatment" agreed on by all of society.

I dont know when someone says hello to me if that's "treating me as a man" or "treating me as a woman". I think this claim seems a bit muddled.

In most situations sex doesn’t matter.

Where it does, it is usually taken into account because of women’s physical vulnerability relative to men, and our different bodily functions.
Sometimes, sex differentiation is also used to account for men’s reluctance to discuss feelings in mixed sex groups, hence the whole “men’s shed” type of mental health initiative.

But mainly I only want society to treat women differently when our physical needs necessitate this.

I do not have a belief that men and women should always be treated differently because of our sexed bodies.

Sex categories are more of a culturally directed force than a relationship level thing. It does influence how individuals relate, but relationship-level interactions, influences and experiences can exist independently and vary widely.

Everyone understands what sex category culture places them into.

1. *Women’s rights are a cultural accommodation to rebalance access to society and ensure health, fair treatment, safety and/or dignity. Not all women require or access every right, but these rights are a vital benefit to women as a class.

Yes.

1. Users of a culturally defined space for members of one sex may feel comfort, privacy or protection through separation from non-users. But all users share an equal right to feel comfort, privacy or protection.

That makes no sense, does it?

Women needing single sex spaces need - and are entitled by law in protections set - to comfort, privacy and protection by separation from opposite sex users.

They cannot have those things if men are permitted to enter those spaces. How that man feels, surgery, cosmetics, self expression etc etc is irrelevant to this, his sex does not go away, and many women cannot make allowances for this, the man makes the space untenable and leaves them without resource.

Obviously vulnerable women's needs for access to public life, to be an identifiable named group (it's half the population) for needs to be met, and for equality, is as essential as those men's needs.

Those men's needs can be met by additional spaces, without removing single sex provisions from those women. Equality of comfort, privacy and protection.

Additional single sex provisions for the women simply creates by default a gender neutral space plus a women only space that men cannot enter.

No man needs 'comfort' by forcibly invading a non consenting woman's space. He's not gaining anything justifiable by doing so.

The premise needs to start from:

No one is left without provision
Equality of consideration
No provision can involve resources taken away from another group

With that in mind, what do we add?

Women needing single sex spaces need - and are entitled by law in protections set - to comfort, privacy and protection by separation from opposite sex users.

The law can regulate protections based on its own definitions and assumptions.

Legally defining sex as 'biological' has no impact on the reality that at the cultural level, sex is functionally based on observation and social grouping.

You want to use women's toilets and spaces. Which you'd like to exist on a sexed basis so that you can use the women's one. I get it.

You don't want the reality of sex to matter because that's a major barrier to your preferences.

You will argue endlessly that there's no such thing as sex (except when identifying who you want to be with and where when they are undressing) to try and vanish this barrier.

And women's consent means nothing to you.

I don't share your belief. End of. By law, I have a right to a single sex space. On a sexed basis. And I and many others have no issues with identifying sex, it's no problem. I respect you feel and see it differently, but we're going to have to agree to differ, because I never will. If a man is in a single sex space, I cannot use it. I do not see a man's gender related needs as more important than mine or other women's equality and access to society, and am a bit suspicious of why any man would wish me to.

So we're both going to need accessible spaces. They're going to need to be parallel aren't they? And one is going to have to be clearly named as mixed sex and the other as single sex for the people for whom sex matters.

If you don't see sex as relevant or important or even identifiable without posts like academic papers, why would you mind about this?

@OpheliaWitchoftheWoods
They cannot have those things if men are permitted to enter those spaces. How that man feels, surgery, cosmetics, self expression etc etc is irrelevant to this, his sex does not go away, and many women cannot make allowances for this, the man makes the space untenable and leaves them without resource.

How a man feels, surgery, cosmetics, self expression in another individual is not impactful to my life. My observed sex, cultural treatment and my access to women's spaces have remained unaltered by the growing presence of observable people between the margins of observable sex in the world.

I have no idea what you mean by that.

How is it relevant to the part of my post that you quoted?

You want to use women's toilets and spaces. Which you'd like to exist on a sexed basis so that you can use the women's one. I get it.

I don't want anything. I've used women's toilets and spaces for longer than my adult life. How you believe how I wish to exist is not impactful on how I am observed and treated by people and society.

You don't want the reality of sex to matter because that's a major barrier to your preferences.

The reality of my sex is that it is observed. I am provided opportunities and denied opportunities based on this fact.

You will argue endlessly that there's no such thing as sex (except when identifying who you want to be with and where when they are undressing) to try and vanish this barrier.

I haven't mentioned identifying as a sex ever on this board. WTF does undressing have to do with anything on this thread?

Sex is not based on social grouping. I do not need to operate in a group of women to be a woman. I work with all male colleagues. They don’t think I am a man.

Sex is an individual physical attribute, and readily observable in the vast majority of cases.

The reality of my sex is that it is observed. I am provided opportunities and denied opportunities based on this fact.

And again with the "everybody thinks I'm a woman so I just went along with it" line.

Sex is not based on social grouping. I do not need to operate in a group of women to be a woman. I work with all male colleagues. They don’t think I am a man.

Because you are socially grouped as a woman independently of personal relationships.

Sex is an individual physical attribute, and readily observable in the vast majority of cases.

Observed sex is formed through perception of multiple sex characteristics. They align with biological sex in a vast majority of cases.

sex is functionally based on observation and social grouping.
It depends on what you mean by 'functionally', 'observation' and 'social grouping', doesn't it?

Which function? Who is the observer? Who defines the social grouping, and on what criteria?

And this is why this whole conversation is pointless.

You see yourself as female
You will be using women's single sex spaces, you make that repeatedly clear
You have no care whatsoever for what women need or how this impacts them.
I don't really understand these endless posts going over and over this.

You are giving a clear if unintentional example of why women need very clear legal protections to have the single sex spaces they need, but beyond that I don't see the point of continuing to try and have a conversation. I'm not going to change your mind, you're not going to change mine. We both still need accessible provision. .

The patriarchy, other women, family socialisation, every cultural influence (within and without other intersectional characteristics) upon a person's being.

Sorry, but I don't know what you mean by 'sex categories' in that case.

When you say "what sex category culture places them into" do you mean "which sex people usually think I am"?

One thing that’s struck me while lurking on trans UK Reddit is how much they encourage each other to lie about their sex when it comes to using opposite sex spaces. And the assumption that nobody will be able to prove otherwise.

The entitlement screams off the pages, just like with @polypostwonder.

Oh right, is all this supposed to be arguing the case that "if people think I look female, that means I literally am"?

Because that skates right over the "where sex matters, don't lie about it" part.

Would be nice to have an honest discussion on this! Ah, well.