Meet the Other Phone. Protection built in.

Meet the Other Phone.
Protection built in.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Feminism: Sex and gender discussions

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

322 replies

polypostwonder · 20/05/2026 15:31

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.

OP posts:
Thread gallery
6
Soontobe60 · Yesterday 08:31

‘Transitioning’ is a misnomer. One cannot change sex. Nothing is changing. Gender roles are nonsense.
I’m tired of being expected to tolerate other people’s mental illnesses and to go along with other people’s delusions. That’s all ‘transgenderism’ is. If I was pushed I could say I feel sorry for some people who think they’re the opposite sex, but that pity is generally for females who think they’re male, or gay boys who prefer to be seen as a heterosexual girl in order to avoid homophobia.
But as for the AGPs, absolutely no pity. Just as with any other man’s fetish. They could appear to be the nicest person in the world, but let’s not be coy - their niceness is part of their MO.
As has been said many times, if someone will lie about the most basic facts, they’ll lie about everything.

BonfireLady · Yesterday 09:38

@polypostwonder I'm glad my uncanny valley reference didn't cause offence and that it made sense to you as to why I used it. I broadly agree with what you said in relation to it.

I'm not sure you commented on my view that whether someone is perceived to be in this "valley" is individual to the observer, not the observed. For me, this is the key point and is echoed in Imdunfer's response as follows (in italics - I've included your words in bold, so that it makes sense):

I do not cause distress in women I am amongst in the world.

You have absolutely no idea whether this is true.

Some women who meet you might not have you in their uncanny valley space, others might. You have no way of knowing. Those that do will want to resolve their thoughts in situations that would meet their own need for single-sex spaces e.g. some women want/need them simply because it's the law (which should be reason enough, because the law itself is built on safeguarding reasons), others because of personal trauma. I do agree with you that not everyone will care about resolving it but again, I think that can be situational. Personally, I now like to resolve such feelings in every case so that I can safeguard myself: I am looking for clues as to whether the person I'm sharing a space or conversation with is an autogynophile..

I had such an experience recently, in an open pub environment. An obvious male (who needed a lot more practice walking in heels) was wearing a badly fitted wig and extremely short skirt - and was in conversation with an acquaintance of mine. I walked past and said hello to my acquaintance as we caught each other's eye. The TW had a dog which came up to me to be stroked, which I did. My acquaintance didn't introduce me (incidentally he is a bloke and has no clue about my thoughts on this subject as I've never needed to share them) and after a short natter, we finished our brief chat and he went back to his conversation with the TW. I felt comfortable in that situation, including stroking the dog, but I would not have felt comfortable if the TW had been in the loos at the same time as me.

Personally I find it odd that you think of toilets as social spaces to continue conversations in work situations. If I enter the loos while in conversation with a colleague I'll go to the opposite end of the cubicles and will wait until we're both out until the conversation continues. If I'm with friends (who I know are female) on a night out it's different and the conversation would probably continue. Equally, I find it odd that you would be in a room share situation in a work environment but TBF, that might be normal in your line of work/volunteering.

Re the teacher, I agree with you that it should be managed under safeguarding. Where I suspect that you can I differ is that for me, it is a safeguarding risk in and of itself that a teacher has chosen to coerce students and stuff to believe something that isn't factually true at a biological, and therefore legal, level. It cuts to the crux of this: is it morally OK for someone to push their own beliefs onto others? We both seem to agree that it's not. I would call it deceitful to know one's own sex and allow/coerce others to think the opposite. If someone will deceive their way into a space that they legally shouldn't be in, is this a safeguarding issue in a school? To me that's a no-brainer: yes.

I also see your concerns about having schools attempt to culturally influence your children's boundaries in a direction that is opposite of your beliefs.

My "beliefs" aren't a thing. My values are - perhaps that's what you meant..I simply have a lack of belief in gender identity i.e. I don't believe that anyone has one. I have values associated with this lack of belief: nobody should impose their belief on others and everyone should follow the law. But yes, I find it frustrating that the school is coercing my children to believe in it, particularly as this is what leads them to conclude that I'm mean.

Obviously you do believe in it and I don't, which is fine. As per my previous comments. But I'm curious... would you consider it "mean" if I:

  1. observe this teacher's sex correctly (as male) and therefore want the teacher to have no access to female students' spaces (the same as any other male teacher wouldn't)?
  2. am correct as above and don't use any pronouns when talking about the teacher?
  3. my observation was incorrect but I have stated my reasoning and concerns objectively?

For context, my daughters' answers would be as follows:

  1. yes. "Why would it even bother you, even if you were right?". They are too young to grasp the risks associated with autogynophilia at a safeguarding level
  2. yes
  3. yes
soupycustard · Yesterday 10:04

And again, why do trans-identified males insist on being allowed into female spaces?
The very obvious compromise is to have their own special spaces.
Trans-identified males can use their very powerful position in many large government organisations and multi-national corporations to ensure provision of special 'trans and trans ally' spaces.
Sorted.
So why don't they?

PrettyDamnCosmic · Yesterday 10:36

soupycustard · Yesterday 10:04

And again, why do trans-identified males insist on being allowed into female spaces?
The very obvious compromise is to have their own special spaces.
Trans-identified males can use their very powerful position in many large government organisations and multi-national corporations to ensure provision of special 'trans and trans ally' spaces.
Sorted.
So why don't they?

And again, why do trans-identified males insist on being allowed into female spaces?

For the heterosexual AGPs it’s to feed their sexual paraphilia.

JanesLittleGirl · Yesterday 10:49

There have been loads and loads of words written on this and other threads that can be summed up as "I believe that there is a thing called 'passing privilege' and I am claiming it."

ETA There is no such thing as 'passing privilege' so it can't be claimed.

Helleofabore · Yesterday 10:56

I remember other male posters who declared their female friends ‘dragged’ them into the female single sex provisions. And so they stayed.

The recounting in such a way again attempts to remove responsibility for the poster’s own decisions. We are lead to believe that the poster has no or limited agency in making their decisions.

My female friends dragged me, a woman with a machine gun told me where to go.

Are we also supposed to believe that a female person spent months room sharing with a male person and didn’t notice?

BezMills · Yesterday 11:13

I can't speak for the vast majority of men who don't pass, as to whether they enjoy the taste of bus tyres and tarmac. Probably not that grateful for being hoyed under the bus, would be my guess.

but even if someone is lucky enough to think they have passing privilege right now, like any other thing based on looks and perceptions, it's massively down to luck and can change quite quickly due to age and other factors.

ArabellaScott · Yesterday 11:23

polypostwonder · Yesterday 00:09

You have explained your problem using mens loos, which I can see must be a real problem when you're wearing very feminine clothes. As a tall woman with short hair, narrow pelvis and broad shoulders I've experienced a little of that (but women are kinder!) during my life.

This isn’t about clothes, feminine or otherwise. I don’t wear feminine clothes or makeup very often. The issue with men’s loos (that I think you are referencing) was when I was a teenager, typically wearing jeans and a jumper.

What I don't pick up from your posts is any understanding of the genuine distress that you are causing some women by using women's facilities.
You seem to believe that your own distress at using the men's overrides the distress of women caused by you using the women's.
Am I reading this right?

I do not cause distress in women I am amongst in the world.

Perhaps, due to the disclosure of my history here, there are some men and women on mumsnet who are distressed at the suggestion that I am roaming the world untethered by biological sex. There are men and women here who also may have a belief that what I say is impossible. I am not responsible for their feelings.

I maintain no distress about using the men’s. I’ve used the men’s when in a ‘digestive emergency’ and it was the closest room available. I shouted on entry and shouted as I heard a man enter.

It would be near impossible to segregate me apart from other women though. When I approach a woman holding a machine gun who looks like she’s had a bad day to ask where the loo is and she walks me to the women’s… When I’m accompanied by a local associate to an open plan squat toilet room with barely any nook dividers… Tell me what am I supposed to feel? This is normal.

Toilets can also be a social space as much as they are a place to do highly personal tasks. I accompany family members, friends, associates and clients. Breaking conversation because random people on the internet feel I must hunt for a fourth space just isn’t going to happen. So, I think you are reading it wrongly, but again, I don’t control what you think.

I can still remember how men and women tried to exclude gays and lesbians from spaces because of their genuinely expressed distress. Public accommodations are not operated on personal preference. When provided for a class of people, they provide a service across a wide variety of people within that class of people. If people must guarantee the environment they wish to occupy, they can create their own space to their own specifications. Such a place doesn't exist in public.

My second question is that if using the facilties which match your biological sex causes issues, why is the campaigning all targeted at allowing biological males to use women's facilities instead of being targeted at the provision of gender neutral facilities?

This statement is on the same level as a demand that someone must only use razors that match their biological sex. There is no such thing as a biological sex space.

As to why people had issues when I was using men's toilets, that was their problem. I experienced constant friction around men's spaces when I was a teen and zero friction around women's spaces as a teen and then an adult. If this is due to biology, then so be it.

I’ve never campaigned. I don’t ideologically support all campaigns. My biological sex is irrelevant to other people. It is only relevant here because I disclosed it to provide context to my contributions.

If you are questioning the wider cultural effort to integrate trans men with men and trans women with women, I can’t answer that because you choose to reframe the argument as a biological sex targeting a gendered space rather than requesting a special new fourth space. I imagine it is because not every trans person passes and some people wish trans people to be able to participate in public life rather than be the subject of scorn, distrust and abuse.

I'm not involved in the provision of gender neutral facilities. All public facility providers should be renovating immediately if they expect trans people to require fourth spaces. They don't need campaigns for this. They can also improve third spaces too, while they're at it.

Edited

I am roaming the world untethered by biological sex

Untethered sound about right.

It's not possible to untether from one's sex. We are not brains in jars.

ArabellaScott · Yesterday 11:24

'Passing' just means 'getting away with it'.

Its called 'sex by deception' for a reason.

And again, if somebody genuinely truly passed, why would they spend so much time trying to persuade strangers online that they are undetectable?

ArabellaScott · Yesterday 11:28

Its the thin wedge argument. The suggestion is that if one person can magically and truly pass (this is a claim nobody can verify or disprove) then sex is meaningless and all men should be allowed to use women's spaces 'untethered' by the constraints of biology.

Also noting that 'biological tethers' I can think of are all ones that apply to women. Other than prostate issues, I suppose.

ArabellaScott · Yesterday 11:31

Women's biological tethers:

Being smaller and physically weaker
Periods
Pregnancy and the risk of pregnancy
Miscarriage
Menopause

Men's biological tethers:

Prostate issues

I suppose in the toilet context prostate issues do make men need to pee more. But then, they can do so standing up just about anywhere.

Pingponghavoc · Yesterday 11:33

borntobequiet · Yesterday 04:24

Toilets can also be a social space as much as they are a place to do highly personal tasks. I accompany family members, friends, associates and clients.

Said no woman ever.

I think men and women have a different definition of 'clients'.

I have never known anyone trying to sell IT systems to suggest a quick social experience in the ladies.

Pingponghavoc · Yesterday 11:48

The reason why men write these long posts is because trans ideology is based on male sexuality and nothing else. This cannot be said, so men have to find a million other reasons in the hope that something sticks.

So the true reason is left unsaid and we're supposed to be sympathetic to the unrelated pleas.

If TRA were truthful, they'd say "Performing woman is my sexuality, some women look a bit masculine", "Performing woman is my sexuality, dsd is a medical condition", "Performing woman is my sexuality, some men have slight builds", "Performing woman is my sexuality, some women chat in the toilets".

Shedmistress · Yesterday 12:13

Men who 'pass' as women and who women totally view as women don't need pulling into the female toilets by their friends. Honestly please come up with better dressing for that salad.

Flunkit · Yesterday 12:25

Pingponghavoc · Yesterday 11:33

I think men and women have a different definition of 'clients'.

I have never known anyone trying to sell IT systems to suggest a quick social experience in the ladies.

😁

Helleofabore · Yesterday 13:09

ArabellaScott · Yesterday 11:24

'Passing' just means 'getting away with it'.

Its called 'sex by deception' for a reason.

And again, if somebody genuinely truly passed, why would they spend so much time trying to persuade strangers online that they are undetectable?

Edited

This is true.

If someone also doesn’t ‘pass’ in real life, would they have all these philosophical arguments ready to go? And is it more of the case that a man has destabilised the term ‘pass’ to simply mean that no one abused them or was violent with them so they have assumed they ‘passed’ when the reality is far from
the truth.

As to the deception angle, I cannot conceive how any female person who hasn’t verbally consented to sharing a room with a male person would not be uncomfortable at the very least, distressed or fucking angry at the worst, at discovering they shared with a male person who didn’t disclose his sex category.

And if that was a work situation, I wouldn’t be surprised at a law suit.

I can see how heavily invested a male person who has never disclosed his sex category to work colleagues would be that they never find out about that deception. Of course, I cannot agree with the deception but I can see how a male mind would work in that case.

Helleofabore · Yesterday 14:27

Pingponghavoc · Yesterday 11:33

I think men and women have a different definition of 'clients'.

I have never known anyone trying to sell IT systems to suggest a quick social experience in the ladies.

I personally would find it weird to have someone continue a discussion into the toilets with me if I was their client. Even a work colleague unless we were very good friends.

It is a matter of recognising people’s personal boundaries. I guess if you cannot recognise that female people have the right to know what sex you (general you) are when it matters, then perhaps this is another boundary that you (general you) will not recognise.

RapidOnsetGenderCritic · Yesterday 15:20

Shedmistress · Yesterday 12:13

Men who 'pass' as women and who women totally view as women don't need pulling into the female toilets by their friends. Honestly please come up with better dressing for that salad.

Indeed.

Imdunfer · Yesterday 15:36

I can't help wondering what type of "clients" we are talking about if business deals are being done in a ladies loo.

Flunkit · Yesterday 15:40

Isn't Hempstead heath popular

Helleofabore · Yesterday 15:50

https://x.com/loudbonnet/status/2058501325805986229?s=46

Men are so terrifying that men who say they are women must be given sanctuary from them. But women who don’t want men in their lavatories are pearl-clutching bigots. Got that everyone?

Naomi is spot on.

or

Men are so terrifying that men who say they are women must be given sanctuary from them. But women are to be ignored if they say they are terrified of men and know that men cannot change sex in any way.

Naomi Cunningham (@LoudBonnet) on X

Men are so terrifying that men who say they are women must be given sanctuary from them. But women who don’t want men in their lavatories are pearl-clutching bigots. Got that everyone?

https://x.com/loudbonnet/status/2058501325805986229?s=46

hahabahbag · Yesterday 15:53

@Imdunfer

well put. Dress how you please, if as a consenting adult you want to take hormones and have surgery go ahead (whether the state should be funding it is a separate issue but for this assume they are paying privately), choose whatever name and pronouns you fancy BUT don’t expect to be access single sex spaces which are single sex for safety and comfort or just for good reason, and where sex makes a difference eg sports. Whether there should be female only shortlists I would disagree with to start with unless it’s role that requires a woman it should be open to all in 2026.

Pingponghavoc · Yesterday 17:07

I'm puzzled when they say they pass 70% of the time. As if the 30% been seen as a man is within the normal range for women.

Men are so terrifying that men who say they are women must be given sanctuary from them. But women who don’t want men in their lavatories are pearl-clutching bigots. Got that everyone?

Its even odded when this usually comes with the attitude that men who want to harm women will follow them into the toilet anyway.

Its suggesting that men only want to harm men in the men's toilet and nowhere else. They are willing to follow women into the womens toilet, but not men.

ArabellaScott · Yesterday 19:31

hahabahbag · Yesterday 15:53

@Imdunfer

well put. Dress how you please, if as a consenting adult you want to take hormones and have surgery go ahead (whether the state should be funding it is a separate issue but for this assume they are paying privately), choose whatever name and pronouns you fancy BUT don’t expect to be access single sex spaces which are single sex for safety and comfort or just for good reason, and where sex makes a difference eg sports. Whether there should be female only shortlists I would disagree with to start with unless it’s role that requires a woman it should be open to all in 2026.

Female only shortlists are trying to offer equity to women.disadvantaged by their sex - often correcting historic or systemic biases or because mothers find it hard to re enter the workplace/certain fields.

I can see both sides of the arguments tbh.

nicepotoftea · Yesterday 20:25

At this time of year I am reminded that while I find it difficult to judge the sex of many animals and birds, that does not mean that those animals and birds can avoid the consequences of being male or female.