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.

S158 (shortlists etc) isn't just about sex, it's about a number of PCs (including gender reassignment) and makes it possible to give a boost to groups who are underrepresented in a particular sphere (but never at the expense of a specific better-qualified candidate who doesn’t share the PC – it's positive action, not positive discrimination).

Women and TW will be underrepresented to a different extent, and for different reasons, so this makes perfect sense under the FWS interpretation.

No! Just no!

Women are about 50% of the population and are under represented in many areas.

Males who think that they are biologically women are a tiny, tiny proportion of the population and have absolutely no place whatsoever on any shortlists that aren't directly related to trans issues.

A company would have to have a huge workforce, tens of thousands, before it made any statistical sense to have places on a shortlist for trans people, and even then it should be a trans shortlist not the women's shortlist.

The whole point of women only shortlists is that they should not be competing against biological men.

I must have expressed myself badly. I said: Women and TW will be underrepresented to a different extent, and for different reasons . My point is that the two PCs of sex and GR must be addressed independently of each other, having regard to the prevalence of each group in the population, and their prevalence in the sphere at issue.

We agree 😊

And if I just misunderstood I apologise.

Only around 10,000 GRC have ever been issued and even the flawed census figures show 0.5% of the population identifying as trans, including non binary.

I wouldn't jump to the conclusion that trans is an underrepresented group in any desirable profession.

Well, non-GRC holders with the PC of GR would also qualify. But I'll admit, I was being a little mathematical in talking about the underrepresentation of transwomen, in that I was including the case where it has a negative value ie they are overrepresented. This is of course quite likely irl, because they are both rare and male. But S158 is there for them even so, just as it is there for white middle-aged heterosexual Christians, just in case they ever need it.

@BonfireLady I tried to respond without attributing motivations to you. I apologise if anything slipped through, I am happy to discuss further if I'm not interpreting your post correctly.

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 believe that perception is attributed to the observer, not the observed. I had originally acknowledged this in a paragraph, but edited it out to keep my response shorter.

You have absolutely no idea whether this is true.

I had also written a paragraph acknowledging this. I also included something like the paragraphs below under the next quoted paragraph. I felt that I'd spoken about this enough, so removed everything. It seems maybe there will never be an acknowledgement of my experience so I should probably just stop talking about my life and tell people that they're wrong. It would be quicker.

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 have a lifetime of experience to qualify what I said. I have observed trans and non-trans people receive transphobic or less than fair treatment by men and women who perceive them to be trans. I was the recipient of this treatment as a child. This treatment stopped for me after transition.

I have never been queried by another person to clarify or confirm my sex (or gender). Based on observation and reading of other's experiences, there would be some questioning or treatment of even the least GNC woman that would indicate a very different treatment than I've experienced. Claiming my treatment in life on ‘fear’ of violent men (just lol) or ‘be kind’ trans acceptance/integration policies (that didn’t exist 40+ years ago). There is no ambiguity in how other cultures interpret my sex, including many with extremely poor human rights records.

As an aside, the gender critical use of ‘autogynephile’ differs from the description I learned. My understanding is that there are several ‘types.’ The type I most run into share the following characteristics: idealise/envy early transition, spend 100s of thousands on surgeries and consume forced feminisation fiction due to internalised homophobia and transphobia. They seem to be primarily inwardly focused. See https://annelawrence.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/12/Lawrence-2013-men-trapped-in-mens-bodies-book.pdf and https://faculty.wcas.northwestern.edu/JMichael-Bailey/TMWWBQ.pdf

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.

I understand your distinction and reasoning.

If someone is perceivably trans, they wouldn’t be in an Uncanny Valley for me, but I can imagine maybe it could be true for others. Based on what you wrote above though, I don’t believe this person fell into your Uncanny Valley either. The wig and clothing was incidental to your perception.

I had a good friend in my 20s, who helped me buy home furnishings for a new flat. She had a vehicle and a license and I didn’t. She was a butch lesbian with large breasts and always wore a leather jacket. She was much larger than me; I appreciated the help. I would call her an ‘obvious female.’ I wouldn't have guessed her to be in anyone's Uncanny Valley. She didn’t get called ‘sir’ when we were otherwise together or with other friends, but in this context the (all) male staff at four out of five shops called her sir or mister, assumed we were a couple and talked with her rather than me even though I was making the purchases. I imagine some Uncanny Valleys would need to be crossed had she been observed entering the women's toilet.

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.

This was due to an editing error as I was collapsing thoughts and paragraphs.

My initial thought about ‘social’ was related to when I was much younger and traveled in packs… and the situation where I find my self and another/others having a discussion in a lineup or at the basins. I don’t remember all the contexts of the other bits. I should have removed it all as it didn’t add anything to what I was trying to say.

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.

Is this ‘coercion’ from the teacher’s own ideology or are they conveying the school’s ideology? (Maybe while also ‘benefiting’ from the ideology in an objectionable way, within your values?)

There have been teachers in transition within schools for decades. Trans people are not yet banned from certain professions in the UK.

There are more than a few mumsnet members who believe trans people do not exist; they are categorically mentally ill women and men. There are also more than a few mumsnet members who acknowledge trans people, but believe they must stop demanding pronouns and wrong-sexed names but can wear whatever they want (within reason).

On mumsnet, I’ve had the last 40+ years of my life called a larp. I’ve been called a gay man. I’ve been called AGP and a fetishist. I’ve had dozens of creatively assigned motivations credited for my transition, life and relationships as a woman, wife and mother. I don't believe mumsnet members have the right to push their own beliefs onto me, but it will continue none the less.

Gay men and lesbians were also categorically mentally ill and ‘illegal’ in the UK until eventually, sexual orientation became a biological fact (through conjecture). I’m sure homosexual criminals were overjoyed when they received pardons decades later, if they were still living.

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.

I don’t believe I have a gender identity. I may have had something resembling one before and maybe during transition. The whole ‘Gender’ thing wouldn’t exist for another decades after.

I believe there are people who transition (who may feel they possess a gender identity, or not). I believe there are people who do not transition (who may feel they possess a gender identity, or not). I probably don’t know what they are feeling, exactly. But I can respect that they feel something, or not.

I believe there are cultural values. A person can also live life according to a personal value system. I think another person can act against one’s own values. I believe that a person can share their values with others, and also pass them on. I don’t believe it is fair for an individual to demand another adhere to their values outside of a shared cultural context.

Culture can influence what values are important enough to include in the curriculum. Sometimes these values clash with a person’s personal value system (compulsory tithing, women’s rights, women’s health, trans inclusion, multiculturalism, etc). In the US, homeschooling is very popular amongst conservatives for this reason.

I don’t believe it is fair to blame the school’s culture on the teacher. I also don’t believe the presence of a person is a belief. They are present and embodied. A person may find characteristics of the other to be objectionable due to their own beliefs or values, but they are not inherently an imposition or a demand upon another.

The UK law around trans people and sex is contentious. The FWS decision declares a definition. The EHRC Code of Practice rewrote the application of the definition across numerous contexts not originally specified by FWS, while reversing the application of the GRA. The EHRC also states trans people’s rights are likely being negatively affected by the new Code of Practice. There is no law that criminalises the actions of trans people’s use of spaces. This leaves enforcement of spaces to space-providing staff and/or vigilante gatekeepers.

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?

1. I will take your word that you have accurately observed the teacher’s sex according to your beliefs/values. Absent proof, the attribution of any motivations (such as AGP) possibly borders on prejudice. So, a maybe.
2. I can see it as a situation that could feel like gaslighting, as the cultural value instilled by the school itself welcomes and includes the presence of the person who is objectionable to you and your values. I don’t believe your values would overcome the cultural value if concerns were brought to the school. If you believe pronouns are sex based and you believe this person to not be of the sex they are employed, then no. If you believe in the punitive application of pronouns due to unproven motivations, then yes.
3. The only person who can accurately evaluate your example is you. A trans person isn’t definitionally a safeguarding danger. A trans teacher teaching is not a safeguarding danger. The context and environment matter. Actions matter. Facts matter. If you feel you have reasoned your observations and concerns objectively, then I would say no.

@polypostwonder

Trans people are not yet banned from certain professions in the UK.

And they never will and the trans pretence that you will have to fight to keep your current legal rights is just an attempt to drum up hysteria in support of your campaign to use women's spaces.

Can I have an answer please to whether you care that insisting on your own right to use female spaces because you make a convincing woman gives other trans people who scare the shit out of some women the same right. Do you care about those women? Why do you think your feelings trump theirs?

I think there is a legitimate discussion on any person to acts in a way to deceive others about their sex category (eg use of wrong sex language) being a teacher as it poses a safeguarding risk where children’s instinct which is part of the protection measures that they do have is being lowered. The teacher can effectively be said to lower a child’s instinctive response - lowering their personal boundaries.

Is OP now saying there's a trans hierarchy? Dolls then Bricks?

That would require seeing women as humans, rather than supporting actors in the film.

"I .... I ..... I ..... I .... I...." on and on and on.

All it boils down to is "I want my own experiences to be the measure of womanhood and I will reject the reality or significance of anything that I do not personally experience".

Female People Exist. Making a Trans "Woman"'s Self Image and Self Reported Experiences the Measure of Womanhood Erases US. The Word Woman Exists Because We Exist. It Does Not And Has Never Meant A Social Experience Or Presentation. It Means US.

There is something so male about arguing that sex is just a social phenomenon and ignoring the material consequences.

Strutt your stuff, establish your place in the hierarchy, have it away, never worry about what happens next. Kick up a fuss if anyone interferes with your fun.

I wonder sometimes, if the government decided to treat women as the Taliban do, and took away all women’s freedoms, how many of these men would suddenly decide they are actually men after all? That is the difference between TIM and women. They can wake up one morning and decide to be men again. Women can’t.

I read somewhere recently, possibly on MN, that the country carrying out the most genital surgeries is Iran. Apparently it’s imposed on gay men because being trans is acceptable while being gay isn’t.

The TRAs are obviously missing a trick bu not moving there.

Indeed. But apparently suggesting this is “mean”.

This.

Men have crossed dressed for years, but only have wanted the right to been seen as women since women have the right to equal pay and equal opportunities.

Exactly. I think some men see women as “having it easy” and want in on that. They can’t stand women having equality. A lot of TIMs are very convinced that they make better women than women do, and given a choice, men would choose them anyday. 😁😁😁😁

On mumsnet, I’ve had the last 40+ years of my life called a larp. I’ve been called a gay man. I’ve been called AGP and a fetishist. I’ve had dozens of creatively assigned motivations credited for my transition, life and relationships as a woman, wife and mother. I don't believe mumsnet members have the right to push their own beliefs onto me, but it will continue none the less.

So some people believe you are those things...tell you you are those things...include you in those categories. But you don't accept that.

However, you say people throughout your life have believed you to be a woman...told you you are a woman...have included you in the category of woman. And you do accept that.

Why accept the second and not the first?

If you are who people tell you you are/believe you to be, why is only the second option valid?

You don't believe mumsnet members have the right to push their own beliefs onto you because they're incorrect, but people who push their beliefs onto you that you're a woman are correct?

A lot of TIMs are very convinced that they make better women than women do, and given a choice, men would choose them anyday. 😁😁😁😁

Oh yes, we should apparently be very careful about wanting TW to use the men's toilets with our husbands/boyfriends/partners because our husbands/boyfriends/partners will be so bowled over by the stunningness and womanliness of TW they will immediately want to be with them instead of us.

Weirdly TW then pivot to NOT being able to use the men's toilets because our husbands/boyfriends/partners are so violent and horrible they will attack TW because they KNOW they are not women.

TW pretzel arguments as ever.

I never understood that either. It’s like many genderborg arguments. Batshit

polypostwonder
On mumsnet, I’ve had the last 40+ years of my life called a larp. I’ve been called a gay man. I’ve been called AGP and a fetishist. I’ve had dozens of creatively assigned motivations credited for my transition, life and relationships as a woman, wife and mother. I don't believe mumsnet members have the right to push their own beliefs onto me, but it will continue none the less.

I don't doubt you. You have also been engaged with politely, questioned in a reasonable manner, disagreed with politely, challenged, eyerolled at, and - probably most frequently - just ignored.

This is a public forum, any post is open to all sorts of reactions, some you like, some you don't.

If you find that
I don't believe mumsnet members have the right to push their own beliefs onto me, but it will continue none the less.
wouldn't the most logical thing be to distance yourself from the source of all this unpleasantness, and stop interacting with Mumsnet?

Genuine question: if it's so awful here, why do you keep coming back?

Have you ever read the Children of Transitioners site, @polypostwonder? It’s run by a friend of mine.

childrenoftransitioners.org/

I totally believe some mumsnet members have a very firm vision of 'a trans person' in their brains that they apply the instant the word 'trans' is mentioned. I accept that for most of them, it is part of an abusive outlook and that their behaviour won't be changing anytime soon. Honestly, it probably affects their life and relationships a lot more than they realise.

I recognise that some people do seek validation and do request people identify them in a certain way. Being a visually identifiable trans person is extremely difficult.

Nobody has ever told me that I'm a woman. No one tells me that they believe I am a woman. I don't wander the lands seeking validation. I just am.