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.

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

Great! So you will be totally ok and still a woman by your own lights should society decide the word woman, and therefore anything labelled as for or of women, should continue to refer to the female half of humanity just as it always has, right?

Because the female half of humanity exists, and will continue to exist, entirely separate to your personal conception of us as somehow the same as you.

And for this reason we need language that refers to us and only us.

Your personal view of womanhood is irrelevant to this, just as it is irrelevent to us other than when you make it relevent by acting on it to appropriate our resources, rights and cultural space.

For all your word salad, all one needs to see to see your true beliefs is that you will not countenance the existence of a word that simply refers to the female half of the species. Your facade of reasonableness falls away with that one simple challenge.

I trust that you are correct. Most people are reasonable and fair. The people campaigning to have known trans people removed from careers are still understood as niche obsessive cranks.

The rest of what I write will be dismissed as self-interest, but here it goes.

You are inferring a whole lot of moralising on top of my use of spaces. No decision is being made. I am not weighing 'pros' and 'cons' or other women's rights and obligations. Because I am (and have been for a very very long time) afforded those rights equally as a woman.

I don't police the word 'woman' or the inclusion of anyone else as a woman. I believe all women belong in women's space. My belief is woman is an expanding circle that includes all who are included (yes, it is very circular). Gender critical people understand it to be a finite pie.

Culturally, attitudes toward trans people (trans men and trans women) have changed since I went through the process. Does the presence of policies and laws that didn't exist then modify trans people or society? I don't believe trans people are the ones who are changing here. Trans people hold no power in the process as laws affecting their lives go back and forth.

There were women who were/are terrified of lesbians. There are women who were/are terrified of immigrants. I feel for women who are terrified of trans women, or lesbians or immigrants. Fear is a very disabling emotion. If culture supports refugee settlement or LGBT rights, then it is out of the individual's hands. People are not culture wars.

More than a few mumsnet members emphatically do not 'consent' to trans people being present in any space. There is no human right or law that grants a person any power of consent, or lack of consent, over another’s participation in public or their access to social programs.

Where are these many women on MN who do not want transpeople to be present in any space? I’ve never seen anyone say that. We mostly just don’t want males in female single-sex spaces.

I don't police the word 'woman' or the inclusion of anyone else as a woman. I believe all women belong in women's space. My belief is woman is an expanding circle that includes all who are included (yes, it is very circular). Gender critical people understand it to be a finite pie.

Legally, in the UK you aren't a woman and have no right to be in women's single sex spaces or use single sex services for women. Your beliefs are irrelevant to your legal status or rights.

Great! So you will be totally ok and still a woman by your own lights should society decide the word woman, and therefore anything labelled as for or of women, should continue to refer to the female half of humanity just as it always has, right?

There would be no change to my life.

And for this reason we need language that refers to us and only us.

This is not the view of women. This is the view of gender critical people. I will pay more attention when people start demanding language for both sexes.

Your personal view of womanhood is irrelevant to this, just as it is irrelevent to us other than when you make it relevent by acting on it to appropriate our resources, rights and cultural space.

As a woman, I'm not appropriating anything. My identity has nothing to do with any of it.

I personally consent to trans people being in any space relevant to their sex and any space where sex is not relevant. So if woman is an ever expanding circle as you say, surely man is too. Who should be included in these categories and who should be excluded? If you can’t define these categories, how do people know if they belong in these categories? If woman means “anyone who says they are”, then it means nothing. Women have no word to describe themselves that does not include males. Loving the misogyny there.

Nice try on equating the fear of men in female spaces either homophobia and racism though. It’s like you’ve memorised the TRA playbook.

UK law does not say my life is illegal.

It says you belong in male spaces. Sorry bud, we didn’t write the law. We just follow it.

I never said it did. But in the UK you have no right to use women's single sex spaces or services. I hope you're using either ones for men or gender neutral spaces and services.

This is not the view of women. This is the view of gender critical people. I will pay more attention when people start demanding language for both sexes.

It is impossible to expect a rational argument from anyone who writes this.

Demanding what language? Is he saying he’ll only start paying attention if men start kicking off about language? Ok then. In that case as a man, stop appropriating language meant for women. Man is an adult human male and woman is an adult human female. And I said that in my manliest voice. And I am a man if I say so, according to OP.

Sadly, we've already established that I am not changing anything.

Sadly for women, that appears to be the case.

Screw what women want, I guess.

Yeah yeah. We know mate. Not very ladylike is it? But I thought as a woman, you’d be all kind, and gentle and putting others first. You know, like women are socialised to do from a very young age. Anything else just smacks of male entitlement doesn’t it?

And im sorry that some men cant cope with the knowledge that they are male and have to construct ever bizarre arguments to justify their fantasy.

But it is what it is. Women are female humans and humans can't change sex.

No gender identity, behaviour or pieces of paper will change that. Men can barricade themselves into the womens toilet, but they'll still be men.

- And for this reason we need language that refers to us and only us.

- This is not the view of women. This is the view of gender critical people.

That's one hell of a claim, there. Which demographics are you including?!

There are hundreds of millions of women - billions? - globally who have never heard of your definition of "woman".

The female people of the entirety of human history also deserve a word, if they're to continue to exist in the public consciousness - in history books, discourse, discussion - in the capacity in which they understood themselves.

Your definition excludes women, globally and historically, on an immense scale - or at the very least, blithely applies to them a term by which simply they don't understand themselves.

Has it occurred to you how extraordinarily (offensively) selective your re-conceptualisation of "woman" is, in real terms? Have you considered what gives you the right to redefine billions on the basis of the one, tiny snippet of human experience you favour?

Our definition, in contrast, encompasses multitudes.

To pre-empt counter-argument 1, "There's no confusion about what these women are": look at the trend of historical trans-ing of female-firsts and achievements; look at my own experience of literally struggling to explain the Taliban's oppression of "women", because the kids with whom I was speaking didn't understand this was biologically-based as opposed to identity-based, and I lacked the vocabulary to say this - I'll never ever forget my helplessness and horror on experiencing this consequence of women's redefinition.

To pre-empt counter-argument 2, "But fa'afafine..." etc.: As I understand it, such third genders aren't typically seen as women, leaving the female 51% of their populations an unambiguous descriptor, and political identity, of their own.

My belief is woman is an expanding circle that includes all who are included

Does this apply to other species too?

If so I recommend you use our definition of sex if you ever want to buy guinea pigs.

Well, to be fair, you needn't worry about this if you're in favour of a particular breed (😉) of ever-expanding inclusiveness. (Just buy a very big cage...)

Sorry 🙃.

The billions of other women don't give this topic the in-group justifications and single-mindedness that gender critical campaigners do.

I assume the billions of other women know a woman when they meet one. Not everyone believes (or cares about) what you do. When they think of women as a class, they are including women as a class. They are not implementing a spreadsheet.

A spreadsheet? Sorry, what?

Billions of women rely on clear definitions of sex to protect them from sex discrimination and to enable medical treatment.

Your definition has no practical use whatsoever. I wouldn't have a clue whether somebody was a woman using your terms of reference.

Yes and they know that a man is not a woman no matter how many world salad posts he makes trying to pretend he is.

We got a spreadsheet!!! No one told me!! Love a good spreadsheet

I repeat my question form a previous post:
if that's what you think, why do you keep coming back to a board which is full of in-group-justifying single-minded GC campaigners, who will never accept that you are a woman because they accept the standard scientific definition of what a woman is.

If that's so very unacceptable to you, why are you still here?

"They are not implementing a spreadsheet".

😂😂 "Women as a spreadsheet". 😂😂

Only a man would claim that.