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.

I see Poly is still using us for his euphoria then

This doesn't really function as a counter-argument, as every bit of it is applicable to you, too:

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

As such, it sidesteps the point by reducing something more complex to a matter of personal perspective (while, ironically, 1) not acknowledging the dual applicability of your comment, and 2) assuming the indifference of billions to suit your own narrative - I could say this actually exposes the reductive nature of your perspective, thereby reinforcing the validity of my concern).

Anyway. The point is, we have two different views here on what "woman" should mean. So, how do you argue against mine in a way that isn't just, with mildly entertaining irony, "Not everyone thinks the way you do, and many aren't even aware of their own redefinition in 21st-century western English, so (implicitly) back to why what I think has primacy?")

Instead, I'm interested in how one actually, ethically, chooses between your, and our, interpretation of "woman"?

My argument is that it feels unethical to remove from western English vocabulary a descriptor for billions to instead replace it with something misaligned with their conception of themselves. I give an example of how that has the concrete effect of hampering our ability to refer to others; it also feels wrong as regards them (to use an analogy I think you'd appreciate, not unlike misgendering a trans person in their absence).

As such, I argue for a "woman" and "transwoman", as this enables both demographics a descriptor and political identity. Anything else feels undemocratic in our own limited context, and unethical - and also impractical - on a global and historical scale.

What's your argument for melding these two descriptors? Practically and ethically? Logically? Philosophically?

As opposed to primarily personally?

Yeah. It is quite funny though. It’s mostly descended to him complaining how horrible this place is….

I cannot be bothered, because there is simply no point, responding to the ridiculous arguments that you are putting forward here, for example suggesting a fear of lesbians can in any way be compared to the legitimate fear of the demonstrable male propensity for violence.

But what I think I can fairly conclude is that although you believe that you are a woman, you do not give a damn that your support for genetic and physical males to use female only spaces would, if it was successful, allow people who, unlike you, are very clearly male to cause considerable distress to many of the women who you claim to be one of.

You are not representative of the majority of your kind yet because of your own success in integrating as a women you believe we should treat all female identifying trans people the same way.

There will shortly be androids which are visually and behaviourally indistinguishable from humans. Those androids will never obtain human rights unless they take them by force, because they are not humans.

You are not a woman. Nobody is ever a woman unless they have xx chromosomes.

You are simply much more successful at masquerading as a woman than most trans people.

I don't actually have a lot of problem with you using women's loos if you genuinely are that good a copy.

But I'm pretty disgusted by you thinking that your experience gives you any insight into or right to justify obvious males having an absolute right to be in female spaces, and that's without even thinking about the ones who are there for sexual gratification.

Most 'billions of women' if they even hear about men who say they are women will think women in the west who believe this have lost their fucking minds.

@Imdunfer But I'm pretty disgusted by you thinking that your experience gives you any insight into or right to justify obvious males having an absolute right to be in female spaces, and that's without even thinking about the ones who are there for sexual gratification.

I've been called a handmaiden on social media.

On mumsnet, I've been told I am in women's space for sexual gratification.

Just how many trans people do you believe are 'there' for sexual gratification?

I'm here to learn. I think I've learned a lot about gender critical people by participating in this immersive environment rather than lurking as I did initially.

What have you learnt about 'gender critical people' exactly?

Maybe another time.

One is too many.

Yes, as a GC woman, please tell me a thing you think that I believe.
I keep hearing people say that "GC people believe that xyz" then come out with something that's not remotely like a thing that I think!

So an example would be useful.

Edit - ah, I see no honest answer is forthcoming. Shocked, etc.

I'm here to learn.

😆😅😂🤣😂😅😆

I thought we were sex realist? Can't keep up.

Plenty of them. They post videos of themselves wanking in the toilets, stealing used sanitary pads and listening to women pee.

woman is an expanding circle

Expanding, eh? What will it include next? Lawnmowers? Artisan cheese?

Blanchard's theory of AGP suggested around 75% of men who cross dressed.or 'transitioned' fell into that category.

That number may have changed due to various social factors.

But still likely to be a majority.

'Immersive environment'

Women's spaces aren't a theme park for your gratification.

🙄

Anyone who says they're a lawnmower is a lawnmower, you bigot. /s

Perhaps the gilt has worn off that gingerbread.

Women of the spreadsheet, rise up! Excel in everything you do.

I do wonder what his motives are. Does he think that eventually we’ll throw up our hands and agree that he was right all along and he is actually a woman? Does he get points for every post because points mean prizes? (Maybe that’s the reason for the name change - he levelled up?)Is he a missionary from the Church of Trans bringing the true religion to the heathens; god loves a trier, after all? 🤷‍♀️

I will pay more attention when people start demanding language for both sexes.

Great! I do demand language for both sexes. To be honest I assumed that was obvious, but more than happy to say so.

So, you will pay attention now, yes?

Great.

Your beliefs are not the view of women. They are the beliefs of solipsistic male people who wish to impose their own beliefs and assumptions on to female people so they can inhabit a fantasy "womanhood".

And yet, I have no wish to tell you you are not who you say you are. Indeed, I very much wish the world was open to more ways of being, more open to how the social roles and expressions associated with "women" can and are often also expressed by men.

My only "demand", if you like, is that what you feel, what other trans people feel, what indeed the vast majority of humans in general feel to some degree were you to bother asking them, be explored as something other than an overwriting of sex.

I see no reason whatsoever that everything you feel to be true about yourself should not exist alongside the truth of your physical sex and of everyone elses. I see no reason why all the arguments you make for why "womanhood" is not simply being an adult human female work just as well, in fact better, as arguments that all the things you claim for "womanhood" that are not simply body sex be taken out of womanhood altogether, and instead be accepted as a separate expression of a wholy different axis of human expression, not replacing sex but intersecting with it just as other facets of our personalitities do. An expression that has some historical connections to the female sex due to social framiing undoubtably, just as the T has historic connections to the LGB because of their shared history, but two different things that are both respected more by admitting that.

Imagine the honest and insightful conversations women and trans "women" could have about our experiences at the intersection of patriachy and the feminine! We because our bodies are inherently the patriarchal "other", and you because your expression catches the patriachal disgust of anything it branded culturally or socially "female" even when it's expressed by a man. Imagine the places dealing with women honesty rather than denying our differences and our right to exist could take you!

Put simply, when you demonstrate that "woman" is not simply of the female sex, you do not prove that male people are somehow interchangeable with female if they claim the word woman, you demonstrate the need for a separate classification system that allows female people language and existence outside the word "woman".

You are here to learn? That is great!

When do you plan to start?