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.

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. - FlirtsWithRhinos

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

You implicitly acknowledge that, in the UK, you have no legal right to any single sex spaces or services for women. Yet you continue to use them.

Any such use is appropriating women's resources, rights, and cultural space.

Apparently they are.

When male people use other people’s kindness to prop up their subjective reality as if it is material reality it really does show the harm those demands for kindness creates.

Everyday we cycle back around to the statements that no one questions, no one notices, everyone acts as if the male person is female, and therefore a male person believes that laws do not apply to him because the laws apply to someone else. The constant declaration is that male people can be female if they say they are.

All based on not only a male person’s subjective reality that doesn’t represent material reality, but also other people’s acts of kindness. Well also, some people’s ignorance that a person is male when they believe that the person who has felt entitled to access female single sex provisions is female or that that person who has said they are female is actually male. Because why would you not believe a person who you love and trust when they tell you that they are female or led you to believe that they are through never disclosing they are not female.

Really, when you see it in action, the gaslighting effect is incredibly concerning.

I agree that it's sad that you won't be.

Anyway, it's been a good thread. Thank you for starting it and continuing to engage with it.

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

If you're referring to any women's spaces of any kind..

Trans people: some
Transwomen: most

I hope this comment is within MN guidelines as it's my honest answer to a question. It would be a shame if the only way I could answer it was to lie.

I think sexual gratification also comes in many forms.

For some, they act in the moment. For others it is a stored moment for use later. For others, I would expect the act of feeling power of women and girls is a feeling stored for later use. And then for some, it is the euphoria of remaining unchallenged or for remaining stealth that adds to the moment. That they feel validated or satisfaction if their bubble has remained unbroken.

I think some times some people wish to reduce the sexual element of it down to an action taken immediately. That way they never have to admit or gain a deeper understanding of the different power dynamics of a male person demanding and gaining access to a female single sex provision.

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

I didn't answer you question properly.

Female to male none or close to none.

Male to female, you know full well that there will never be accurate data on this. There are studies suggesting anything between 47% and 82% but they are probably pretty flawed.

But judging from how much social media activity by autogynophile people there is online and the amount of sissy porn material, now I see being called Sissy Hypno, quite a few.

The most famous "out" one probably Debbie Hayton and likely the tip of a big iceberg.

And one in a female space is too many.

So many of mens' motivations are around sexual gratification, I mean is it beyond reasonable doubt to think that the one that gets them into female spaces against the will of actual women is totally due to sexual gratification? What would be the chances of that?

My belief is woman is an expanding circle that includes all who are included (yes, it is very circular).

And there we have it - the absolute utter misogyny of a man who deems that woman is an expanding circle, a man who decides on behalf of women with no reference to women what a woman is and then tells them.

Always woman that these men decide is an expanding circle.

Just waiting for the rebuttal of I am not a misgynist, I am a woman, I love women, some of my best friends are women. NO.

No surprise though from a poster who has stated clearly the kind of person they are - one who has no consideration for women and girls, who will willfully disregard women and girls consent, will override their boundaries, needs and wants and break the law to do it.

A clearer examply of when someone tells you who they are, believe them would be hard to find.

What Helle said.

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

is the new

“a constellation of statistically linked attributes - including genotype - that together match a pattern we identify as sex / a constellation of statistically linked elements that together describe something almost intangible and linguistically elusive”

which both led to

"I'm an adult human, and I recognise within myself a constellation of data points that I identify as female”.

These male posters are all attempting to use whatever philosophising they can twist up to replicate something that can be used to describe them as female.

The issue is, no philosophising can make it so if there is no material reality supporting the claim.

But on and on they continue. Always trying to find just the right angle that gets a better result for them. always the concept will fail because material reality abides.

Also always worth saying that this expanding circle only benefits the new type of woman. So any talk of improving women's rights, freedom, diversity etc is in fact only a benefit for male people.

As I may have mentioned once or twice on this board, the people whose rights and history, and whose exploitation, abuse and marginalisation due to that history, I care about are the female half of humanity. They are the people for whom the words "women", "girls" and "feminism" were coined.

And it is those people whose whose rights and history, and whose exploitation, abuse andmarginalisation due to that history I will continue to care about regardless of whether or not the political machinations of sexist men and their allies succeed in moving the words "women", "girls" and "feminism" away from them to cover men as well.

Was also going to reference dear old “Enjoy Ur Erasure” Shon and his “shifting constellation” 😂 also there is the disgusting, sexist and creepy way Long Chu characterises “womanhood”.

Some Erasure for us to enjoy

Yes..... all so similar

The thing is, I don't even deny that all these cultural "woman adjacent" tropes exist. I don't even deny that they are meaningful identies for some people of either sex, just as Goth or Communist or Pagan are very meaningful identies to the people who feel these tropes describe how they experience the world.

I just don't think we should change the definition of "woman" to be one or more of these cultural tropes, because female people also exist and we both need and morally deserve the continuity of our existing history, rights, language and legal and social identity under our original name.

It just makes no sense to say the word "woman" and the history, rights, language and legal and social identity that are attached to it be broken from the people they actually applied to and get tied to a different set of people.

I agree Flirts

If they came up with a category label and description that did not reference female people at all so that the group could not claim to be female in any way, then it would be a discussion that would look very different. However, the group chose to acquire the language of female people.

And we can see quite clearly how those male people simply cannot acknowledge the harm they do nor their active part in that harm. The passive distancing and putting the action onto other people really must work in their own mind, but to any other person reading such accounts, it can only be considered as an act of thoughtless misogyny in quite a number of aspects.

This.

also. I don’t want you to take my identity. I’ma women and I’m entitled to a woman’s single sex space. Men are not allowed. And as much as @polypostwonder, you would like to be a woman, you aren’t.

you don’t have the right in law to
enter women’s single sex spaces You don’t get to decide to over ride the law

you said I and others like me didn’t have the right to say that we didn’t consent to you in our single sex spaces and have you reject that because we don’t get to decide that for society (paraphrase). Why do you think, given that, that you by yourself think you have the right to over ride the law? What makes you so special?

also. In case you missed me asking, why in particular did you choose the prefix poly? Especially given the sexual connotation of that word

Man is an expanding circle that includes all who are included. Is that misandry? ETA: Because I equally believe that as well.

Not much good if you want to know if you need a prostate examination. You could get yourself into all kinds of trouble with a definition like that.

The difference is the impact when you attempt to deny women the language they need to fight their sex based oppression.

This.

I do not take your identity. You have not been removed from 'women.'

you said I and others like me didn’t have the right to say that we didn’t consent to you in our single sex spaces and have you reject that because we don’t get to decide that for society (paraphrase). Why do you think, given that, that you by yourself think you have the right to over ride the law? What makes you so special?

I didn't say this. I said personal consent doesn't exist in control of access to public communal spaces. I am a woman in law and culture. I share the same rights of all women, as a woman (in the UK and everywhere else in the world). I am not a man in law and culture. I do not share the rights of all men (mostly observable in other countries).

also. In case you missed me asking, why in particular did you choose the prefix poly? Especially given the sexual connotation of that word

I chose 'polypostwonder' because it was the most popular suggestion of new names in a thread that I read the day I changed it. I am unsurprised that someone on mumsnet would later attribute sexual motivation to the choice.

You are not a woman in law.

I didn’t attribute a sexual motivation to you.

I said that given the sexual connotation I was surprised you had chosen it. That is not the same as attributing a sexual motivation to you.

There is no UK legal record or process that identifies me anyone other than a woman.