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.

It does nothing at the kind.

He was asked if he fucked his husband up the arse and his reply was that he'd never penetrated anyone. In this thread he told us his penis was removed when he was young.

It was a perfectly reasonable response.

It's what the poster means, it's not capable of any other interpretation.

It was simply a response to someone saying "presumably you fuck your husband up the arse as most pairings of two males do".

For clarity, your earlier post was the direct quote, but the phrase above is your paraphrasing, yes?

If so, I think that's needlessly offensive and inflammatory.

It is irrelevant as to whether he was asked or not. It featured in his answer, it serves as an indication of how he thinks and how he approaches sex and sex categories.

To him this is relevant;

“I have never sexually understood myself to be man or male. I would have a hard time trying to believe any of my partners have either.”

why? Because he has never penetrated anyone.

I agree.

If so, I think that's needlessly offensive and inflammatory.

It was deliberately "loud" to make it clear how unreasonable the interpretation some of you are putting on it is.

I note you have no objections to the comments accusing him of seeing women only as "fuckholes".

i genuinely didn’t read it that way.

but I’m autistic and often don’t get nuance so that might be me.

Here is the statement the OP was responding to:

'“Their facts” none of us here are anti gay please accept that it is a big fat fib that women's rights campaigners are anti gay.

As for your version of what your sexuality is defies any logic. You and your husband are both men. Presumably engaging in sexual activities that only two men can engage with.

Which in my book is fine.'

You have not quoted this at all. You've created a completely different quote, Imdunfer.

Yet you have no objection to this comment

"Woman means fuckhole then."

made by someone else.

Dual standards much.

That doesn't change anything I've written.

I was raped. He dehumanised me and called me a fuckhole as he raped my mouth. Three holes only good for him to fuck. He tried to anally rape me but couldnt get hard.
So anyone who says being a woman is defined by being penetrated is aligning with that mindset. I am sorry if my trauma informed language makes you uncomfortable.

No you didn't quote anything.

It's not a quote if you change the words which were originally used and substitute your own instead.

This is the full post that one/polypostwonder was replying to. I have bolded the bit you paraphrased:

Hedgehogforshort · 18/02/2026 00:01
“Their facts” none of us here are anti gay please accept that it is a big fat fib that women's rights campaigners are anti gay.
As for your version of what your sexuality is defies any logic. You and your husband are both men. Presumably engaging in sexual activities that only two men can engage with.
Which in my book is fine.
You go on about gay rights, and yet you cannot see how homophobic it is to deny your own sex and pretend you are hetro sexual?
How very ironic, and frankly sad.

I'm also going to point out that women have actual vaginas. So if two males are having penetrative sex involving a surgically made cavity lined with inverted penile or colon tissue, they are still "engaging in sexual activities that only two men can engage with".

"Woman means fuckhole then."

That is a general point as far as I have seen. Some male people do consider female people to be fuckholes, even those who declare that they are female such as Long Chu.

"I'm also going to point out that women have actual vaginas. So if two males are having penetrative sex involving a surgically made cavity lined with inverted penile or colon tissue, they are still "engaging in sexual activities that only two men can engage with"."

Worth pointing out.

No other poster has claimed a paraphrase is a quote.

I quoted the quote.

Are you claiming it has some other meaning? If so, what?

I'm also going to point out that women have actual vaginas. So if two males are having penetrative sex involving a surgically made cavity lined with inverted penile or colon tissue, they are still "engaging in sexual activities that only two men can engage with".

I'm quoting myself here because this was the first interpretation I took from reading Hedgehog's post in the other thread and having read a number of OP's posts over time.

I write that as my opinion. I didn’t quote any other statement and claim I was quoting it.

That's correct but it's not what @polypostwonder said and it's unfair to attack them for something they did not say.

*wrote

No I don't, because "fuckholes" is typifing an attitude men take towards women, whereas your rephrasing is of a phrase directly discussing individuals and implying that the poster's position was homophobic.

It's perfectly possible to say hetro couples or lesbian couples can have sex in ways that two men can't without it being homophobic.

that’s what I thought it meant, especially given the context of the poster being a post operative trans identifying male.

Yep.

Because those posters don't actually think of women as such, they are illustrating the perspective of these men who do think that's what women are.

I've been reading the thread and you've had some interesting takes on some things. Women is not a consolation prize to be handed out to sad men/men who pass/men who "are as close to being a woman as you can be without actually being a woman", whatever that means, but those are your opinions and you are entitled to them even if I disagree with you on a few points.

However your bad faith interpretations of recent posts is pretty astounding, and you just can't change someone's words for shock value and then tell people with a straight face that it's a direct quote.

Yes exactly!

I was going to write something else as well about how the OP comes across, but I'm not sure how to articulate it properly.