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.

My first post on this particular bit of the thread was a quote of what was written. At no point did I claim anything was a quote except that quote. It is unreasonable to interpret what I wrote later as a quote, because I had already quoted the quote and nothing I later wrote was in quotation marks.

You did not. You made up a paraphrase. And it was the most inflammatory, aggressive and offensive interpretation possible. You called it a quote.

"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."

I DIDN'T !!

Is fuckhole going to be another one of the things related to my rape that im not allowed to say in here because it’s too upsetting for other people to have to read?

You called it a quote.

I did not.

No one said that he said that women were fuckholes though.

I made a general point, as have others. Some male people do reduce being female to being penetrated vs being the person who penetrates.

I did correctly attribute his words to his quote and pointed out that this was something relevant to Alessandra Asteriti's comment about Goodwin's judgement. There does seem to be a pattern here of people attributing penetration in sex as being 'female',

"This is not said explicitely but significantly, the section opens with the statement, by Mr Goodwin that he ‘enjoyed a full physical relationship with a man’. This is enough for the Court. Mr Goodwin feels like a woman, and he is penetrated like a woman."

If you don't see the connection where the OP has made this connection with the statement of him and sex partners not believing he was 'male' and then mention of him never penetrating anyone as being relevant to not being 'male' that is fine. I do see the connection then and based on months of discussion with the poster I see it still.

What was the bit in quotation marks here then? What post is that a quote from?

This is the post that I mean. You have used quotation marks. Given we are discussing quotes, it suggests a direct quote.

X post @ArabellaScott

I accept that was stupid of me. I was quoting myself and should have put "effectively" in front of that. My first post on the subject made it perfectly clear what the actual quote was.

I have quoted the later post where you did use quotation marks.

But I didn’t read the original post that was quoted that way at all, taking into account the fact that poly is a post op transgender identifying man.

You quoted the post in it's original form exactly as Helle quoted it yes, but you told her she had taken it entirely out of context which she hadn't.

Then you changed the words in your subsequent posts for shock value by using a very bad faith paraphrase of what was said using inflammatory language.

Apparently you think there is no other way possible to interpret the original quote, whereas a number of other posters have interpreted it another way because we are familiar with the OP.

Its easy to get confused in a fast moving discussion.

We can all understand a mistake or misunderstanding. It's the suggestion that everyone else has the worst possible motives that grates.

How on earth did you not read "Presumably engaging in sexual activities that only two men can engage with." As "presumably having anal sex", in the context that the later criticism was about viewing women as "fuckholes"?

Absolutely this. It's what caused me to de-lurk momentarily😂

Because fuckhole applies to vagina, arse and mouth. I have explained that was what my rapist says. Three holes for me to yse. You’re just a fuckhole.

I genuinely didn’t think of anal sex in the context of that quote, I was thinking of poly’s surgically constructed neo vagina. Apologies my hands are shaking and my typing has gone to shit.

Again...

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".

Edited to ask, why did you see the only possible interpretation Hedgehog's post as "presumably having anal sex"?

It's the unreasonable nature of some of the sex realist argument that gets me,

Many seem to want a slight 5ft 4 person who's been living for decades with a modified physiology as woman with a long term male partner to be excluded from the ladies loos. It's a completely unreasonable ask.

What you ask would require:

• DNA testing of every women's toilet user, with security to prevent entry to those with a Y chromosome

or

• every person with a Y chromosome to voluntary give up using women's facilities no longer how long they have been doing so and no matter how unlikely they are to cause fear in any woman.

It just isn't possible, and fighting to try to make the impossible happen just makes the cause seem a bit ridiculous at times.

Yes, from reading your posts in this thread I did suspect that this was your position. Good that it is out in the open now.
Women, budge up for the sad man.

But you must realise that isn't what the poster meant? They really weren't writing that while distinguishing between a real and a fake vagina now, were they? It takes some real twisting and turning to view it that way and not as sex involving two penises The kind of twisting and turning the trans activists do, in fact.

It isn’t an unreasonable ask.

the law is clear.

him entering women’s single sex spaces completely disregards people like me with trauma for example.

sadly, actions have consequences we don’t like sometimes. At à societal level decisions are made for the benefit of the larger group sometimes. Im disabled. Despite the law saying I can have a reasonable adjustment, sometimes that can’t be accommodated.
trans individuals should campaign for a fourth space. If they don’t want to use the space that aligns with their birth sex.

You don't need to "suspect" anything. I've never hidden this view on any thread I've been involved in.

I see no point in fighting battles that are completely impossible to win.

I do not accept that anyone should be able to use a women's loo unchallenged and I'm really pleased that we now have a right to challenge.

Many seem to want a slight 5ft 4 person who's been living for decades with a modified physiology as woman with a long term male partner to be excluded from the ladies loos. It's a completely unreasonable ask.

Men are excluded from the ladies loos. Its completely reasonable and in fact, the law.

No matter his height or what operations he's had, no man is entitled to use the women's loos. His sexual orientation has absolutely nothing to do with it either.

The ask isn't unreasonable. The demand that the impossible should be achieved is unreasonable.