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.

Short gay men are not women.

What is impossible? That men are excluded from women's services and spaces?

So exactly how are you going to stop him and others like him?

I want what I am entitled to in law.

im sorry for those who are upset by thats but the answer is for men to budge up not women in the case of trans identifying men and access to single sex spaces.

• 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.

This is what I think should happen unless the person has Swyer Syndrome or CAIS. In the UK, that person is a man. The Supreme Court has ruled that he has no right to women's single sex spaces or services so he should stay out. I hope there are gender neutral spaces and services available for him. But if not, he needs to talk to the business and campaign for such spaces, not intrude on women's spaces or services.

He has no way of knowing if he will cause fear. Very few people realise when I'm having a PTSD flashback. I certainly wouldn't tell a man who was intruding on women's spaces. Many women will fawn, freeze, or try to leave the area as quickly and unobtrusively as possible. Many will avoid the area in the future. He would have no way of knowing that.

How would you do it? Keep every last biological man out of a women's loo?

I have to go out now, I will give £1000 to sex matters if anyone comes up with a workable way to make it happen.

Why is it an unreasonable ask though?

There are plenty of slightly built short male people. There should be no assumption that any male person is not going to be correctly identified as being a male person. I think anyone making that assumption is mistaken.

There are male people with histories of puberty blockers who are still very clearly observable as being male. And it is irrelevant how long a male person has been doing what he says is living as a woman. Accessing female single sex provisions is not a reward for any male person.

Also, loopholes in how to police the provision are also irrelevant to expecting male people to respect female people and to stay out. Expecting them to stay out and policing that is two different things.

We should be able to expect them stay out regardless of whether it can be policed on a minute by minute basis. That was how the laws and policies around access to female single sex provisions worked prior to any male person entering because they felt entitled to.

It is not ridiculous to expect that the vast majority of male people will abide by the decision. It is ridiculous to think that safeguarding can be maintained when there are people who believe that if a male person does enough that he should be allowed special consideration. Because who the fuck arbitrates where the line of him doing 'enough' is?

It most certainly is not a female person having to do an instantaneous risk assessment about observing a male person entering a female single sex provision.

If someone cannot reliably identify a male person's sex correctly, even with extreme body modification, they should not be assuming that their lack of ability is the universal experience.

I think all women want not to be raped and that is also what they are entitled to in law.

This is not an argument for not having laws and policies that exclude male people.

We have laws and policies around burglary, it doesn't prevent 100% of burglary.

What law or policy 100% stops the action or behaviour that it is designed to protect against?

"Many seem to want a slight 5ft 4 person who's been living for decades with a modified physiology as woman..."

No surgery can make a man a woman.

"...with a long term male partner to be excluded from the ladies loos. It's a completely unreasonable ask."

It's a completely reasonable and legal position to take. By that criteria all short gay males who are in long term relationships should be welcome in the women's toilets (and other spaces, because we know it doesn't end at toilets).

"What you ask would require:

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

No, what it would require is for males to be honest with themselves and the rest of the world about their sex, and an inclination not to break the law, or cause distress in women.

"...or

• every person with a Y chromosome to voluntary give up using women's facilities no longer how long they have been doing so..."

Yep. This please. Thank you very much. That was easy wasn't it?!

"... and no matter how unlikely they are to cause fear in any woman."

Even one woman distressed or fearful is more than enough don't you think? And it's not just about fear, it's about privacy, dignity, actual safety. And it's the law!

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

Wrong again! It is possible, women are managing to claw back their hard come by rights which had been stolen via stealth through the courts and public opinion is starting to catch up on the utter insanity that's been bubbling away under the surface like a boil for over 20 years now.

Males continued attempts to crowbar their way into women's spaces, shortlists, prizes, refuges, prisons, schools, sports etc, ad nauseum, and the women who support them is what is truly ridiculous.

It's not impossible at all in fact. We managed single sex spaces and words that had actual meanings everyone understood to mean specific things not too long ago, we can and will get back to that eventually.

Accessing female single sex provisions is not a reward for any male person and it should not be seen as one.

To add: no female person can give consent on behalf of any other female person either, regarding access to female single sex provisions. Just because someone thinks a male person has done ‘enough’, whatever that means, to enter a female single sex provision, they cannot make that judgement for any other female person who is of the age where they can consent. A reminder that a female child cannot give informed consent for the situation either.

Why on earth is it my job? You dont think these men are capable of restraining themselves, and following the law, if they cant respect womens boundaries?

Our position is reasonable, clear and simple. No males in women's spaces or taking resources meant for women.

Yours is a minefield:

Do you exclude fat 5ft 10 men but not slight 5ft 4 men?
Do you exclude men who have only had a modified physiology for months instead of decades?
Do you exclude men with a short term female partner instead of a long term male partner?

Yours is a slippery slope and exactly what got us into this position in the first place.

• 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.

Yes every man to use the men's.

My position is that outlandish.

I don't see why not? That's what I thought she meant.

Yes you are correct that some trans activists do a lot of twisting and turning. Who do you think Hedgehog was speaking to? It was a trans identified male, who has taken time and effort to come to FWR to explain his perspective... at length.

Other posters have also taken the same interpretation on Hedgehog's post because they are familiar with one/polypostwonder too.

Disingenuous.

This thread isn't about loos yet again. That's just a side effect.

This thread is about said poster's desire to redefine "women" from simply the female of of humanity to some self-serving amorphous blob of culturally wommanny stuff so that the definition of women can include him not as a "he's made so much effort, just be nice" courtesy but as a fundamental member of the group, and who cares whether or we female people do actually see ourselves as his bundle of wommany stuff or whether we find it really belittling and offsensive as long as he gets what he wants.

That is the issue here. Is being physically female a meaningful and significant quality, or are we just a type of womanny minds?

So short men are now being given female spaces, what as some sort of compensation for being short?

This argument is ridiculous and shows why we need protections, because men and women who think short men are some sort of alternative women, are unable to just accept men are men.

Rape is, I would say, even harder to police or prevent than men in women's spaces. Date and marital rape especially so.

Should we therefore by your arguments not bother trying? Is it unreasonable to expect a man not to rape if he thinks he can get away with it, as you suggest it is unreasonable to expect a man to stay out of women's spaces if he thinks he can get away with it?

And it just goes to show that the TRA position is also just old fashioned sexist for good measure.

If you don't fit the stereotype perfectly you're not a proper man/woman, so short males are now women and female mechanics are now men. It's just so, so stupid it makes my brain hurt.

So exactly how are you going to stop him and others like him?

By telling him that women only spaces aren't for him. By asking him to leave.

If you are asking if a man can physically enter a spaces undetected, thats a different question.

Nothing of the "slight 5ft 4 person who's been living for decades with a modified physiology as woman with a long term male partner" proves that he passes, is a woman and needs the facilities offered only in women's spaces.

That's a description often used as an 'ideal transsexual', the exception.

The description is used to say that he's not sexually interested in women therefore will not sexually attack women.

Thats he's dedicated - therefore not using trans as a quick entry to women's spaces.

That he's shorter than the average man, therefore not as strong, so cannot hurt women as much as the average man.

The 'ideal transexual' is used as the foot in the door who let's every other man in. How long do men have to live as a women before using the women's toilet, how short do they have to be, just how committed do their relationships need to be? How large do their breasts need to be?

The ideal transexual doesn't exist. Every time a man describes how unmale he is, he exaggerates and omitts. It turns out hes 5 foot 9, or has a very deep voice.

But, again, none of that is relevant because the spaces arent designed for him and lose their purpose if male enter.

Short men, men who work hard enough that some people assume they are female because they mistakenly categorise them as female and the male person doesn’t correct that error, men who have lived long enough living as they believe a woman feels.

Apparently, there are male people who we should allow access to female single sex provisions and to bypass the exclusion and not campaign to ensure all male people above the age of 8 or so stay out.

Every single male person who has modified their body to appear more 'female' knows that they are male. Some may pretend that they have changed sex, but they all know that this is impossible in reality.

I want these men to behave in a decent manner. I want them to demonstrate that they are good and reasonable human beings.

They can do this by using unisex facilities (if they don't want to use the mens') and to encourage each other to obey the law as it is clarified. Other men can support this by letting men who have altered their bodies know that they will be perfectly OK in male single-sex spaces.

This really shouldn't be a big ask.

At base, a.man's desire to use womens spaces does not negate a woman's desire for a single sex space.

Why should a man's preference count for more than that of a woman?

Yes this, and for all the so called trans allies to campaign for 4th spaces, funding and provisions for trans identified peoples needs, actually safe healthcare including mental healthcare, and to address the male violence problem that trans identified males say they face in public.

I mean really it's odd that they haven't already been on all this... you know if it hasn't just been a men's rights movement all along...

We didn't require chromosome testing before, so why would we require it now?

The situation hasn't changed.

Nobody is going to be sent to prison for using the opposite sex toilet, but if you are in the wrong loo somebody might say "Oo sorry, this is the lady's, the men's is further down". You either say "ha, ha, I'm actually a woman" if you are a woman and they say "oh, awfully sorry" and everyone has red faces, or you say "oh, sorry" and leave if you are a man. This has been happening for a very long time.

What did you think was happening before? Do you think organisations went to all the trouble of building single sex toilets, but nobody cared who used which loo? What a waste of money!

If you think all toilets should be mixed sex, you should definitely campaign for that, but it is ridiculous to have single sex toilets that can be used by anyone.