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.

This exercise is no different than the expectation that people must exist and be treated in the world according to gametes/sry/chromosomes/other unobservable immutable biologic factor inside a person. It is just as unknown and unobservable.

My answers to this list of factors don’t change anything about how I've experienced life in my past or I expect I will in my future. No one asks me for this information, no one else is asked for this information. No one needs to see identification or certificates to know how I exist in the world. It is unrealistic.

Fair.

I doubt that any country will change the original birth record of any person with a transgender identity. Change the certificate, sure. Put a tracking record on the original birth record, highly likely. But the original birth record is unlikely to be changed.

I would expect that the original birth record sex category will remain unchanged and will be noted. Just like a prostate is going to remain in a male body despite a cavity being sown into a male groin unless it is removed due to a medical necessity such as cancer. The reality of a male person's material situation will be know despite their demand that their subjective reality be treated as material.

I think you may be mistaken. I didn't imply anything was absent prior to/during my birth. I said I had no way now prove the condition of anything at my birth.

As I previously mentioned, I absolutely would not advocate for people who have little or no life experience as a woman to be on short lists recognising women. Any support I may feel would be limited on a case-by-case basis.

I have complex thoughts about the experiences and circumstances of other trans people. I am limited in my experience because of the age, time and place I transitioned. Much of how I feel about it is lost or deliberately mischaracterised in this environment. It simply isn't worth digging out from the 40 lbs. of rubbish every time. The simplest way to explain my feelings is case-by-case. The environment for trans people is far different now. There are still people who support trans people, somewhat conditionally or unconditionally. There are still people who don't care about trans people. And there are people who do not support trans people, for any reason. There are a lot of people with with a whole lot of new conditions and beliefs about trans people grouped into the last bunch.

I am still evolving my ideas. It would be hypocritical for me to possess strong beliefs about trans women who may or may not be different than I am. I do understand the uniqueness of my situation. Some experiences and feelings I cannot understand. But because I do not understand someone else's circumstance or feelings or beliefs, doesn't mean they are invalid.

The cultural beliefs and requirements for 'sex change' at the time I changed sex are now believed to be unethical. This is true.

The recipients of protection from the EA for sexual orientation aren’t required to take a biological test to determine coverage. There is no biological test required for religion or belief. Every other protection of the EA is for the perception of the person harmed by discrimination.

And yes, before it arrives as a response: I agree that sex is most similar to race in the list of protected characteristics. However like sex, there is no in situ biological test for race, which is perceived by another during harassment and/or discrimination. ‘Race’ can mean colour, nationality, ethnicity, national origins, or group.

Any documentation or certificate I can provide would identify me as female from birth. I was not born in the UK, so there is no UK birth certificate from before the age of eighteen.

"This exercise" is the law in the UK. Under the EA2010, your right to use single-sex spaces or services is determined by your biological sex at the time you were born; your lived experience or gender identity is irrelevant to that determination.

I'll ask you again:
You're probably legally a woman in Canada. If being a woman is important to you, why don't you move there? I'm genuinely puzzled.

Given that perceptive discrimination is also illegal (absent an exemption) none of this is relevant.

The question is: can you legally be refused a prize/job/single-sex service etc if you are unable to prove you are female? And the answer is yes, you can, and in some situations must, be so refused (in the latter case, to protect the rights of other users of the service).

On a not unrelated note, if you plan to claim a state pension, are you expecting HMG to just give it to you without proof of age?

ETA I saw in a previous post you claim not to be able to prove your birth sex at all, but I think you could if you really really wanted to (let's say there's a peerage in it). I'd start with a probe for non-mutant SRY and a test of somatic cells for androgen signalling, but my knowledge is limited.

@polypostwonder Any documentation or certificate I can provide would identify me as female from birth. I was not born in the UK, so there is no UK birth certificate from before the age of eighteen.

So, as we have discussed earlier, if you did need to prove your sex, none of your paperwork would be acceptable in the UK and you would need an option such as an affidavit from your GP, who knows that you are male, for obvious reasons.

I was not born in the UK, so there is no UK birth certificate from before the age of eighteen.

I think that just means that you might have difficulty proving your sex.

Oh right! That's probably a bit easier than SRY probes 😀

I discovered this week that an intelligent non-scientist friend really thought that people change sex when they have these treatments. I wonder how widespread that is.

You're probably legally a woman in Canada. If being a woman is important to you, why don't you move there? I'm genuinely puzzled.

The simple reason? I don’t think about being a woman. I am a woman. I’m legally a woman in every country apparently, except the UK.

The more complicated answer? I love my husband and he has to be in the UK at the moment. Last year we briefly discussed the topic of moving after FWS, but he is of the opinion that it’s not about me and that I should just ignore it. I think we settled on if it became about me, we would consider moving.

Lastly, there is no current law that criminalises my presence in women's spaces.

Oh, certainly. I just don’t believe the documentation I possess would be overlooked or ignored in pursuit of some kind of definitive medical interpretation.

I can imagine maybe a circumstance where someone is observably sexually ambiguous, or whose personal history is demonstrably present in multiple genders/sexes; or, maybe if such a test were imposed on everyone, such as in the case of Olympic competition... I could also see my personal history being allowed as an exception to the biological result because my history is demonstrably congruous through my life as a woman.

Most people, I think, would see the requirement as unreasonable and not a legitimate aim by that point. But in any case, it is unlikely.

I’m legally a woman in every country apparently, except the UK.

I think it's a bit like biscuits in America and the UK. Same word, different meaning.

If you are legally a woman elsewhere, they are using it to mean something different to what it means in the UK.

The UK has already accepted documentation. It was sufficient to prove age and sex. It relied upon the ‘certified original’ copy of my long-form birth certificate. This has sufficed for all purposes until now. I cannot think of any circumstance where an affidavit would be preferable.

As I’ve said previously, GPs believe me to be born female, unless told of my complete situation. If reproductive sex is discussed, they're generally satisfied when told that I've never had a uterus or ovaries.

I just don’t believe the documentation I possess would be overlooked or ignored in pursuit of some kind of definitive medical interpretation.

If doctors can't accurately identify your sex, I think you may have bigger problems than the law. However, I think it very unlikely that they wouldn't be able to do so. The BMA may talk the talk, there is still the threat of medical malpractice.

There's a bunch of new pages that I haven't read yet. I hope to when I return later tonight..

I guess the pace of technological change is such that a non-scientist might imagine it could be done. (I'm being generous to your friend there!)

A competent GP is able to read between the lines, whether or not they want to risk upsetting you.

If they are just incompetent, then that is a concern.

It is like the winemakers of the USA calling their sparkling wine Champagne. Legal anywhere but Europe, but still not Champagne.

Just sticking a description on something doesn’t make anything, human or product, belong to the category it has been said to belong to if it materially is not belonging to that category.

@polypostwonder You are back to claiming exceptionalism about your identity and unconvincingly swerving the GP issue.

It is an act of deception to not be completely up front with a medical health professional.

It means significant repercussions. And yet again, there is no acknowledgement of this. Just doubling down as if it is the right thing to do.

It is not even a case of can it be done but it is a case of ‘should’ anyone not be completely up front about their sex category with any health care professionals.

I know my experience is exceptional. Especially when I read and contrast the experiences of trans people in the UK. I've never had an issue requesting HRT, as a basic example.

Although one can't always believe everything one reads on the internet.

@polypostwonder Lastly, there is no current law that criminalises my presence in women's spaces.

You are in danger of committing harassment, which is an offence. I would like you to consider using gender neutral facilities, for the sake of any women that you may cause pain to without ever realising, and to refuse any further resources meant for women rather than deprive a woman of them. I don't think that you will though.

So you know that you're not legally a woman in the UK and that you have no right to use women's services or spaces and aren't eligible for women's awards, recognition, or other special considerations but you'll continue to take them until it's criminalised. Have I got that right?

It's important enough for you to ignore the law and take women's stuff but not important enough to move back to Canada.