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.

I'm sorry you experience barriers to medical care. You absolutely should be able to receive the medicines you require.

As far as I know, my access is no different than any other woman who has been treated with HRT for hypogonadism for decades.

Thank you. I was planning to respond to your post from Wednesday @ 11:51 and @FlirtsWithRhinos Wednesday @ 11:06 but brain is a little PTSDy at the moment and I can't focus. I wasn't clear and what you both wrote in response has made me think and I need to revisit some references before responding.

If I post anything about my rape right now, I guarantee it would be removed.

I had much more agency than a typical teen on the direction of their life. No one knows that. And at this point, it really doesn't matter because life isn't about biology, isolated moments or single decisions.

My body is my body. My personal abilities have been my only 'voice' against the forces that have defined my body, my access, my opportunities and my participation in the world since I was a child. Abilities aren't wishes, they aren't beliefs, they aren't feelings, they are actions.

My only wish was a normal life when I transitioned. Everyone around me was scared for me because believe it or not, being trans was not on the top 10 pathways to becoming a successful productive person back then. There is no reward for transition. The life that I've lived and all of its experiences and relationships are reward enough.

Hmm. Pretty sure a good part of my life has been about my biology, what with being female.

Whether that was physical (menarche, pregnancy, motherhood, menopause) or societal (career opportunities for instance).

Women only got the right to open their own bank accounts in the UK in 1975.

So @polypostwonder as you believe in boldly autonomy do you agree that pertains to women too, and that a woman has the right to decide who she undresses in front of or to request single sex care? If not ,why not?
Why doyou seem to believe that your wants to access female spaces trump the rights of women to have single sex spaces ? As soon as you, as a male, enter that space, it is no longer a women’s space, it is a mixed sex space.
Why do you believe you have the right to erase single sex spaces for women who need and want them?
Why do you believe women do not have the right to define woman as “adult human female”?
What is the word for an adult human female if women includes males?

I’ve been very clear on previous threads about not being born in the UK. I am surprised it’s taken so much focus on this thread.

Fair, I should have removed biology, it was part of a different sentence.

To take the view that his body now justifies treating him as "a woman" ignores that this is not where all this started for him.

I think this is an excellent point.

I have to come to think that PPW’s arguments can be boiled down to ‘I don’t care about women or other men who think they are women because although I absolutely know I’m not a woman, I have got pretty good at the deception over the years and I am going to keep on taking things that are for women because I want to. So yah boo sucks to all you women with your facts and logical arguments, you can’t stop me.’ <walks off smirking and flicking the vees>

TLDR: me, me, me, me

I have to come to think that PPW’s arguments can be boiled down to ‘I don’t care about women or other men who think they are women

I am entirely sceptical of everything this person posts.

That sounds very logical. It’s obvious he has no interest in the thoughts or feelings of women, and does not care how much distress he causes.

Reading about @polypostwonder 's life is interesting, but I don't think it helps much with the wider debate.

One can certainly make a case that a karyotypically and gonadally male person who is given early aggressive feminisation treatment, that prevents male puberty, can safely and fairly be treated as legally female: this is what we do with some individuals with XY DSDs.

But such treatment (in the absence of a DSD) can never be ethical, let alone made a quid pro quo for cross-sex gender recognition.

This leaves us with no way to distinguish him legally from, say, a middle-aged man whose sole qualification for cross-sex gender recognition is that he lives like a 24/7 drag artist.

If we are to continue to recognise male transsexuals legally, then it has to be as a type of man, protected in law, but not as a woman.

Any other woman treated with female hormones at the age you must were would have been thoroughly investigated as to why she needed replacement hormones.

In spite of your repeated assertions that there's no record of you ever having been male, your surgery is recorded somewhere and so is your prescription for female hormones being required because you are genetically male.

If there are no other scans or blood tests on record that show that you are genetically male then you've reached a good age with remarkable good health, but it could happen at any time as you age. You seem in a fair level of denial about that probability.

To be honest PPW, now I've engaged with you over time on this thread, (and defended you from an unfair accusation), it very much feels like you are playing games with this forum. It has been fascinating hearing your story, but I don't think it actually has much to add to the current debate where we have very obvious men demanding access to female spaces.

Going right back to your first post, no, you are not correct in stating that being female is cultural, where in my world that would include accepting that the 6ft 4 bull of a man complete with a penis, who likes wearing a dress, heels and lippy to some of the gatherings I go to as a woman. That is not a reasonable expectation.

But congratulations on stirring up some entertainment for yourself.

"My only wish was a normal life when I transitioned."

This is another incoherently contradictory statement.

Making any elective extreme body modifications that then will require medical treatment for the rest of your (general you) life and demanding (even passive demands) that you are treated as if your subjective belief about your sex category is materially real when it is not materially real is contradictory to living a 'normal life'. Unless you (general you) expect that everyone acts as if those decisions are made by the majority of the population to give it a 'normal' categorisation.

Otherwise, it is a false appeal to normality. If any person told a person who was seeking medicalisation for their gender identity that their life would be 'normal' after transition, that person is causing a great deal of harm. If it was a medical professional, I would think that they should be subject to malpractice investigations.

Or even a middle aged man who dresses like a typical middle aged woman (jeans, t-shirt, trainers, no make-up).

It seems as though the law has been on a journey. Before the GRA it did seem that there was an assumption that at some point in the future it would be possible to literally change sex, but instead the trans rights movement has moved towards self ID and multiple genders and there is more realism about the limits of surgery.

There is no scenario where someone could receive HRT legally without their sex being known.

Its bonkers to think that professionals would think they are treating a women born without ovaries, but are really treating a man.

Some people really want to believe that its possible to run away from your sex and constructed a narrative where thats possible - have surgery and change documents then move to a different country, find a whole new friendship group, live as the opposite sex. No one could ever know.

But thats just changing what is possible to change - documents and a little bit cosmetic. Sex stays the same.

This poster, while happy to extemporise at length on his personal feelings, beliefs, and history, has never once, not ever, expressed even the slightest passing interest in the feelings, preferences, fears, desires, histories, or experiences of anyone else.

It suggests to me an astonishingly narrowly self centred worldview.

Everything loops back to the OP's experience, feelings, beliefs, stories.

Actually, I apologise, OP did express regret to a PP here.

I'm sorry you experience barriers to medical care. You absolutely should be able to receive the medicines you require.

I'm glad to see that, OP.

It would be great to also hear your response to all of the many women who have told you that you are harming them, directly, by using their spaces and services despite knowing that this is against the law and against their expressed wishes. You must have read them.

Indeed, there is never an acknowledgment that women and girls may be harmed. It is just a constant cycle of justification and then telling women and girls that he is going to continue to do what he wants anyway.

I'm not sure exactly what, if anything, this post has to do with the quoted post from FlirtsWithRhinos.

Frankly it seems like a lot of waffle that doesn't really mean anything, maybe it's just me.

Take the first paragraph for example "I had much more agency than a typical teen on the direction of their life. No one knows that...."

No one knows what? About your agency as a teen?

"...And at this point, it really doesn't matter because life isn't about biology, isolated moments or single decisions."

Biology really really matters to women and it is part of life. Obviously not the sum totality of life, but "life isn't about biology, isolated moments or single decisions" is rather a meaningless statement imo. None of these things happen in a vacuum completely divorced from everything else in your (general term) life, least of all your body which no matter what will always remain biologically sexed as either male or female.

"My body is my body...."

There was an interesting edit here. I thought, having read previous posts, that this poster was trying to give the impression he was much older than it appears he is.

"...My personal abilities have been my only 'voice' against the forces that have defined my body, my access, my opportunities and my participation in the world since I was a child..."

What even is this?! Undefined personal abilities, ok then.

"...Abilities aren't wishes, they aren't beliefs, they aren't feelings, they are actions."

Abilities aren't actions. This is a nonsensical statement in it's entirety.

I agree with Helleofabore about that last paragraph. It's very emotive too. None of it takes away from the fact that the poster is still male, and even though it is morally wrong as well as against the law still intends to enter female single sex spaces etc.

Was this question ever answered? I am interested in the response.

Imdunfer · 27/05/2026 19:32
**
A question has just occurred to me. Have any women who lost out to you on women only short lists/ awards been aware of your male genetics?
If they were, how do you think they might feel about that?

... and even if they weren't aware, they've still lost out

It's working on the principle of "what you don't know won't hurt you" I suppose.

It’s stealthing. It’s the rape doesnt count if you were drugged and unconscious argument

No, I don't think so.

Mind you I don't think BonfireLady got an answer to the two questions asked in the very first post, which were carried over to this thread ostensibly so OP could answer them.