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.

But only if you accept OP's word that no one knows they are actually male. I'm not convinced this is actually true.

I think in the climate we've had up till recently, perhaps it's more "women can't say out loud 'this person is not a woman' without getting in trouble, so the silence of no one being able to speak up is taken for total acceptance"

These questions are never answered.

I suspect that it is a double edged sword - to admit that he never thought about it would indicate a very selfish and entitled view which admitting that he had thought about and recognised it as an issue but did it anyway, would show the same.

Ultimately, if a person can convince enough people that either he passes or has been treated as female for 'long enough', or modified his body early enough, that he deserves to be treated as if he was female. So, why bother answering this question at all.

The posts could probably be viewed as empathy traps. They do all revolve around the points - was young when body modification, treated as if he passes since then, and due to trauma will not reconsider using female single sex spaces (and a slew of not relevant reasons such as having to stop business discussions).

I confidently doubt that it is true.

I don't believe that any male person with a transgender identity will not have their sex correctly identified by female people in their lifetime.

polypostwonder · Today 06:54

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

A man (which PPW is) would be treated with testosterone for hypogonadism. A woman with hypogonadism would be treated with estrogen and progesterone, aka HRT. PPW has said that he tells medical staff that he has never had ovaries or a uterus when it is relevant, so why would he receive hormones to replace ones he never had in the first place? What PPW gets are cross sex hormones, which you could term hormone treatment, but it is not HRT.

I know it is a minor point but is yet another example of appropriating something that is exclusively for women.

Spot on. I think that's why I'm utterly bewildered when OP or others who were born boys claim womanhood. No. Being male gave you numerous advantages. You don't get to appropriate being a girl or woman.

Being raped/trafficked from the time I was two

Being told I was only good for sex from the time I was a toddler

Being told I was ruined because I'd been raped

Being told I was worthless because I'd been raped

Being told that I was a slag/whore/slut and that was all I'd ever be because the only thing girls and women are good for is fucking

Being told that I shouldn't ruin "good men's" lives by complaining about being raped (i.e. I was worth much less than they were)

Having my medical needs being less of a priority than my brothers'

Being told I was too clever/uppity because I was a girl and that I should stop getting above myself and learn my place

Being told that education would be wasted on me because I was a girl and that I was destined to be a wife and mother

Not being supported in my hobbies or education

Having to be a sibling carer to my brothers/be a parent to them

Having to do more housework than my brothers, which left me with hardly any time for my studies, exercise, or hobbies

Having to try to do well and make friends in secondary while I was taking care of my brothers, working in paid employment (to pay for my food and rent), and being raped regularly by my brother and his friends

Getting zero parental contribution in uni and post graduate

juggling university while caring for my disabled brother

Being assumed that I will be my children's primary caregiver

Shouldering the lion's share of the domestic load instead of being able to focus on my career

Having my pain from a spinal cord tumour dismissed as psychological for years, resulting in permanent disability

Other times my concerns were dismissed because I was a woman

Having had many more concussions than if I were a boy/man

-----

The above is not an exhaustive list of how boys have many advantages over girls, giving them a much more solid foundation in life. All of my female friends have had at least some of the above list, plus other disadvantages I didn't experience. The men I know either had none of the above or very few, and when they did they usually had support that few women or girls would get.

OK, I'll take the bait out of sheer curiosity and hang around a while longer for a reply - thank you. As you've shared a lot of details about your own life and point of view, and other posters have engaged with this, could you focus in your answer on the wider political and ethical implications of the female half of humanity losing any word of their own, with which to distinguish themselves? I focussed in my original on the historical, geographical, practical, logical implications of this.

I got a bit carried away reflecting on this, actually. Did a bit of creative writing, actually! 😃 Meet the terminally confused Ms Transerf R. Activist, irreconcilably trapped between her sex-based feminist convictions and her obligations to an ideology that quite literally prevents her from expressing these...

---

So. I think adult human females are worth allowing an unambiguous name and distinct political identity of their own (thereby also giving them ownership of their precious history):

WOMEN have enjoyed recognition as a distinct political demographic deserving of a voice - the vote - for less than 100 years; prior to these recent change in law, women's gender identity was understood to demonstrate their innate inability to manage such a public responsibility, so that even women with male-bodies were denied these rights on this basis

Hm. Maybe we could add asterisks throughout our historical, political and literary records? Or just... y'know, assume everyone is able to tell the difference, from now on and for ever? Or, I know, what we need is better education on women's uh, sorry, er, that group's history, so the kids of the future can distinguish between... uh... women and... women?

This will also enable them to continue to advocate explicitly and unambiguously for themselves against current, worldwide abuses (on a scale that continues to injure and kill millions), as this appalling treatment is directed solely at... er... them (y' know? that currently unnamed group? Er...)

The Taliban oppress females (ugh - kind of demeaning, and doesn't acknowledge how their oppression really kicks off with puberty)... I know! Adult human females! (Oof, no - that one sounds like we're in a bloody science lab, and removes much sense of the personhood of this enslaved group - kind of cruel and ironic). Darn it, I think it's best to use WOMEN. To show them an iota of respect by calling them what they call themselves, the way they mean it? (In response, the confused kids in that devastating conversation I had several years ago: "So, in that country, people who identify as women are forbidden from looking out of windows?!" - and that's pretty much a direct quote from Catiette...)

Anyway, leaving behind those primitive cultures where they reduce women by naming them according to their body type (I mean, how reductive - if they could just validate people's authentic gender identities, things would be totally different over there... er... so...). ANYway! The point is... The point is that things are very different here. I mean, here, we've reached a point where women can be totally detached from their bodies to the degree that females no longer need a word of their own. I mean... Um... So...

Females Hang on, that's not quite accurate, er... Adult human females (I know that sounds a bit weird - not adult female mice or leopards, let's be clear, people! 😉)... Er... Oh, I give up - this is ridiculous and so disrespectful! WOMEN! You know? actual PEOPLE? Not mere adjectival nouns reducing them to body-parts? WOMEN!!!) Huh. I forgot where I was going. Oh yeah, that group - them - those... people... Women, I'm going to say it! (I hope people will understand what I mean, though... 😕) Anyway, they're 70% more likely to be seriously injured in car accidents because western car design disregards their anatomy.

(Meanwhile, on the BBC...

A recent survey has shown that women* are becoming exponentially more violent, providing fuel to those who argue that single-sex spaces don't offer the degree of protection campaigners claim. However, campaigners for women's adult human females' rights have pointed out that the inclusion of transwomen may have dramatically distorted the statistics given the previously proportionately low number of violent female offenders, requesting a breakdown of the numbers for clarity. In response, the researchers, themselves women (transwomen) assert that this is wholly unnecessary, as every single subject studied was, themselves, a... WOMAN).

---

QED, right?

I've just read this, Genderlessvoid. I'm so, so sorry.

I find the suggestion that how we see ourselves doesn't deserve a word (so others can have our word) - and that our oppression doesn't even need a word (again, so others can use it to counter their oppression) - very distressing.

And I find the focus on the individual to justify this, to the virtual exclusion of this wider ethical and practical issue, distressing.

But that's because behind these wider issues are stories like your own. And because women (oops, better say adult human female for clarity, to make the distinction I need to here, hadn't I?) with such experiences so often aren't heard when they do risk sharing these.

PPW, this isn't to dismiss your own experiences, but to make the point that there's a (literal) world of women's (on the understanding that you know I mean adult human females here) issues at stake here, too. I just don't see how we can do justice to both groups without at least retaining some capacity to distinguish between them in language. Previously I did support a concessionary melding of the two in certain circumstances as a courtesy and kindness to people in your position. Now, though? There's just too much at stake - the implications are just too big for us (AKA what-I-mean-by-women).

Thank you, Catiette. You've summed that up brilliantly.

I understand that transwomen have their own struggles. PPW has shared many of his; other transwomen have their own struggles and stories. They deserve support.

They aren't women's or girls' struggles. It's not the same as being constantly told and shown (and punished by being beaten or shouted at or ostracised or shamed or ignored if you don't comply) that you're fundamentally inferior and that your whole life must be spent supporting and pandering to boys and men because, unlike you, they're important. You can - should - never be anything except a support animal. And if you try or even want that, you're evil/full of yourself/wrong.

They're fundamentally different. Conflating the two obscures the issues on both sides.

Risk calculators for medication use birth sex to assess cardio vascular risk, blood clot risk, kidney function, etc.

It would be unwise for a person not to disclose their sex before seeking medication.

100%.

Its perfectly possible to have empathy with someone else's struggles, but the struggles of 'transwomen' are not those of women.

We are not the same.

No. No list members or committee members were aware.

I believe today, in the UK, there may possibly be an automatic disqualification if such information were public knowledge. No one outside of the selection committee would be notified, including me, and the world would continue.

Ultimately, I don't know how anyone else would feel, because I am not them.

Exactly.

Presumably the dose he gets and how he is monitored are based on completely different criteria to a woman’s needs.

Whatever struggles PPW has had accessing the drugs known as HRT are not the same as women accessing those drugs. He would not have been refused them on the grounds of being too young, or to try and get more exercise and lose some weight, or to just cope with symptoms because they’re not that bad or offered antidepressants to deal with very real physical symptoms.

The female reference ranges have been used for risk calculation and health evaluation in my records since I was a teen. Mumsnet members have repeatedly denied that this is possible. It is obvious that I am not going to convince you otherwise.

And you feel no shame at taking a female person's role on that short list knowing that you are male. And yes, you are male. You have your very own unique issues, but female short lists are for recognising female people to lift specifically female people, not male people who have had extreme body modifications, out of oppression.

Female short lists are for female people to represent female people. You really don't seem to understand the harm you do with this continued belief that you can take the word female to describe yourself when there is no material reality to support that you are in any way female. A male person who has modified his body, sure. That will never make you a female person.

Female shortlists are not for male people with transgender identities to be represented on.

We know he feels no shame at his actions. And plans to continue them, he's been clear about that.

But don’t you claim to know how it feels to be a woman? May I politely ask which woman it is you think you feel like? Surely you can’t be sexist enough to think that all women feel the same?

Yep.

And it's not that PPW doesn't know how anyone else would feel, he just doesn't care.

You believe you know how it feels to be a woman even though you are not one of them, but you cannot imagine the possible anger of woman being beaten to a female only award by a biological man because you are not one of them.

PPW, your beliefs twist to suit the moment, it seems.

I am so sorry that you have experienced this horrific treatment.

I have my own list experiences I will not share because they could potentially identify me. I have also not disclosed certain things that I've experienced in life because I don't wish to instantly have to argue their validity or context with mumsnet members as other experiences have already been. I share some of the experiences on your list. I'm not going to spend any energy defending them here.

Ultimately, I don't know how anyone else would feel, because I am not them.

Can you imagine how they feel?

You paint a picture of being someone who has decided at a relatively early age that you were going to 'transition' and how you were going to do it.

You then, by design or accident, moved abroad and have lied constantly to friends, colleagues, employers, the medical profession. Mostly without any need.

I'm sure you see it as having a driven personality, but if any if it is true, you are living in a permanent fantasy, not considering how those around you feel.

Can you imagine how you would feel if it turns out everyone around you did know, but were lying or humouring you?

I am not a philosophy, it is my life. I am a woman, amongst women. No one has ever singled me out as a man, except for here which ideologically requires this dissonance because of the condition of my birth. I will never be able to logically overcome this within the environment here, regardless of the reality of my life.

You are legally not a woman in the UK

But you aren't female PPW. You have a Y chromosome that defines you as biological male.

I know you feel female but you've never been female so you don't actually know what feeling female feels like.

You are accepted as a woman because of early transition which included body modification, your small stature, and the fact that you have always presented as female whole in this country.

You live as a woman.

That is not the same as being a woman.

I don't actually understand why it is so vital to you, living the totally accepted life that you live, to have other people agree with you that you are something you are not.

Can you imagine how they feel?

I can imagine all sorts of feelings, none of which is really what another person feels.

You then, by design or accident, moved abroad and have lied constantly to friends, colleagues, employers, the medical profession. Mostly without any need.

This is moralisation by people who are incapable of understanding what I've been through. As mentioned in previous posts, I've moved countries several times. You characterise my life as a lie because my existence is impossible under your beliefs. I am just living. There is no grand scheme to deceive.

I'm sure you see it as having a driven personality, but if any if it is true, you are living in a permanent fantasy, not considering how those around you feel.

I see it as a fight against a system that believed I had a purpose based on how I looked. I am not allowed to have experiences that contradict gender critical beliefs. Everyone else around me has their own ideas about my life, which do not reflect those beliefs I read on mumsnet. Believe me when I say I'm tired of talking about me, but every time I try to say "that's not true" and share why I have 15 posts telling me that it is untrue and berating me for talking about my life.

Can you imagine how you would feel if it turns out everyone around you did know, but were lying or humouring you?

More than 40 years of lying and humouring would probably feel extremely invalidating and shatter my self image and understanding of my place in the world. But, this is already the assumption of mumsnet.