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.

"Liminality" is very much the sort of word used overwhelmingly by people who want to sound cleverer than they really are, isn't it?

This is a new trend, along with the absurdist dismissal of the prison-stats. A lot of wordiness. Sometimes very confused indeed - sentences veering out of control within a few words of starting on the thread I just left. This OP is thought-provoking and polite, though - thank you, it is noticed and appreciated.

Yep.

But apparently it was not a passive acceptance that the poster relied on as a substitute for consent.

It makes me think of lectures by Herminia Ibarra of the London Business School. Although she talks about a liminal state as a very uncomfortable transitory state (inherently unstable) that most people dont want to linger in. Not sure Thats the vibe that rolypoly was going for

This is all along the similar lines of :

“I'm an adult human, and I recognise within myself a constellation of data points that I identify as female”.

People who have to philosophise to try to convince others they are female, are very often male people.

Yup. You could apply almost all of this to age, after all.

We are well into the bullshit baffles brains territory. But it really does work on a lot of people

Imagine deciding your life's purpose is to try to convince a bunch of women on the internet that you really, really look like a woman.

Doesn't matter if you use big words and lots of them, OP.

Still male.

Stay out of women's spaces.

Thanks.

I like a liminal as much as the next chin-stroker. But sex can't be liminal. It's like the actual opposite of liminal.

I wonder what @polypostwonder thinks liminal means. It’s been a tediously fashionable word in the humanities for a good couple of decades now and any metaphorical value it once had is surely stretched to snapping point.

Yep. Even though he apparently has a fantastic life where all his friends and family and everyone he has ever met, believe he is a woman, he still spends an awful lot of time on here insisting he’s a woman.

Where one might see politeness or thoughtfulness, I see a relentless thumping sledgehammer to the doors of women's single sex spaces.

I'm pretty certain a couple of months ago that he said he's not concerned about passing and knows he doesn't. One slip in a sea of obscure and nonsensical posts. But I can't be arsed to search for it through the thousands of his posts insisting he's a true and honest woman.

It's like somebody whose friend has just painfully barked her shin on a table-leg, and instead of fetching her the antiseptic and the arnica he starts woffling about whether, philosophically speaking, a table actually exists.

When I was younger, I used to get mistaken for a boy. Maybe sometimes that changed how I was treated (for example I may have been spared a bit of street harassment because of it). But no matter how many people were not very perceptive about my sex, I still had to deal with the arrival of a period every month, and very tedious it was. "Sex-is-social-perception" really doesn't cover it.

The problem with this analysis is that it assumes how 'woman' is defined isn't an opinion & that's heavily socially contested. Ultimately its society who arbitrarily decides definitions.

Therefore its societal perception thru observation that confers rights not sex.

Well the SC said woman is an adult human female. sorry bud. Snd most people see TW as men, so according to your logic, they are men.

Laws are still human constructs which means they can be changed at any given time depending on social pressures so again its social perception that influences
rights not biology.

Advanced search makes it easy.

https://www.mumsnet.com/talk/womens_rights/5504704-a-uk-forum-is-encouraging-a-desperate-parent-of-a-trans-identified-male-to-seek-out-diy-hormones-without-consulting-health-care-professionals-how-is-this-dangerous-advice-legal?page=9&reply=151158170

Maybe the ‘liminality’ is the state of both passing so well that everyone perceives you as female and yet not passing at all since the age of 17?

You’re not a woman. Your sex is male. You are fooling yourself and trying to fool everyone else. It might work some or even a lot of the time, if your disguise is effective, but you still shouldn’t be in spaces reserved for women.

But to change the law, there would have to be an absolute definition of what woman and man, male and female mean…. So do crack on with campaigning for that. Laws don’t get changed based on people’s feelings. You’d have to give a watertight, legal explanation of why some people should be treated as the opposite sex but not others, and produce evidence. Have fun 😀😀😀😀

Legal definitions broadening with the passage of time is nothing new where younger generations 'feelings' inevitably 'win' out legally. See: Australia & Canada.

You can't fight the tide of time.

I do agree that women’s rights can be removed.

However societies are still able to identify males and females and women with no rights are still female.

So off you go. Start a legal challenge. Surely that’s a much better use of your time and energy than coming on feminist boards trying to convince women that men are women. you could even get GLP to take the case, they’ll jump at the chance I’m sure.

Indeed. Look at the women of Afghanistan. They have no rights and yet everyone knows which people are women.

If we didn’t understand how to identify sex we would call an ambulance every time a woman had a period and we would put everyone on the pill just in case.

Sure, everyone has an opinion on the matter. But as our OP points out, observed sex is key.