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.

The reality is you’re a man. And youre quite prepared to say to a rape victim you do not require her consent.

You have said you are trans. How can you be trans without having been something else? Which you still are if you are identifying as trams which you did only a few posts ago?

Or has even the prefix trans changed meaning now.

You have no internal logic, and a very tenuous grasp of science, i feel sad for you.

But not that sad, as your behaviour has been appalling.

The reality does not exist on mumsnet. I do not require mumsnet's permission or consent of any of its members to continue living life as I have for decades.

Re the equality act, it very much does.

I went through transition as a teen. It was a process, with a beginning and an ending. I am not responsible for aligning my experience within your beliefs.

Exactly. But that poster doesn’t care about that because it doesn’t count if he doesn’t get caught and he doesn’t care about consent.

It’s the law in the U.K.

Still male. Just with surgery to give a facsimile of femininity. But still male.

It’s not about requiring my consent. You said to a rape victim that you didn’t require her consent. And somehow thats my fault.

where else does your lack of concern about consent manifest? I find it astounding that a rape victim would take such a stance. Absolutely disgusting thing to say to me.

My id in the UK declares me a woman. My life in the UK is consistent with that id, and also present in every other country I've lived and visited. The law, if required in any country, will uniformly acknowledge this fact.

The equality act says no because you were born male.

I feel very strongly about consent. That you are weaponising your experience into a demand for consent over a belief is frustrating for me as a survivor.

Very strongly that you don’t give a fuck about it, clearly, from your posts on this and other threads and what you directly said to me.

The equality act relies on more than the act itself to enforce its laws. Similarly, I will never receive coverage by the GRA or protection for GR in the EA.

Where did you do your law degree?

If you feel strongly about consent, why are you planning on going into female spaces where there is no consent for you, as a male person, to be?

And your treatment of Taztoy does lead me to wonder about your story. I've never met a survivor who would speak to another like that.

How do you propose the EA determines sex in real life situations? Is everyone now receiving a cheek swab or blood test?

This is true.

Outside your own head and your personal idiosyncratic definition of "woman", you remain a man regardless of what anyone on Mumsnet happens to think on the matter.

I'll add this to the list of things people question about me on mumsnet. I'm over it.

And another sneaky edit.

I added "Is everyone now receiving a cheek swab or blood test?"

Very sneaky!

Not planning on. Already going in to and going to continue regardless of any law and prepared to over ride the non consent of any women in the space with the grounds that he doesn’t give a toss about any woman’s consent. Which is an incredibly male attitude despite his presentation.

It does change the post. You’re not supposed to do that under mn guidance but you don’t care about that either.

Nevertheless, in the original sex based meaning of the word, you are not a woman.

You only become a woman by changing what that word means. And in doing so, you disconnect it from the reality and existence of female people.

This is simple reality. It is unavoidable. Female people will continue to exist regardless of your beliefs.

So the only relevant question is whether language should continue to reflect that reality or not.

Because it is entirely possible to have language that recognises that trans women and female people both exist independantly, without one being defined only in reference to each other.

It is only in your belief that this becomes impossible.

And since the reality is that female people clearly do exist, and clearly are a separate group to trans women, it would appear that it is your belief that is wrong.

I'd still like to know what he thinks he has in common with me as a woman. As I can't think of a single thing.