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 argument that you and many other Trans Women make often is “how will you prove I’m not female to stop me accessing your facilities/services, will you be doing cheek swabs?” do you really not see why that argument is unacceptable? What you are saying is that you know you are causing women distress, you know that you are doing something that some women do not consent to, you know that you are making it so that some women will self-exclude because they can no longer rely on the single-sex nature of the space. But you’re going to do it anyway because you want to.

With regard your idea that if TW are socially accepted and treated as women then it’s fine that they use female services. There are several TW that I regularly encounter in shops because they work there, they are very clearly male, it took no time at all to recognise them immediately as males in traditionally women style clothes, makeup and hair. I’m not a twat so I don’t walk up to them and say “ey up fella, catch the game last night” or any other more stereotypically male topics of conversation. I just interact with them as a retail worker and customer, their sex or gender presentation is not relevant to our interaction, that doesn’t mean that I think they’re a woman. They may however perceive that I have thought they are a woman based on the fact I haven’t called them a man. You can’t say that just because the truth isn’t being highlighted constantly it is no longer the truth. Those males do not belong in women’s changing rooms, women’s swimming sessions, women’s gyms, women’s rape crisis services, women’s prisons…… they would cause distress to some women and they would turn the service from single sex to mixed sex.

Your definition of "woman" appears to include any person who says that they feel they are a woman and any person who everyone else thinks is a woman from observing them.

That would include people who everyone around them thinks is a man/woman, even though that person themself believes they are a woman/man and simply wants to act as if they are a man/woman.

That also means that people who dress and behave as a woman one day and a man the next are a woman or a man depending on how they are viewed by the people interacting with them, unless that person makes it clear to everyone (with a statement or maybe even a badge) which they believe they are.

Can you see how ridiculous your definition of woman is?

”I am out on this website as a person who transitioned. Of course it is going to distort gender critical people's perceptions of me. There is no bigger sin.”

I think that you maybe embracing a victimhood character narrative here with this statement. You were ‘out’ on this website because of your attitudes towards female people and their need to exclude male people from female single sex provisions.

You want readers to believe that no one else in the world can correctly identify your sex without being told. This will be a falsehood though. If people can identify your sex correctly through discussions with you, I highly doubt that it wouldn’t be the same in person.

Your statement though shows you to have framed women who don’t believe that you are a female person to be religious zealots and you as a sinner.

Is this your reason for contributing the way you do to this board? Even to the point of starting threads or me-railing threads that you know will result in picking apart gender identity theory, and by extension your own experiences. To be able to claim victimhood?

Is this building this victimhood narrative in your mind so you can further dehumanise female people who don’t believe you are a female person that you claim you are?

Perhaps you need to explore that with a mental health professional .

Are you confirming that some of your close friends don’t know that you are male? You haven’t told your friends ?

And you now confess too that you don’t know how they will react?

Yet you keep telling us that “no one cares” except the women on this board who you dismissed from humanity with that declaration.

Do you see just how many holes there are in your post? The inconsistencies that you rely on to convince yourself that your subjective reality is material reality when it is clearly not material reality?

Being out as a trans identified male on a website is a bigger sin than rape. Let’s just all make sure we see this. Bigger than rape or murder.

@polypostwonder

You live as a woman.

You are fully accepted as a woman.

Nobody recognises that you are male unless you tell them and you are not obliged to tell them.

You have been using female facilities for decades and you know that you will be able to do so without challenge because of how you present.

You know you can't change your genes, at least I hope you know that, you aren't stupid and this is not (yet) possible.

It is accepted in this country that people of both sexes can dress and behave however they like within the law.

The equality laws and the criminal laws protect you from harm more strongly than others.

Some other trans people are able to understand that they have not physically changed sex.

Why is it so critically important for your psyche for you to believe that you have actually turned into a physical woman?

“If women are indeed triggered by my reading my words telling them I am a woman, then that is their response to me saying I am trans, not me (or them) being in any real space.”

There is that gaslighting again.

This is DARVO.

Women are not triggered by you being ‘trans’. They are triggered, in posts and in real life situations where you access female single sex provisions, by you being male.

You claiming it is due to your being trans is false in that, if you didn’t seek to acquire female language or use female single sex provisions, then you would not experience the pushback you are receiving.

It is clear that the poster doesn’t have the faintest scooby about consent or safeguarding.

He just doesn't care.

He tells us it's because those rules don't apply to him. He had greater than average agency as a teen, but also faced greater challenges than anyone else. His transition and circumstances are unique and special. He's not like those other TIMs because he is in fact a woman, the dictionary says so and no one has told him otherwise! He's a medical marvel with all that female healthcare he's been receiving most of his life without the doctors acknowledging his maleness, and (apparently) no ill effects. He's special, don't you see?

He tells us all this, but really he just doesn't care about consent or safeguarding when it comes to actual women.

Centre of his own universe, and we should all orbit him accordingly 🙄

Or of how to behave.

I am so sorry, @Taztoy, that you have encountered the worst of men, here and in real life.

“No woman requires permission to be in women's space”

This is gaslighting.

“your belief does not weigh the control of consent over my very real presence in woman as a class, or within women's space.”

This is horrendous.

The material reality version of this sentence above is :

“your belief does not weigh the control of consent over my very real male presence in woman as a class, or within women's space.”

And when people understand that this is what the poster really is saying, it all looks very very different to the first sentence.

No woman or girl requires consent to be in a female single sex provision.

This statement only remains accurate if the definition for female and woman and girl is based on humans with a body formed around large gametes (regardless of whether those are ever produced).

A male person accessing a female single sex provision does so without the consent of the female people who need that space to exclude male people above the age of 8-10.

Poly still getting his euphoria from this thread then

Yep

I have found this type of word salad to be common with male people who have to reach into philosophical theories in ever increasing depth to wedge themselves into the definition of woman and female.

I remember one who used to quote Ayn Rand and tell us he was living in his version of Utopia to bring about the Utopian era. But many of them regurgitate word waffle to explain and justify their beliefs and their actions.

My experience of this word salad technique is from an abusive relationship. It just further underlines the common features of gender ideology, trans activism and abusive relationships for me.

As you have already pointed out, on top of this word salad an unhealthy amount of DARVO and gaslighting is usually involved.

Not that there's a minimum amount of DARVO or gaslighting that would be healthy. Obviously any amount of either is wrong and extremely unhealthy!

Kicking myself over my choice of words there.

This is it though.

Ultimately, the word salad hides DARVO. I have just now caught up to the thread from reading back and you and murasaki were spot on in the discussion on the last page.

Many of us have said it before, the word salad is there to confound, delay, distract on one hand. On the other hand it is also an indicator of the degree of philosophising these men use to find arguments that convince themselves and others that they are female people.

But always, those impenetrable words and concepts are there to convince female people to allow a male person to do exactly as he wants.

What becomes worse is when that male person then declares that their inclusion into female single sex provisions and female language benefits female people. They cannot see the abject sexism in their actions.

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.

I don't think this is even true. If "woman in sense 1" is "adult human female", even the more sophisticated definitions of "woman in sense 2" don't seem to go beyond the likes of "person adopting a social role stereotypically associated with 'woman in sense 1'". Nobody has ever to my knowledge meaningfully defined "trans woman" without reference to the ordinary use of "woman".

(The less sophisticated definitions, of course, just say "a woman is someone who thinks they are a woman", which is circular and thus basically useless.)

What is this waffle?

You cannot change reality by changing the words you use to describe it.

Humans are dimorphously sexed mammals. Sex in humans is immutable.

This is basic stuff, that no amount of gaslighting or persuasion, or semantics, legalese, or certification will affect.

Battling reality like this is, imo, attractive to some because it seems like they enjoy the struggle.

Alternatively its all a game and plausible deniability is part of the fun.

😁

I am sorry for the trauma you have experienced. It sounds awful.

I hope that you are able to make peace with that trauma at some point.

The way that you interact with women on here suggests unresolved issues, to be perfectly honest.

None of the women on here are responsible for the harm done to you, nor can we fix it.

The first step in healing is acknowledging the truth, and if ones whole life has become a struggle to resist the most basic truths, then one is at root fighting oneself.

No amount of trying to persuade women on the internet of impossible things is ever going to be enough.

Oh, I don't mean trans women get to exist as a type of woman. I just mean the what-ever-it-is they feel can totally be recognised and accepted, it just can't be called "woman".

I find this revealing. I mention that contributions like your own on this board have been instrumental in testing and affirming my views, and this is no different.

PPW, your arguments are inconsistent and occasionally nonsensical. Other posters can see this, and have suggested why. I don't think it's stupidity - you're clearly brighter than some of our visitors. I also don't think it's consciously cynical ulterior motives - you've been relatively more respectful than most, too. And yet...

• You say you have no time to debate with me, then post compulsively across multiple pages.

• You refer to "feminist theory" to justify this, in answer to plain English common sense (the common sense of feminists, yes but in no way high falutin). Meanwhile, you also indulge in pseudo-philosophical word salad.

• You make claims that are demonstrably incorrect or illogical about UK law, what "everyone" (I mean, really?!) "outside this site" believes or values, and about healthcare (of course any medic treating you needs to know about the medical interventions you've undergone)

• You rely on hyperbole: "I suspect the gender critical use would require every knowable fact about a person be shared..."

All of the above undermines your position. As such, I'm honestly coming down on the side of Arabella, above - the avoidance/illogicality suggest a certain desperation that make me think you may be better stepping back from this discussion.

What really frustrates me, though, is that, with more distance, there's so much you could say that would be more convincing than the approach you take. Like...

• "I acknowledge that the UK Supreme Court ruled that references to 'sex', 'man' and 'woman' in the Equality Act refer to biological sex (a person's sex at birth) and there's an expectation, as with any law, that the populace abides by this. However, I personally disagree with this on ethical grounds, and will be in engaging in a quiet campaign of civil disobedience which is consistent with my values and personal needs. I acknowledge that some women may find it disconcerting to know that this is my intention, however feel that this is superceded by..." etc.

• "I recognise that I don't have the medical expertise to be confident that my birth sex has no relevance in any medical scenario, so share it with practitioners so they can make that judgement. I will say, however, that, to the best of my knowledge, it has no yet influenced what treatment I have needed post-transition."

Or even...

• "Sorry, everyone - I recognise I've not yet addressed why I feel "adult human female"'s an adequate descriptor for this class of human. This is because I recognise this is actually a difficult ethical issue, and I'm still formulating my thoughts on it. I mean, I do recognise that 'what you don't know can't hurt you' doesn't suffice in many other situations (like, an annoying unnecessary qualification that, nonetheless, is stipulated for a job I want / a DSB certificate in an OAP home that's been a bit lazy about checking for these) / age limits for driving - I'm honestly still working out how "woman"'s different in this respect, even given UK law... I'll get back to you on this!"

Practically speaking, in your situation - which is impossibly difficult, I get that, I like to think I'd go for something like...

• Look I recognise this is a hugely distressing subject for you, as I am different to you. However, to introduce myself as such in every possible scenario is blatantly impractical. As such, I just make sure to remove myself from any in which I understand, from endless anxious discussion with female friends and relatives who know the real me, women may be distressed were they to find out I were trans. For this reason (and the law!) I use single-enclosed loos whenever possible (thank goodness there are a lot of these - careful planning means I usually can access one) and disabled loos if not (those increasingly common "Not all disabilities are visible," signs do help, and while not all of you may agree, and I hope any disabled posters don't mind me saying so, I think my legal exclusion from single sex spaces qualifies me for this where there's an absence of alternative provision).

Instead of all this, we just get

• "Observably, and experientially, 'woman' is more than just the initial dictionary definition... Reality is shared... But we can all readily identify the characteristics of people we share space."

and in that way you restate a blindness to women's rights that just gives fuel to our fire.

It's self-destructive, on a "whole-trans" level and, I sometimes worry, an individual level.

On this basis, I am disengaging (like, properly!) this time, though I'll keep reading.

Before I go now, though, you know one interesting thing? My instinct before posting this was to add an apology for presuming to appropriate your own hugely complex and challenging situation, and voice, in my hypothetical posts above. Can you see the irony there?

NB. I hope you don't mind this monologue. A precedent was set for these early on, which (being an incorrigible lover of the monologuing!) I'm afraid I embraced. Again. 😄

Brilliant! It may have taken 900 posts but you have captured the argument. Thank you so much.