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 suppose the same way we make anyone obey any law, we don’t for example have drones following everyone around 24/7 to make sure they never rob or murder anyone, we don’t limit the speed of every car to the maximum on the road they are traversing. we make clear what the law is and then if someone breaks that law they face the consequences.

Instead of hailing these men as activists standing up for their want to infringe on women’s spaces and services, or enabling them through ‘case by case’ measures we simply state that men can never be women, that spaces and services defined as women only do not include ANY men even the ones who don’t want to be men and if they are caught breaking those rules they are prosecuted.

Where the space includes women in a state of undress then they should also be added to the sex offenders list as they did not have the consent of the women in that space to be naked in front of them or to see them naked.

“All the people posing me further questions and making further points are starting from a point of belief that there are no males presenting as females who they would not recognise as males.”

I believe this is coming from the wrong position.

I am sure that a small % of female people will be able to correctly identify the sex of every single male person they come across if they pay attention. Why would anyone doubt this? I confidently doubt that there is one male person in the world that will be completely unidentified as being male by a female person who sees and briefly interacts with them during their life time.

However, the issue has never been limited to whether the person making the argument that male people should be excluded is one of those who can correctly identify a male person’s sex. Because the point is that even if that very rare male person happens to be using a single sex provision and someone correctly identifies them as male, that is potentially distressful for that female person. Plus, any other female person who then discovers that they have shared a space they believed was single sex, but they have been deceived by a male person who was also there.

Then there is the nature of the act of ignoring female people’s boundaries as a male person. There is a label for a male person who ignores female people’s boundaries and thereby their consent.

Just because one woman believes she cannot correctly identify the sex category or every single male person who she sees, doesn’t mean that is the universal experience. It is actually far more likely that there are more female people who can correctly identify a male person’s sex category than there is to be this magic male person who passes 100% of the time for his life since taking hormone treatment, in my opinion. But each to their own.

The point is, not even the ‘passing’ men should be coming into female single sex provisions. If they cannot self regulate to respect female people’s boundaries, then they certainly are still part of the threat .

There appear to be people on the thread who think it's a criminal offence for a man to enter a female space.

It isn't, it's trespass.

However, his behaviour in that space may be criminal, eg causing a public nuisance if he doesn't leave when asked, harassment if he approaches women for his idea of girltalk, and so on.

But I think you need to separate in your head "allow" and "cannot in practice prevent".

These are two very different things.

For women in particular given our relative powerlessness to men both physically and culturally, the suggestion that if we are unable to stop something we are "allowing" ie consenting to it is not a concept we should give any respectability whatsoever.

You are right to say we may not in practice be able to stop the type of man PPW posits from faking his way into things reserved for women. That is not a reason we shouldn't continue to say that when it happens it is still wrong, and to highlight whether anyone else realises his actual sex or not, the man in question chooses to go ahead full knowledge that he is breaking women's trust and boundaries and that in itself is a huge red flag.

It could be possible that any male entering a female single sex space could be risking a charge of criminal or aggravated trespass.

They could also face charges of harassment, voyeurism, or exposure. So there could be criminal sexual offense charges in the worst case (for them) scenario.

I also disagree with you that OP would not be the type of person we would consider a threat or challenge. I would. For the reasons Helleofabore and FlirtsWithRhinos outlined above at 11.23 & 11.36.

But I think you need to separate in your head "allow" and "cannot in practice prevent"

If by 'you’ you mean me, as opposed to ’one’, then this is not advice I'm in any need of, that separation is firmly entrenched.

I don't know why you wrote the rest as if you thought I disagreed with it either.

It’s harassment if they do it to the same woman more than once.

it’s also public nuisance.

aggravated trespass.

i, however, think it should be a criminal offence as it is akin to stealthing.

furthermore, I fundamentally don’t trust TIMs when they say they pass and no one can tell and no one will ever know and they mean no harm. We already know they lie.

I've seen quite a few pics on reddit where people ask if they pass and are given a resoundingly positive reaction, when they really really don't. Even with filters. So I doubt his words.

All of which is irrelevant, because he is male.

Anyone encouraging him to continue using female spaces because of his height and 'vulnerabilities' needs to have a good hard look at themselves and their motivations.

The argument goes in stages-

Women can't tell they are there

Women accept them as women

They have the right to be there

They aren't women's spaces, they are safe spaces

The number of gnc women is higher than TW therefore this will disadvantage more women.

Its not enforceable under criminal law.

You cant stop us.

They will be men who could pass unnoticed in a womens space, but thats nothing to do with trans. A slight man in a busy toilet where everyone is distracted, can pass as much as the ideal PPW has painted.

Its like the YouTube thing where we're asked to count the number of throws and we dont notice the gorilla dancing about.

But if we are alone we will because we will be more focused.

As others have said. The imagined compassionate passing TW who is going about their business not harming women would not be in the space in the first place. TW cannot know how they pass to the women behind the door, and how the women and girls feel.

Ultimately, if a male person lacks the ability to self regulate his behaviour, having been told by female people that his behaviour is not acceptable either in ‘theory’ or in practice (ie in person), it says a huge amount about him.

REGARDLESS of whether the man ‘passes’ to some people, how long he has been using provisions not meant for him, the legality of whether he is a ‘woman’ for some purposes and not others, whether his friends think of him as a woman or whether he can get away with it or not. Regardless of how vulnerable he is, or his trauma history. Any male person who cannot respect female people’s needs by staying out of the female single sex provisions is a male who is a threat of harm to female people.

Absolutely

I do mean you. If I recall correctly in other posts you have used the word "allow" in relation to a trans identifying man of the type PPW describes, and you seem to be suggesting women don't have any basis to be threatened or angry about this if the male's presence is not obvious at the time.

If I have misremembered I apologise.

“asking him to split from his female friends/colleagues/ acqaintances, who all believe he is female, and peel off to the disabled. Where he is going to upset another group of people who think he shouldn't be there and have to field questions from all sides about why he's done that. I don't think it is a reasonable request to ask him after all this time to use the men's facilities presenting entirely as a woman, and that certainly would require him outing himself to everyone.

I don't think PPW is in any way a good representive for the trans lobby demand to use female spaces. If we take him at his word, we genuinely wouldn't know. Probably not even if he stripped off in front of us. He doesn't have and never has had the hormones that create male aggression, or most of the physique built by male hormones and especially puberty. He doesn't have a penis, he's the size of an average woman. He's no more threat to women than a woman, and probably quite a bit less threat than many women.

I hate the way he uses "clever" arguments about his own life, which is far removed from the lives of those transitioning more recently, to support demands that would allow obvious males with male genitalia into women's spaces. I'm grateful that the law has now been clarified to enable us to challenge such men, but I doubt PPW is among the people we would find a threat or challenge.”

All this comes across as a ‘but he is not a real threat so he shouldn’t be expected to not change his behaviour and stop using the female single sex provisions’.

You might not have meant it to convey that message imdunfer, but it comes across like you are saying that for you, it is unreasonable because …. reasons, and you would be fine because you believe him that he passes and therefore you wouldn’t mind.

I suspect that is what people are responding to.

I've never spoken for any woman but myself. And no, I did not say what you think I did.

If a man is in a female space and he genuinely cannot be distinguished from a woman, then there would simply be no way he as an individual could scare anyone by his maleness. Women can of course rightly be concerned that anyone around them could be male and I imagine for some that's a very upsetting thought.

So as I've already said, if people insist that they can distinguish every single person in a female space who is carrying a Y chromosome, then we don't really have a basis for any further discussion about how to keep males out of female spaces.

I don't, personally, see how it can be achieved. Which does not mean that it should be legal.

And now I'm probably going to end any participation in this thread before it turns into attacking me instead of the problem, which has happened to me before.

I dont understand your point, Imdunfer?

Because false positives and false negatives happen, we shouldn't expect single sex spaces?

If men could routinely get away with it, and 80% of women were challenged, id agree that its unworkable. But then we wouldn't have single sex spaces in the first place.

Women can of course rightly be concerned that anyone around them could be male and I imagine for some that's a very upsetting thought.

That is mischaracterising my argument and, whether intentionally or not, the use of the word "upsetting" and "for some" comes across as belittling and trivialising.

Women like me are angry. Not "upset" , but angry and insulted.

Not scared by the possibility that an individual person physically close to me "could be male" 🙄but by how easily so much of supposedly "progressive" society has slipped into agreeing that some men are "really" women or "might as well be" women and what that says about how society really sees us.

Jesus Christ I’m not upset.

upset is the wrong word.

if I speed at 100mph and don’t get caught have I broken the law?

if stealthing is illegal but no one figured it out, was an offence committed?

A man on here directly said to me

I do not require your consent.

i Read that as a threat. Given my experience which I am prevented from discussing, my immediate reaction is. He’s going to rape me.

im muted by mnhq not being comfortable with my description, which i get. But he can still describe his. Why? That’s not fair.

and I think my instinctive reaction is completely understandable and I found it staggering that a rape victim would use that phraseology towards any one else.

I so not require your consent says to me. It’s ok that I was said because my consent doesn’t matter. But it’s allowed to stand. It makes me feel physically sick.

edit fir spelling. My hands are shaking.

Your last paragraph struck a chord. For me, one of the most disturbing aspects of this gender stuff is that it has taken the lid off the utter dismissive contempt (and worse) for women's needs and feelings that exists, not only in the people and institutions where one would expect it, but in ones that might have been expected to understand. The "caring" professions. Liberal/left people and parties supposedly concerned with equality. Self-proclaimed "feminists" of both sexes. Men who claim to "be" women inside. It's hideous.

It’s ok that I was raped because.

and. For spelling.

sorry.

This is what I hate.

What gets to me is this attitude that my feelings don't count for anything; that my needs are unimportant; that men should be catered to and centred; that women are support animals for men, who are the main characters. That women are only good for supporting men, sexually or otherwise. That is what bothers me most about my rapes and other adults' reaction to them.

OP's generally avoiding direct answers and using misdirection is triggering for the inherent dishonesty and the implication that it's all a big game to OP, that our concerns and questions are unimportant, that we're silly women who he can outsmart by word games, and that is more important than our genuine concerns or an honest dialog. Deception and headfucking played a big part in my abuse.

I’ve said it before on here - dismantling women’s consent like this is a slippery slope. It ends with Rape being decriminalised. (And yes I know that hardly any men get convicted but it is still an offence in law)

No. This was not my intention.

While we are here, we can acknowledge the members of the gay community who were exterminated during the Holocaust. I also learned last year that trans women were also hunted and sent to death camps during the Holocaust, thanks to the denial of this by gender critical people: https://hmd.org.uk/resource/6-may-1933-looting-of-the-institute-of-sexology/ and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Persecution_of_transgender_people_in_Nazi_Germany

I am curious how you felt while the guidance on this topic was advising the opposite of how you perceive the law to read now. Nothing in the law has changed within the context of my rape, since. Not that I would change how I feel or how I act now if the law were to suddenly change.

I still feel you are not discussing consent. I don't understand what you are proposing when using the word 'consent,' but, how can anyone convey permission to occupy a public space they do not personally own or occupy?

The law can convey such permission and doesn't for you.