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.

Oh that's interesting, thanks @OtterlyAstounding!

“I don't understand why gender critical people need to lump every identified trans person in with murderers and rapists. This cheapens all efforts to remove violence from the world.”

Understanding the risk that male
people, however they identify, present to female people around the world falls under the risk analysis as per safeguarding principles.

Male people are included in a sex category with all other male people.

There is no logic to the statement you have just made. I have yet to see one feminist on this board ‘lump every identified trans person in with murderers and rapists”. That is hyperbole and it is totally illogical. Because people with transgender identities are either male or female. And female people with transgender identities are evaluated under risk profile analysis with female people and therefore not considered to have the risk of harming female people that male people are considered to have.

That is one glaringly obvious flaw with the statement and has been explained in detail to you previously.

And... UK soldiers, and American soldiers...?

This is one of the significant issues with the very lazy and inaccurate accusation accusation that is ‘anti-trans’. Feminism does include some people with transgender identities - female people that is and not those male people who merely claim female language to describe themselves when they are not female.

Male people are male people. I 100% agree.

Are you suggesting the three trans people specifically referenced by the poster in the context of 'all TIMs or none' was just coincidental?

Yes. Then there's the racist and ableist TRA appropriation of the term intersectional feminism when they whine that we don't include trans identifying men in our feminism.

”Are you suggesting the three trans people specifically referenced by the poster in the context of 'all TIMs or none' was just coincidental?”

No coincidence. Those male people hold the belief that they are transgender. The point as you seem to need it explained (again because it too has been explained to you numerous times) is one of the pillars of strong safeguarding.

That pillar being that for the purposes of safeguarding in publicly accessible provisions a blanket approach is necessary. The point made was ‘all male people are excluded’ based on the fact that male people all are considered, for safeguarding to work, to have the same high risk of harming female people if they were included in the access of female single sex provisions. That risk assessment is why sex segregation exists in the first place after all.

So, making the point that those three convicted male people exist is giving specific examples (and three among many) of the fact that male people with transgender identities who are convicted of acts of harm to female people.

It was posted as a reminder of why all male people are considered male in material reality, regardless of what they identify as in their subjective reality.

There is, of course, a difference between saying that for safeguarding purposes all male people are treated equally in the consideration as to who accesses female single sex provisions and making an unfounded blanket generalisation that all male people (with or without transgender identities) are murderers and rapists, which was not an accusation made in the post.

The post said clearly, “Abd if we let him In, who else gets to come in? Isla Bryson? Karen white? Katie Dolowski? It’s either all TIMS or none.”

Wearenotborg was very clearly referring to safeguarding principles.

I'm sorry. I didn't answer the second half of your post in my initial response.

I understand there are visibly or identifiably trans people in the UK. Whether they are actively in the years of their transition process, or just ended up in a spot, it looks much harder and more dangerous than dealing with others as a 'queer' child or 'genderfuck' teen.

Reading posts from them on Twitter helps me understand how difficult it is and how hated they are, just for being visibly or identified as trans. I'm glad to hear that you don't specifically antagonise them. You are apparently one of the few.

I imagine visible trans people are the primary audience for the protection of gender recognition in the GRA and 'trans acceptance' policies adopted by government, business and organisations. (Additional to the non-protection oriented benefits in the GRA for trans people born or resident in the UK.)

The single sex/mixed sex distinction is a UK invention. With the current EHRC guidance, EA2010 interpretation of the definition of sex and 20 year history of mishmash of policy, I suspect the law will continue to change on this topic while the rest of the world moves further away ideologically from the UK.

You are constructing your argument on a gender critical tenet we disagree upon.

Force teaming me in with those three people does zilch for your argument, safeguarding, or furthering a reduction of violence upon women. I would also argue that absolute numbers exist for crime before 2025. Those data aren't going to significantly change under the newly adopted definition of sex in the EA.

This could be why it is called 'trans-exclusive feminism.'

No, just male-exclusive. Female trans people are included. Not males.

Is this another gender critical belief?

The second gender critical tenet above in reference to safeguarding would be the statement that all trans women must be suspected of being dangerous and/or violent because all men are suspected of being dangerous and/or violent.

ETA: which is not the "first place after all" why "sex segregation exists"

No. Feminism is about the rights of females. So by definition, it includes all females (regardless of identity) and excludes all males.

Otherwise it's just egalitarianism, which is lovely too, but an entirely different thing.

I believe trans-inclusive feminists would disagree with this trans-exclusive feminist statement.

You appear to be arguing here that trans identified females aren't transgender, which is just a wee bit confusing.

To add: If feminism includes trans identified females, then it is by definition trans-inclusive. It is not, however male-inclusive, as feminism is about females, not males.

HTH.

“You are constructing your argument on a gender critical tenet we disagree upon.”

I am not ‘constructing’ an argument. I am explaining, as I and others have previously explained to you, accepted safeguarding principles and how strong safeguarding decisions are made. If you cannot accept those principles as being reality, well, I already know you ignore material reality to be able to instead believe your own subjective reality which isn’t based on that material reality.

“Force teaming me in with those three people does zilch for your argument, safeguarding, or furthering a reduction of violence upon women.”

Again you are showing you don’t understand safeguarding principles at all.

“I would also argue that absolute numbers exist for crime before 2025. Those data aren't going to significantly change under the newly adopted definition of sex in the EA”

I have no idea what you are referring to with this statement. I can only imagine you are trying to make a point about the EA not decreasing crime.

Again this shows you really don’t understand safeguarding in relation to female people’s needs at all. You also don’t seem to understand the purpose of the EA and the crime dynamics you are trying to leverage in a flawed attempt to dismiss the need and significance of the EA.

You certainly have made it very clear you do not prioritise female people’s needs at all though.

polypostwonder · Today 02:26
I have plenty of respect and empathy.FWR are a mixed-sex assemblage of anti-trans aligned belief-sharers. You do not represent women. Your individually contributed statements are not the voice or beliefs of women. Many threads on FWR demonstrate this fact very obviously.
It has always been evident that you wish there was a very large soul-destroying, life-altering penalty for living life as a trans person.
I don't understand why gender critical people need to lump every identified trans person in with murderers and rapists. This cheapens all efforts to remove violence from the world.

CohensDiamondTeeth · Today 02:43 (replying to the above)
(Paraphrasing) "Why don't you want men to be able to access non-consenting women and take all women's words and rights away? You're all mean haters!"
Nah dude. I'm not anti-trans. My feminism includes trans identifying women (transmen). I'm not some anti-men hate filled misandrist either, I quite like men in general but their problems, like yours, are not mine to sort for you all because you are men. Sort it yourselves.
I'm anti-men who appropriate women's spaces, rights and words for themselves. That's it, simple.
That's not anti-trans, that's pro-women. You aren't a woman, you are a man.

New post from here:
I'm a trans-inclusive feminist. I'm including trans identified females (transmen).

I'm not including you because you are male, or other trans identifying men because they are male.

I don't need to include males in my feminism no matter how much they shout and whine and wheedle and threaten, there's nothing at all wrong with that.

Totally sensible and logical IMO.

Edited for confusing formatting, no obvious break between old quote and new post.

There is something really incoherent about the posts. It is almost like the rolling out of every tropish tactic that someone can think of to come up with a justificatiable reason for ignoring the law, but none of it works because it is all based on misinformation.

It really is quite clear how much you ignore female people who are inconvenient to your personal and individual wants.

I was thinking the other day how "far out man" it all sounds sometimes, like someone who's on something and warbling away like it's the next great deep thought, but it's really just a bunch of meaningless mush that only sounds clever if you turn off all but 2 of your braincells.

I suppose when the very thing you're trying to argue for is incoherent, then your arguments for it can't help but be incoherent too. It's a little tiresome.

The posts remind me of Russell Brand's ranty monologues; screeds of pseudo-intellectual fluff that try to tangle the listener (or reader) up in knots, but no actual substance.

Men are whatever men say they are and women are whatever men say they are.

A man using misogyny to convince himself that he is a woman.

Demanding that the individual is centred above the collective is the very opposite of feminism.

And centring the individual is pretty much the epitome of demanding a person’s subjective belief is treated as if it was material reality when it is not material reality.

If one person’s subjective reality is treated as material reality, then by that action it is making that individual’s subjective reality the universal material reality for everyone.

And in the case of ignoring the needs of female people by treating a male person’s subjective reality as if it was universally accepted material reality when that male demands (even a demand through expectation of others) to be accepted as a female person, that is a direct act of misogyny.