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 new EHRC guidance that is the result of gender critical lobbying begs to differ. Enforcement by providers is left to observation ….gender stereo types.

For trans people to 'pass' via observation requires gender stereotypes. Medicalisation enables passing so the a further incentive arises.

The context here is the practical application of gender critical views which have achieved the opposite of their goals.

Wishful thinking isn't necessarily a practical solution because it doesn't deal with reality. Biological diversity isn't something that can be wished away. In other words trans people aren't anything new & as such are here to stay rightfully expecting basic rights.

The fact that them being in the closet worked well for you for the first five decades is irrelevant to the necessities they require of them being out of it.

Invasion of opposite-sex spaces is not a necessity. It is self-indulgence.

Your meaning is still unclear.

I haven't read the new guidance on the subject of enforcement, but it has long been my position that 'policing' or 'enforcement' should be superfluous: it has been made abundantly clear that 'single sex' refers to biological sex, so no biological male, however he identifies, or however well he thinks he passes, is entitled to use women's facilities, and that should be enough to keep him out.
Why would he insist on using facilities that he's not allowed to?
What would be his motivation?

Single sex spaces have always functioned on the basis of respect - no policing, no genital inspections, no enforcement, just a respect for the spaces and for the people using them.

For some strange reason - future sociologists have their work cut out for them! - a small but very noisy and sometimes aggressive cohort of men decided they were going to contravene the existing social contract around single sex spaces, 'the good men stay out so the bad men stand out', and demand to use the women's toilets instead of the men's.

There's no evidence that they'd have any trouble using the men's, and there is lots of evidence that they are not wanted in the women's, but they seem to think they are entitled to go wherever they want to.

GC views may have acquired a new name, but the ideas behind them aren't new - human sex being binary and immutable is just verifiable scientific fact, GC feminists didn't invent human biology. Both biological realism and GC feminism predate transgenderism.

So how do you make out that that recent irrational, entitled behaviour by a small number of men who identify as women is an achievement/unintended consequence of long-standing gender critical views?

So how do you make out that that recent irrational, entitled behaviour by a small number of men who identify as women is an achievement/unintended consequence of long-standing gender critical views?

The context of this thread/my comments is that observation is how sex is socially distinguished & the new rules that were the result of gender critical lobbying effectively embed gender stereotypes because observation is the mode of enforcement. You can divert from this fact to 'entitled men' all you like but it doesn't change the consequences of increased gender stereotyping this lobbying enabled.

Trans people are examples of biological diversity? Seriously? There's nothing biologically unusual about the one I know best, at least, nothing relating to his trans identity. If there was, he would tell me, as it would back up his worldview.

Gender dysphoria is widely understood by the scientific and medical community as having deep biological underpinnings placing it within the natural spectrum of human neurological and genetic variation. Research indicates that gender identity develops through a complex interplay of genetic, hormonal and environmental factors during fetal development.

How can you know that a baby even has a gender identity, let alone what that identity is? You can't ask it. And any identifying that becomes apparent at some stage post birth could be a result of parental or other social influences. It may not be, but there's no guarantee that it isn't.

According to experts that's not the case.

What's their evidence? Given how quick children can be to pick up on unspoken atmospheres as well as overt statements, it would be hard to prove one way or the other.

For example, there was a parent of a trans identifying youngster (girl now id-ing as boy) on here recently, who had apparently done and said all the broadminded things when her little daughter wanted sparkly stuff. But she admitted here that she was disappointed, because she had had a hard fight with her own mother (who was still around) to be allowed to express her own gender-nonconforming preferences. I would bet good money that, despite all efforts to hide it, that child had picked up that being a girl was in some way problematic and surrounded by tensions, and that being like her brothers was better.

If that is the case, how do I identify someone who is genuinely transgender, as opposed to someone who is only pretending? As an outsider to their experience, hiw can I tell?

All this discussion about whether someone who is male and is using the female single sex provisions in the UK when it is now clear that the policies and laws say they shouldn’t seems to be rather hateful, doesn’t it?

This discussion rests on those male people consciously choosing to not follow the laws set by the EA2010 and to disrespect the female people who need those provisions to be single sex. Surely no one is suggesting that male people would do that? Surely no male person will consciously make a choice to ignore laws set up to protect female people and ignore female people’s consent! That would be those male people acting in the way that could be considered predatory because it harms female people?

Even the Labour government has now made clear that it supports the fact no male person can become female no matter how much philosophising that male does to make himself fit any definition of female when he will never be, no matter what extreme body modification he makes to his body. It is also irrelevant whether a male person is ever mistaken for being female.

In the UK, the law for using specific female single sex provisions has been clarified, the labour government supports this too. If a poster now comes and tells the female people of the UK that this law is irrelevant and male people are still going to use provisions that female people expect due to clear laws to be female only, surely that is also an act of misogyny too.

Absolutely @Helleofabore.

And it also says a lot that instead of respecting female spaces, trans Reddit is full of men making plans to keep violating them,

Imagine that, Empress!

Astonishing, isn’t it?

The reason gender non-conforming women are being ‘harassed’ is because of men forcing their way into women’s spaces.

Previously you wouldn’t even consider that there would be a man in women’s space so there was no need to challenge anyone. Now you know there is a high probability that men, and men that are already deliberately and often aggressively transgressing boundaries, are likely to be in women’s spaces, so of course you are going to be on your guard and challenge individuals.

And, there do seem to be an awful lot of highly publicised cases of GNC women being ‘harassed’ in clearly manufactured situations. In the real world it seems that most GNC women are obviously women as soon as they respond and don’t actually mind being challenged.

But yeah, it’s women’s fault because they don’t want men in their spaces, like good compliant handmaidens.

Sex categories are more of a culturally directed force than a relationship level thing.

I think this is where you're going wrong. Sex categories exist because men and women have different bodies, and different reproductive roles. It's that simple.

You're trying to complicate it in the hopes that it will create a loophole that allows you to wiggle into the 'woman' category, but nothing can do that. You can't change objective reality by arguing with it.

You are forgetting the profound socio-environmental factors long after the foetus has become a child. Social contagion is a thing. Most of us have directly experienced it in some form or other – how many of us can say our behaviour and self-understanding has not been hugely influenced by the cultures around us? Our personalities are shaped by family, school, work, social circles. Could someone even have a trans identity if they had somehow lived alone for the whole of their life?

There are very simple ways of distinguishing sex in a definitive way, which doesn't depend on observation - the IOC is happily going to reintroduce them to keep women's sport women only.

But as far as day-to-day distinguishing of a person's sex - What 'new rules' have been brought into existence by GC feminism that have increased gender stereotyping?

The whole point of being 'gender critical' is being critical of gender stereotypes - a little boy who plays with dolls and likes sparkly things is just a little boy who plays with dolls and likes sparkly things; a little girl who likes getting muddy on the rugby pitch is just a little girl who likes getting muddy on the rugby pitch; a woman with short hair and sharply tailored suits is just woman with short hair and sharply tailored suits.

Nothing could be further from 'enabling increased gender stereotyping'.

What has enabled increased gender stereotyping is the idea that a little boy who plays with dolls and likes sparkly things has some kind of inner essential 'gender' that does not coincide with his male sex, and therefore must be a girl.

edited for clarity, or what passes for clarity in my writing😀

Ah, the old "basic rights."
They have basic rights, they have the same rights as everyone else. They also have the same restrictions, namely, only use the single sex space corresponding to your sex.

The whole point of being 'gender critical' is being critical of gender stereotypes - a little boy who plays with dolls and likes sparkly things is just a little boy who plays with dolls and likes sparkly things; a little girl who likes getting muddy on the rugby pitch is just a little girl who likes getting muddy on the rugby pitch; a woman with short hair and sharply tailored suits is just woman with short hair and sharply tailored suits.

Yes. The idea that being a woman / girl / man / boy is based on presentation, on tastes, on personality, on anything except the body someone is born with is sexist bollocks. And it’s ALL about gender stereotypes.

'basic rights' do not include doing whatever you want because you say so.

If all women had to do to be mistaken for men was to wear men's clothes and have short hair, we would use that to our advantage. Alas, life is not that easy.

I think the reality is that genuine mistakes are rare and easily resolved, and the rest is just misogyny.

Think how much easier life would be for women in Afghanistan & Iran if that was all it took.

No it doesn't.

Sexual expression develops through a complex interplay of hormonal and factors during fetal development.

Wishful thinking would have it that gender identity develops as well, but no one has ever found any evidence that gender identity is any more real than appearances of the Virgin Mary, messages from the dead or shamanic animal guides.

In other words, gender identity is undoubtedly something many people believe in because it helps them make sense of things that otherwise confuse, scare or fascinate them. So to them it seems obvious it is real.

But their genuine belief in what they say isn't the same thing as it having an objective existence, and certainly doesn't mean their feelings of "gender" have any real world relationship to the bodies of people of the opposite sex.