Meet the Other Phone. Flexible and made to last.

Meet the Other Phone.
Flexible and made to last.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Feminism: Sex and gender discussions

The liminality of sex perception, sex-based spaces and bodily autonomy.

322 replies

polypostwonder · 20/05/2026 15:31

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.

OP posts:
Thread gallery
6
FlirtsWithRhinos · 22/05/2026 15:42

RapidOnsetGenderCritic · 22/05/2026 09:25

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?

Now watch and see how whoever is doing TRA tag team today will twist this post into suggesting you think women are too dumb to know their own minds.

If my copy of the playbook is up to date, the phrase "monkey see monkey do" is likely to come up.

Incoming in 5...4...3...2....

Imdunfer · 22/05/2026 17:08

FlirtsWithRhinos · 22/05/2026 15:38

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.

I think allowing gender to be used officially as in "gender recognition certificates"has created a whole load of confusion.

It isn't gender they mean, it's sex.

If they meant gender then it would be the most backward thinking and egregious stereotyping possible.

Gender is only an outward presentation and varies widely from culture to culture within countries and around the world.

The genie is out of the lamp now but I would replace"gender" by"sex" in all political, legal and medical statements and in expressions like "gender critical" "misgendered" etc.

I've developed a terrible habit of yelling "it's sex not gender! " at the telly.

nicepotoftea · 22/05/2026 17:10

The genie is out of the lamp now but I would replace"gender" by"sex" in all political, legal and medical statements and in expressions like "gender critical" "misgendered" etc.

The gender in 'Gender critical' refers to gender, not sex.

Imdunfer · 22/05/2026 17:32

nicepotoftea · 22/05/2026 17:10

The genie is out of the lamp now but I would replace"gender" by"sex" in all political, legal and medical statements and in expressions like "gender critical" "misgendered" etc.

The gender in 'Gender critical' refers to gender, not sex.

I don't think it does. When I am called a gender critical woman, the people calling me that man that I am critical of the belief that anyone can change sex.

I've taken to referring to my belief as sex realism, because I certainly am not critical of anyone presenting as any gender stereotypes that they wish.

RapidOnsetGenderCritic · 22/05/2026 18:02

Imdunfer · 22/05/2026 17:32

I don't think it does. When I am called a gender critical woman, the people calling me that man that I am critical of the belief that anyone can change sex.

I've taken to referring to my belief as sex realism, because I certainly am not critical of anyone presenting as any gender stereotypes that they wish.

Gender critical means critical of gender (or of gender stereotyping).

Imdunfer · 22/05/2026 18:13

RapidOnsetGenderCritic · 22/05/2026 18:02

Gender critical means critical of gender (or of gender stereotyping).

"Critical of gender" makes no sense. If it means critical of gender stereotyping then it needs to say that.

In its commonest use at the moment it's used to describe anyone who doesn’t believe that you can change sex.

nicepotoftea · 22/05/2026 18:19

Imdunfer · 22/05/2026 18:13

"Critical of gender" makes no sense. If it means critical of gender stereotyping then it needs to say that.

In its commonest use at the moment it's used to describe anyone who doesn’t believe that you can change sex.

The word 'gender' has long been used by feminists to refer to gendered expectations of how a man or a woman should behave, and that is the sense in which it is used in the term 'gender critical'. Feminists criticise gender.

In its commonest use at the moment it's used to describe anyone who doesn’t believe that you can change sex.

Yes, it is sometimes used in that way and it doesn't make sense.

Imdunfer · 22/05/2026 18:21

nicepotoftea · 22/05/2026 18:19

The word 'gender' has long been used by feminists to refer to gendered expectations of how a man or a woman should behave, and that is the sense in which it is used in the term 'gender critical'. Feminists criticise gender.

In its commonest use at the moment it's used to describe anyone who doesn’t believe that you can change sex.

Yes, it is sometimes used in that way and it doesn't make sense.

Do you'll agree that"gender recognition certificate" is terribly misnamed and cats half this confusion? I hate it, it's not what it says it is. I don't understand how lawyers ever drafted it into law.

Taztoy · 22/05/2026 18:26

Imdunfer · 22/05/2026 18:21

Do you'll agree that"gender recognition certificate" is terribly misnamed and cats half this confusion? I hate it, it's not what it says it is. I don't understand how lawyers ever drafted it into law.

I believe it was a word salad to implement a legal fiction but at the same time keep single sex provision. That’s not how Stonewall et al saw it though.

nicepotoftea · 22/05/2026 18:26

Imdunfer · 22/05/2026 18:21

Do you'll agree that"gender recognition certificate" is terribly misnamed and cats half this confusion? I hate it, it's not what it says it is. I don't understand how lawyers ever drafted it into law.

Yes, I agree that 'gender recognition certificate' is awful.

It implies that the state has a duty to classify people according to social expectations of how men and women should behave. It's dystopian.

Imdunfer · 22/05/2026 18:31

Taztoy · 22/05/2026 18:26

I believe it was a word salad to implement a legal fiction but at the same time keep single sex provision. That’s not how Stonewall et al saw it though.

Oh that at least makes some sense. Shame they couldn't see that it wouldn't work in practice, especially when your changing the birth certificate.

Igmum · 22/05/2026 18:38

ApplebyArrows · 20/05/2026 20:50

"Liminality" is very much the sort of word used overwhelmingly by people who want to sound cleverer than they really are, isn't it?

It’s popular among postmodernists/poststructuralists who tend to protest against dualisms (Cartesian and otherwise). It can be helpful - as in the brain/body division when, of course, the brain is an integral part of the body. It can also be a load of old guff unhelpful - as when it obscures genuine distinctions like male/female.

Yes, aspects of reality are socially constructed, but there are other bits you can drop on your foot that don’t change if you rename them.

BonfireLady · 22/05/2026 19:31

Imdunfer · 22/05/2026 18:21

Do you'll agree that"gender recognition certificate" is terribly misnamed and cats half this confusion? I hate it, it's not what it says it is. I don't understand how lawyers ever drafted it into law.

To me, as I don't have a gender, it's the equivalent of a "god loves me" certificate that a Christian might choose to have.

Thankfully Christians aren't doing this and, even if they did, their certificate wouldn't mean anything in the everyday world.

Even more thankfully, the GRC now effectively has this status.

Igmum · 22/05/2026 19:39

EmilyinEverton · 22/05/2026 01:29

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.

Source?

BonfireLady · 22/05/2026 20:07

This article popped up on my news feed and I think it's relevant to this thread. Firstly, I should say that I wouldn't wish work-related burnout on anyone. I've been there and it's not fun. Long hours and/or stress aren't sustainable beyond short bursts.

However, the reason I think it's relevant is that Carla Denyer is one of the biggest political voices advocating not to change the law (which would be a normal thing for an MP to do) but to have everyone believe that the law is already what she says it is - and according to Carla, TWAW .. end of.

If that becomes the only line that a gender identity believer is prepared to take, burnout is quite probably going to be the only outcome.

Not just from long hours but from the sheer exhaustion of trying to coerce or persuade everyone to hold your belief. The overwhelmingly obvious direction of travel (including the EHRC guidance this week - which seems confused in places but overall clear that TWANW and TMANM) is that more and more people are saying that they don't hold this belief.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cvgzk63lym8o

No matter how hard she (or anyone else) works at this, it's not going to result in people changing their position if they've realised they no longer believe that TWAW. I'm an ex-believer and there's more chance of me u-turning on my atheism and becoming a vicar than on this.

Bristol Central MP Carla Denyer

Bristol MP announces 'difficult' decision to take a leave of absence

Carla Denyer said she was taking "several weeks" off to recover from burnout

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cvgzk63lym8o

Catiette · 22/05/2026 20:38

Imdunfer · 22/05/2026 18:13

"Critical of gender" makes no sense. If it means critical of gender stereotyping then it needs to say that.

In its commonest use at the moment it's used to describe anyone who doesn’t believe that you can change sex.

I understand it as “critical” in the sense of questioning, interrogating, analysing etc. Like “literary criticism”. In a way.

Imdunfer · 22/05/2026 20:51

Catiette · 22/05/2026 20:38

I understand it as “critical” in the sense of questioning, interrogating, analysing etc. Like “literary criticism”. In a way.

Yes that makes sense but I don't think it transfers to the people in Wetherspoons (I'm one) who only hear critical as criticism.

I googled it and all the definitions that came up started with "the belief that sex is immutable" or similar wording.

I think it has morphed in meaning since it was first used.

Catiette · 22/05/2026 20:55

Imdunfer · 22/05/2026 20:51

Yes that makes sense but I don't think it transfers to the people in Wetherspoons (I'm one) who only hear critical as criticism.

I googled it and all the definitions that came up started with "the belief that sex is immutable" or similar wording.

I think it has morphed in meaning since it was first used.

Yes. It has always felt a bit unclear - complex context; grassroots movement; long-term misrepresentation of movement in MSM; bad faith misrepresentation from opponents. And different branches and nuances and approaches within the movement itself anyway. I wasn’t sure I was GC for a long time. Then was worried that saying so could be misunderstood. I think a wider consensus is taking shape, slowly, as public understanding improves?

SabrinaThwaite · 22/05/2026 21:08

Igmum · 22/05/2026 19:39

Source?

Maybe taken from this 2019 paper:

https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC6677266/

But not really borne out by this 2025 systematic review of twin studies:

https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC12494644/

BonfireLady · 22/05/2026 21:37

Catiette · 22/05/2026 20:55

Yes. It has always felt a bit unclear - complex context; grassroots movement; long-term misrepresentation of movement in MSM; bad faith misrepresentation from opponents. And different branches and nuances and approaches within the movement itself anyway. I wasn’t sure I was GC for a long time. Then was worried that saying so could be misunderstood. I think a wider consensus is taking shape, slowly, as public understanding improves?

Edited

I don't describe myself as "gender critical" or holding "gender critical beliefs".

The former sounds like it only belongs in a feminism debate to me. I appreciate this is a feminism board! But my main reason for being here is to learn about gender identity so that I can protect my autistic daughter from harm. I've learned more about feminism than I knew before but it's not something I think much about other than on here

The latter sounds like an extension of the former, as a philosophical discussion. It's very unclear where the boundaries of such a "belief" are, so I don't profess to hold one.

For me it's simple: I don't believe that everyone has a gender identity.

I don't need to believe in sex as well. Or that it's immutable and binary. It just is. Like gravity: even if I didn't believe in it, things would still fall down when I drop them.

Shedmistress · 22/05/2026 22:06

It is in common use because it was used in the Forstarter appeal judgement which legally allowed us to know that two sexes exist in humans and to be able to say so.

BonfireLady · 22/05/2026 22:09

Shedmistress · 22/05/2026 22:06

It is in common use because it was used in the Forstarter appeal judgement which legally allowed us to know that two sexes exist in humans and to be able to say so.

Yes. But we can also have legal protection for not believing that everyone has a gender identity:

https://x.com/anyabike/status/1749777661855940901?s=19

That's far more use IMO e.g. in schools (amongst other places) which can't promote beliefs, unless they are religious schools.

Anya Palmer (@anyabike) on X

In Forstater in the Employment Appeal Tribunal, Mr Justice Choudhury held that as "gender identity belief" is protected, so too is lack of belief in gender identity. So people who do not believe in "gender identity" are protected in law, whether trans...

https://x.com/anyabike/status/1749777661855940901?s=19

Grassstorm · 22/05/2026 22:46

@SabrinaThwaite
Thank you for the systematic review about tweens, it looks very well conducted, I will read it during the weekend!

SabrinaThwaite · 23/05/2026 00:36

Grassstorm · 22/05/2026 22:46

@SabrinaThwaite
Thank you for the systematic review about tweens, it looks very well conducted, I will read it during the weekend!

I only skimmed it, but it certainly had some interesting points.

polypostwonder · 23/05/2026 15:56

BonfireLady · 21/05/2026 09:28

@polypostwonder I'm not sure if you're still here but thank you for starting this thread. I've now had a read through of all of it and will add a response, as promised.

Firstly, I (think I) can only see comments against my first question, so I'll stick to that topic.

TL:DR
I am potentially in the minority where I agree with you that people treat each other based on perception of their sex and I also quite like your use of "liminality" in relation to this perception, but I'm going to give a heads up that you'll likely find my thoughts on this difficult to read (I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt that you are not an autogynophile BTW as I have seen nothing specific that makes me think you are). Sadly, I don't think there is a way we're going to meet in the middle on this. I'd love to be wrong but thank you for stepping forward in what I will take as a good faith attempt to do so. It's genuinely good to see you expanding on your thoughts and not just saying "sex realists believe [X]" as on many previous threads. I am responding in good faith.

More detailed response
Everyone knows their own sex. Not everyone feels comfortable with their own sex, some of whom wish to be perceived as the opposite sex. On this we appear to fully agree.

This is where it starts to get tricky:

Pretty much every person in the whole world "exists within the expectations of sex categories". Very rarely it's unclear.

Those were my words from the other thread but there was an important part on the end of it (paraphrased): it is, however, almost always possible to tell someone's sex, most obviously from their gait.

On the treating people according to perception of sex point, this one is easy. People interact based on the sex they perceive someone to be all the time, without genital inspections or SRY gene tests. Without that perception being accurate there would be very few children born (heterosexual dating would take a lot longer and be very awkward if these two things needed qualifying first), there would be no sexism (without the same qualification) and so on.

On the liminality part, I think you're absolutely right that there is certain level of androgyny in some cases that confuses people in different ways. I'm going to use an analogy but want to make it very clear that I am not intending to dehumanise anyone. The analogy is the uncanny valley that exists with humanoid robots. See screenshot and link below.

To explain the analogy: firstly, I am referring to perception of sex, not biological sex. Secondly, I'm referring mostly to edge cases i.e. where it's not obvious to everyone what sex someone is. However, I have an example which suggests that edge cases are calibrated to the person doing the perceiving, not the person being perceived. To shift the analogy into sex perception, I'll adjust some words from the link below as follows: The uncanny valley hypothesis predicts that a person appearing to be almost the opposite sex will elicit uncanny or eerie feelings in observers. I.e. something will feel 'off'.

My example
There is a male teacher at my daughters' school who wears a dress and uses a female name. I know I'm not alone in recognising this teacher's sex but several people (including me) have had difficulty in navigating conversations related to this. I will take some different perceptions in turn, starting with my own:

  1. Me
    The first time I saw this teacher was over 2 years ago. I immediately clocked the teacher's gait and thought nothing of it - other than I had better lower the sound of my voice, so as not to cause upset. The window was open when the teacher walked past and I was talking with a senior member of staff about my daughter being gender questioning (at that time) and experiencing autism-related puberty distress. At the time I had never heard of autogynophilia so wouldn't have thought about strange things that have since come to light, such as this (middle-aged) teacher occasionally wearing anime-style stripy socks or having LGBTQ+ posters on the classroom walls. I don't see the teacher very often, as it's a huge school and most of the time when I'm doing school drop off/pick up, the teacher isn't walking past. It's probably only been about 4 occasions in 2+ years.

  2. My oldest (autistic) daughter
    She recently asked me how you could definitively tell someone's sex. I said the most obvious way was to observe their gait. I then gave the example of Mrs X, assuming that everyone knew Mrs X identified as a transwoman. The rainbow lanyard was the obvious giveaway as to why I thought everyone knew, if nothing else (I didn't see the LGBTQ+ posters in Mrs X's classroom until nearly two years later, when I was in the classroom for a parent consultation - the room was being borrowed), so I assumed it was pretty uncontroversial as a subject. I made sure I sounded objective, and simply focused on identifying someone's sex. No mention of stripy socks or activitist posters. My daughter was upset with me and blurted out (as her sister then got into the car) "Mum says Mrs X is a man". I pointed out that I had actually said Mrs X is a male and that I deliberately avoid using the word "man" (or any pronouns whatsoever) in situations like this, because those words are the ones people argue over. She then got very angry with me that I had been avoiding pronouns for Mrs X for a very long time - from the moment I found out Mrs X's name in fact. It turns out Mrs X used to be her [subject] teacher and had previously spent lots of time supporting her during her mental health crisis. No red flags there, guv, honest. Anyway, my daughter later told me that she knew Mrs X was trans (so could clearly perceive sex) but was cross at me for not "being respectful" by using she pronouns. I tried explaining that my lack of any pronouns came from a place of respect but to no avail.

  3. My other daughter
    She was also very cross with me for being "mean". However, she was completely convinced that Mrs X was a woman. For calibration, she was also completely convinced that Craig Revel-Horwood was a woman when we saw him on stage in the West End as the Wicked Witch of the West. She did notice that Mrs Trunchbull was a man, when we later saw Matilda but it's fair to say that her radar for sex perception is not quite there. Possibly because she hasn't yet encountered a personal reason why it really matters, so can't be bothered to think about it. I hope she never does a reason for it to matter.

  4. The senior staff member from point 1
    I was in school for a meeting (related to my daughter's autism provision, not this) with this staff member recently. During the meeting the staff member told me that there was a note that concerned her in CPOMS (safeguarding system) that she wanted to ask me about. It said my (autistic) daughter had told her that I wouldn't use preferred pronouns, even for adults, and that she found this upsetting. My daughters already understand why I don't for children (but that relates to my second original question, so I'll leave that there). There was no other context and, given the school hadn't decided to send the police round for some supposed hate crime, I took the assumption that my daughter hadn't mentioned this teacher's name when talking about why she was cross at me. For clarity, I had suggested to both my daughters that relaying this conversation in school was not a good idea, given neither of them clearly understood my position on this and would likely misrepresent me. Thankfully, they accepted this but both were pissed off at me for my supposed disrespect. I said I could add some context and explained the gait/teacher conversation, without mentioning the teacher's name. The staff member said rather tellingly, "I know which teacher you mean, and you're wrong. Very wrong". Now obviously I could be, but I don't believe I am. Either this teacher has spotted who the influencial staff are and has curated a sob story about always being perceived to be male, or I'm wrong. I can't think of any other explanation for the staff member saying she knew exactly who I was talking about.

Why it links to the uncanny valley analogy and why it matters

In the example above, 3 out of 4 of us had perceived the teacher's sex correctly. Yet my autistic daughter and I were the only 2 who were cognisantly aware of it - and she thought it was mean and unnecessary to notice. That means 3 out of 4 of us had experienced an uncanny valley style disconnect at some point in time i.e. for all 3 of us, something didn't quite sit right in sex perception terms. Personally, I allowed myself time to validate my original perception before feeling settled on the fact that I was right in the first place. The senior staff member has clearly decided to fight those feelings of unease. All 4 of us have a certain empathy for how it would feel to be wrongly sexed. I have fully accepted that I could be wrong and have kept everything objective. It should be no more or less hurtful to have one's age mistaken than one's sex. It certainly shouldn't leave anyone wondering if the police might be sent round.

That school spends a lot of time telling all the children why it's apparently so important to be kind and use preferred pronouns. So why isn't it? Sticking purely with my original question 1, here's one example: this teacher goes on residential school trips. Personally, I think that a school coercing its staff and students to perceive a teacher to be the opposite sex and (I assume) let that teacher enter opposite sex spaces with children in them is appalling. No teacher should deceive their way into an opposite-sex space. To do so is a red flag in and of itself. To also have qualities that suggest at least the potential for nefarious motivation (i.e. from a safeguarding perspective - which is how schools manage risk) doubly so. Nobody has a voice to call out how appalling this is, including me - unless I want to face a huge backlash for wrong think.

Conclusion
I don't mind or care if you want to go "stealth". Go for it. I would hope for your children's sake (you've mentioned them on another thread) that you'll tell them about your past at some point. But that's none of my business. You wouldn't be the first parent to hide a big secret from their children. But what I do care about is anyone stealthing their way over someone else's boundaries and enforcing their beliefs on them. Everyone knows their own sex, regardless of whether others perceive it correctly or not. It's perfectly possible to subtly self-exclude without "outing" yourself. Obviously not the same thing but I once spent a whole night drinking what I said were gin and tonics - there was no gin in them but I was in the early stages of pregnancy with my first child and didn't want to tell anyone. I managed to avoid getting into rounds of drinks and nobody noticed.

It's not othering to recognise that not everyone shares your belief and to accommodate this accordingly.

Disclaimer
I've seen you called out for me-railing on lots of occasions. I actually empathise with this, as sometimes offering a personal perspective is the only way to explain a viewpoint. See above. So as not to derail with a merail, I'm not going to answer any questions from any other posters about what I have written above. But if you've read all of this and got this far, OP, and have any questions yourself about it, I will answer them as best I can within the confines of anonymity and the board guidelines.

Link
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uncanny_valley

Thank you. I had some unplanned travel to one of the countries I don’t bring personal electronics. I didn’t find any of what your wrote to be difficult to read. But I’m also mentally as arms-length from this as any person with a trans history can be, I think. I started this thread in good faith, and will continue. I'm sorry that this is so long.

Those were my words from the other thread but there was an important part on the end of it (paraphrased): it is, however, almost always possible to tell someone's sex, most obviously from their gait.

I agreed with the entire statement, I left the end off as I thought it was addressed more generally by other points. I'm sorry.

On the treating people according to perception of sex point, this one is easy. People interact based on the sex they perceive someone to be all the time, without genital inspections or SRY gene tests. Without that perception being accurate there would be very few children born (heterosexual dating would take a lot longer and be very awkward if these two things needed qualifying first), there would be no sexism (without the same qualification) and so on.

I believe we would both agree that this is no coincidence and is a result of ‘perception’ being aligned to biological sex 99+% of the time. It feeds the framework of gendered power over women and influences which characteristics are culturally desired of women for reproductive purposes.

(Teacher example)

I agree that gait is one of the major unalterable sex characteristics. It probably isn’t 100% exclusively different, but it is at least as characteristic for sex as height, musculature, weight distribution or voice (emotion, frequency, etc.) across the population.

I agree with your comparison to the Uncanny Valley. I also see your concerns about having schools attempt to culturally influence your children's boundaries in a direction that is opposite of your beliefs.

Some trans people never enter the Uncanny Valley, let alone cross it.
On the whole though, I don’t believe ‘clockiness’ is culturally significant. Socially, yes. In most situations, evaluation of additional sex characteristics can remove/confirm discordance and settle an initial observation. A frequent example from mumsnet users is ‘speaking’ in response having their sex questioned in a toilet line, for example.

Honestly, there are probably more non-trans people placed in the Uncanny Valley on first meeting than trans people. I guess everyone else also attempts to resolve discordance by balancing interaction based on prior experience, knowledge of cultural ‘boundaries’ and observed sex characteristics.

Most people may feel discomforted or confused, but then quickly move on, deciding it doesn’t matter to them or the situation. Others, if it is important to them, take the opportunity to evaluate additional characteristics, contextualise the situation and continue until things resolve in something that makes sense to them.

Growing up, my parents had a ‘friend of the family’ who had known me from birth. The first time he spent time with us after I’d started transitioning, he wouldn’t shut up about the ‘suspension of disbelief.’

He couldn’t process how everyone around me had uniformly changed their perception and treatment of me based on his prior experience. It didn’t make sense to him because he couldn’t point to anything that I’d physically changed since the last time he’d seen me. Up until that point presumably, everything was ‘normal’ for him. He genuinely seemed broken at the time.

Anyway, it seems an alternative to the Uncanny Valley; when perception changes absent any alteration in characteristics.

I don’t know enough about the teacher to comment on their suitability in the contexts you raise. If there is a safeguarding issue, I hope people would be empowered to report. There should ideally be two adults present at all times when adults are with children.

People with a trans past don’t inherently possess nefarious motivations. I’ve seen FWR posters do this regularly, Over the years I’ve roomed with well over 100 women I’d never met until we were in a hotel room together. The longest was 5 months (we became flatmates afterward… if you can live together in one room for that long, a flat is a palace!). The most recent was 8 days. No motivations. Women are women.

Conclusion
I don't mind or care if you want to go "stealth". Go for it. I would hope for your children's sake (you've mentioned them on another thread) that you'll tell them about your past at some point. But that's none of my business. You wouldn't be the first parent to hide a big secret from their children. But what I do care about is anyone stealthing their way over someone else's boundaries and enforcing their beliefs on them. Everyone knows their own sex, regardless of whether others perceive it correctly or not. It's perfectly possible to subtly self-exclude without "outing" yourself. Obviously not the same thing but I once spent a whole night drinking what I said were gin and tonics - there was no gin in them but I was in the early stages of pregnancy with my first child and didn't want to tell anyone. I managed to avoid getting into rounds of drinks and nobody noticed.

I understand. I don’t feel overly wonderful about it either. Keeping the experience from them was pragmatically necessary at one time. Given the cultural treatment of trans people around the world, there remains no good reason to be ‘out.’ My children have trans friends and are quite supportive of LGBT people and issues. Whenever I think about the topic now, I am still stuck processing a discussion I had with my grandmother (my mother’s adoptive mother) before she passed. While transition had a significant impact on the direction of my life, it feels like an illness I once had and overcame.

It's not othering to recognise that not everyone shares your belief and to accommodate this accordingly.

Of course not. Part of thinking on this has been trying to pull apart why the trans topic is so different now, vs when my life was actively defined by it. And also trying to understand how the gender critical movement found support so effectively in the UK.

There were always ‘sex realists,’ even back then. Though, they were also generally quite publicly also homophobes motivated by their love of god and god’s plan for everyone’s bodies. We were just one small part of the big gay and lesbian agenda to corrupt children and remove heterosexual rights from people.
I think ‘gender critical’ groups and ‘be kind’ groups have both found their raison d’être inside and around the Uncanny Valley.

Trans people were advised to do our best to disappear. There were some who found themselves unable to do this. The provider-defined transition process itself was designed to force the issue early-on. Those of us who had few issues prior to the process had an ‘easier’ life after the process.

I believe there are those who genuinely hold a belief that biological sex dictates everything, everywhere. It is clear when they ground their beliefs equally with trans men and trans women. Ideologically, the subject for them has absolutely nothing to do with perception, motivations or morals.

There are ’sex moralists’ who spend most of their energy moralising against the presence and existence of trans women (specifically).

Others, typically straight men, don’t care a fig about trans people but are very focused on keeping the Valley empty and its edges, well defined and fortified for different, but related reasons.

The majority of people still don’t care enough about the subject. They may acknowledge ‘something’ and move on with life. I think this may be part of the ’making enough effort’ thinking that some have referenced feeling before being radicalised into the gender critical movement.

Equally, a lot of the ‘trans rights activisims’ don’t originate from trans people at all. To me, it looks like a political and ethical response to ‘protect’ the trans people inevitably stuck in or on the ‘wrong’ side of the Uncanny Valley.

The question keeps being asked about how to tell a trans person from a non-trans person. The easiest way based on the above is to ask yourself if the person you observing is in or approaching the Uncanny Valley.

Trans people used to be extremely rare. Now they’re not. Transition is still transition. There’s certainly a wider variety of people transitioning. There’s also a broader definition of what transition is. And what ‘trans’ is, for that matter.

The use of spaces was just life. Trans people were usually too timid to enter spaces and would be dragged into toilets or spaces by friends and family. For me personally, after being dragged into toilets a few times, I started permanently using spaces because I was tired of weighing ‘just pissing’ vs dealing with other people’s reactions (when entering the men’s) and the energy needed to argue against their perceptions and efforts to move me into the women’s.

As far as I can tell, ‘sex-based’ in reference to spaces and rights was never spoken until the culture war.

Laws, like healthcare, provide dual functions on either end of a timeline. One one side, they provide guidance. On the other, they provide remediation.

Laws don’t filter how people experience the space and time in between. The individual, the social and the cultural smush together there.

The UK legal system seems especially convoluted, compared to the rest of the world, because it is also attempting to shape and regulate the space and time bit in the middle (see GRCs, amongst other examples).

I believe the UK has to change its laws regarding trans people sooner than later. It only remains a question of in which direction.

In the big picture, policing sex-based spaces is quite provincial compared to the cultures in many countries where trans people are imprisoned or worse.

I travel to and work in some of those countries. I don’t believe it is coincidence that their goals to ‘prevent’ LGBT people also extend to controlling girls and women.

Things might be different if my work and volunteering wasn’t constantly working with multiple cultures. I’m stuck where I am until I don’t care about my life, or the lives of my family.

OP posts: