Meet the Other Phone. A phone that grows with your child.

Meet the Other Phone.
A phone that grows with your child.

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
Flunkit · 23/05/2026 16:33

Why won't you take your clothes in front of me

ArabellaScott · 23/05/2026 16:34

Imagine if you cared about women. Our rights, feelings, preferences, needs and desires are just dust blowing in the wind to you, compared to the epic and deeply fascinating landscape of your own preference.

Wearenotborg · 23/05/2026 16:35

Flunkit · 23/05/2026 16:33

Why won't you take your clothes in front of me

Edited

Exactly. All those words to say he doesn’t give a fig about women’s wants and needs, and their boundaries don’t matter. Shows a complete lack of female socialisation and a huge amount of male entitlement.

Wearenotborg · 23/05/2026 16:40
Adam Sandler Singing GIF by Team Coco

Just reminds me of opera singers…

ArabellaScott · 23/05/2026 16:53

At this point I've read enough novellas exploring the navels of men justifying their breaching the boundaries of women's consent to know that there's nothing all that different or interesting about any of them.

I just don't care what a man's reasoning is for why he thinks he has to ignore womens rights and consent.

Women spend our fucking lives dealing with our bodies, all the joys and sorrows and inconveniences and miracles and heartaches of being female. Inescapable for us. It's not a philosophical exercise in ego creation or a stunningly brave quest against reality.

We just want single sex spaces as laid out in law. Thats all.

Taztoy · 23/05/2026 16:56

ArabellaScott · 23/05/2026 16:53

At this point I've read enough novellas exploring the navels of men justifying their breaching the boundaries of women's consent to know that there's nothing all that different or interesting about any of them.

I just don't care what a man's reasoning is for why he thinks he has to ignore womens rights and consent.

Women spend our fucking lives dealing with our bodies, all the joys and sorrows and inconveniences and miracles and heartaches of being female. Inescapable for us. It's not a philosophical exercise in ego creation or a stunningly brave quest against reality.

We just want single sex spaces as laid out in law. Thats all.

Edited

exactly,this.

Wearenotborg · 23/05/2026 18:36

ArabellaScott · 23/05/2026 16:53

At this point I've read enough novellas exploring the navels of men justifying their breaching the boundaries of women's consent to know that there's nothing all that different or interesting about any of them.

I just don't care what a man's reasoning is for why he thinks he has to ignore womens rights and consent.

Women spend our fucking lives dealing with our bodies, all the joys and sorrows and inconveniences and miracles and heartaches of being female. Inescapable for us. It's not a philosophical exercise in ego creation or a stunningly brave quest against reality.

We just want single sex spaces as laid out in law. Thats all.

Edited

This 100%.

Imdunfer · 23/05/2026 19:15

polypostwonder · 23/05/2026 15:56

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.

I appreciate you taking the time and staying non confrontational to explain your life. I have genuine sympathy with the complexity of it. I would like to be able to talk to people like you in real life but I don't come across them with my lifestyle.

You have explained your problem using mens loos, which I can see must be a real problem when you're wearing very feminine clothes. As a tall woman with short hair, narrow pelvis and broad shoulders I've experienced a little of that (but women are kinder!) during my life.

What I don't pick up from your posts is any understanding of the genuine distress that you are causing some women by using women's facilities.

You seem to believe that your own distress at using the men's overrides the distress of women caused by you using the women's.

Am I reading this right?

My second question is that if using the facilties which match your biological sex causes issues, why is the campaigning all targeted at allowing biological males to use women's facilities instead of being targeted at the provision of gender neutral facilities?

BridgetPhillipsonIsACowardlyJobsworth · 23/05/2026 19:33

Imdunfer · 23/05/2026 19:15

I appreciate you taking the time and staying non confrontational to explain your life. I have genuine sympathy with the complexity of it. I would like to be able to talk to people like you in real life but I don't come across them with my lifestyle.

You have explained your problem using mens loos, which I can see must be a real problem when you're wearing very feminine clothes. As a tall woman with short hair, narrow pelvis and broad shoulders I've experienced a little of that (but women are kinder!) during my life.

What I don't pick up from your posts is any understanding of the genuine distress that you are causing some women by using women's facilities.

You seem to believe that your own distress at using the men's overrides the distress of women caused by you using the women's.

Am I reading this right?

My second question is that if using the facilties which match your biological sex causes issues, why is the campaigning all targeted at allowing biological males to use women's facilities instead of being targeted at the provision of gender neutral facilities?

Good questions, but they have been asked, repeatedly, ad nauseum, by women on these threads, and there are only ever two responses:

a) a response that deflects, attacks, whattabouteries, or calls into question the very premise of your question ( in other words, no answer); or

b) I am a biological female/woman because I say so and... reasons.

You won't get an answer to your questions. Sorry.

Catiette · 23/05/2026 19:57

That’s what struck me, Imdunfer. A lot of theorising, which is all very well, but ironically shows a degree of unthinking privilege in the total absence of any acknowledgement of women’s key concern here. The simple fact is that 1) Some women, through no fault - or prejudice - of their own, are simply unable to enter an enclosed space a male person may inhabit, and 2) All women are placed at greater risk by the degradation of the previous social contract of single-sex spaces being single sex (relative physical strength and offending rates - to quibble over that is to argue apples are oranges and Popes are atheist, and although that doesn’t stop many trying, I suspect OP is more sensible and honest then that?)

Given 1) and 2), as well as 3) the proportionate number of trans women versus the millions of women who have been subjected to male threats, violence and abuse, and 4) that most trans women will stand a better chance of defending themselves against male bodies than most women, it seems clear to me that the fairest and most practical approach is third spaces.

The blindness to these realities of female experience come through in some of the theorising itself, too. The idea, for example, that the uncanny valley effect fades with familiarity - very likely it may, but this is irrelevant to the concerns of the woman now fearful of entering any space labelled “Female” in case an unfamiliar male body may interpret that as including him.

And I find some of the theorising similarly blind to feminist history and thinking. I found the below fascinating.

‘perception’ being aligned to biological sex 99+% of the time… feeds the framework of gendered power over women (and influences which characteristics are culturally desired of women for reproductive purposes)

This is a counsel of despair if ever there was one. To say that the human ability to recognise the female sex (through physical characteristics directly associated with reproductive biology) “feeds gendered power over women” is to accept the inevitability of our oppression… while also being ironically - frighteningly? -reminiscent of Islamic fundamentalist arguments for whole-body coverage (I mean, the burqa’s necessary to ensuring women can be respected, isn’t it?) It’s also the attitude that a lot of GC feminists (so often misrepresented as being indifferent to trans men) would say is driving the exponential increase in girls identifying as trans or NB.

The way to overcome “gendered power over women” can never be to deny our bodies and their capabilities, because to do so is 1) impossible and 2) as such, unhealthy.

Women have had millennia of men wrestling with their own preoccupations with and anxieties over the female body, and this anxiety has manifested in an infinity of creative ways to oppress, control, capture and define us.

Honestly, I don’t see how we can ever be free of it as long as we’re both sexed animals and able to recognise and analyse our status as such (ie. never). But certainly, addressing problematic societal/cultural exploitation and perceptions of the female body simply can’t start with a denial of said body, whether through the burqa or Pomo Butlerian crap. It just can’t work.

I mean, talk about cart before horse and wishful thinking.

Shedmistress · 23/05/2026 20:04

They think women are thick as shit and will be worn down if they just keep talking nonsense.

Helleofabore · 23/05/2026 20:22

ArabellaScott · 23/05/2026 16:53

At this point I've read enough novellas exploring the navels of men justifying their breaching the boundaries of women's consent to know that there's nothing all that different or interesting about any of them.

I just don't care what a man's reasoning is for why he thinks he has to ignore womens rights and consent.

Women spend our fucking lives dealing with our bodies, all the joys and sorrows and inconveniences and miracles and heartaches of being female. Inescapable for us. It's not a philosophical exercise in ego creation or a stunningly brave quest against reality.

We just want single sex spaces as laid out in law. Thats all.

Edited

Indeed!

ArabellaScott · 23/05/2026 21:00

What I don't pick up from your posts is any understanding of the genuine distress that you are causing some women by using women's facilities.

You seem to believe that your own distress at using the men's overrides the distress of women caused by you using the women's

Indeed.

FlirtsWithRhinos · 23/05/2026 21:21

Catiette · 23/05/2026 19:57

That’s what struck me, Imdunfer. A lot of theorising, which is all very well, but ironically shows a degree of unthinking privilege in the total absence of any acknowledgement of women’s key concern here. The simple fact is that 1) Some women, through no fault - or prejudice - of their own, are simply unable to enter an enclosed space a male person may inhabit, and 2) All women are placed at greater risk by the degradation of the previous social contract of single-sex spaces being single sex (relative physical strength and offending rates - to quibble over that is to argue apples are oranges and Popes are atheist, and although that doesn’t stop many trying, I suspect OP is more sensible and honest then that?)

Given 1) and 2), as well as 3) the proportionate number of trans women versus the millions of women who have been subjected to male threats, violence and abuse, and 4) that most trans women will stand a better chance of defending themselves against male bodies than most women, it seems clear to me that the fairest and most practical approach is third spaces.

The blindness to these realities of female experience come through in some of the theorising itself, too. The idea, for example, that the uncanny valley effect fades with familiarity - very likely it may, but this is irrelevant to the concerns of the woman now fearful of entering any space labelled “Female” in case an unfamiliar male body may interpret that as including him.

And I find some of the theorising similarly blind to feminist history and thinking. I found the below fascinating.

‘perception’ being aligned to biological sex 99+% of the time… feeds the framework of gendered power over women (and influences which characteristics are culturally desired of women for reproductive purposes)

This is a counsel of despair if ever there was one. To say that the human ability to recognise the female sex (through physical characteristics directly associated with reproductive biology) “feeds gendered power over women” is to accept the inevitability of our oppression… while also being ironically - frighteningly? -reminiscent of Islamic fundamentalist arguments for whole-body coverage (I mean, the burqa’s necessary to ensuring women can be respected, isn’t it?) It’s also the attitude that a lot of GC feminists (so often misrepresented as being indifferent to trans men) would say is driving the exponential increase in girls identifying as trans or NB.

The way to overcome “gendered power over women” can never be to deny our bodies and their capabilities, because to do so is 1) impossible and 2) as such, unhealthy.

Women have had millennia of men wrestling with their own preoccupations with and anxieties over the female body, and this anxiety has manifested in an infinity of creative ways to oppress, control, capture and define us.

Honestly, I don’t see how we can ever be free of it as long as we’re both sexed animals and able to recognise and analyse our status as such (ie. never). But certainly, addressing problematic societal/cultural exploitation and perceptions of the female body simply can’t start with a denial of said body, whether through the burqa or Pomo Butlerian crap. It just can’t work.

I mean, talk about cart before horse and wishful thinking.

Edited

Honestly, I'd take a step back even from engaging at that level and just say

But Female People Still Exist.

Because all the solipsism, all the "liminality", all the Butlerian jihad sophistry about what it truly is to be a woman, even if one accepts all that 100%, all that still doesn't make a male person female.

Ultimately the harder the try to make male people "women", the thicker they draw the line that separates being female from whatever-it-is that trans "women" want to claim is womanhood.

So sure, that thing could, at best, replace being simply an adult human female as the definition of womanhood.

But it never, ever, ever justifies, can never justify, what is actually being demanded which is not only that we accept these trans "women" men as women and but also that we may not by the same token define ourselves as female outside this new version of "womanhood".

Because truly accepting TWAW also gives female people the moral right to organise, fight and support each other based on our lives as female people, with needs and challanges entirely spearate from and irrelevant to the needs of this new definition of "women".

But what they actually demand is not only the right to say they are like us based on their own experiences but also that we may not have the right to say they are not based on ours.

And that is all that one needs to see to puncture the whole self serving facade.

Because if they really believed womanhood wasn't female-bodied, they would let us go.

The fact they don't tells us this was never about a new understanding of womanhood. It has always been about finding a loophole to let men inside women's spaces and to skinwalk women's lives. They need womanhood to continue be mostly female to meet their fantasties of being female.

polypostwonder · Yesterday 00:09

Imdunfer · 23/05/2026 19:15

I appreciate you taking the time and staying non confrontational to explain your life. I have genuine sympathy with the complexity of it. I would like to be able to talk to people like you in real life but I don't come across them with my lifestyle.

You have explained your problem using mens loos, which I can see must be a real problem when you're wearing very feminine clothes. As a tall woman with short hair, narrow pelvis and broad shoulders I've experienced a little of that (but women are kinder!) during my life.

What I don't pick up from your posts is any understanding of the genuine distress that you are causing some women by using women's facilities.

You seem to believe that your own distress at using the men's overrides the distress of women caused by you using the women's.

Am I reading this right?

My second question is that if using the facilties which match your biological sex causes issues, why is the campaigning all targeted at allowing biological males to use women's facilities instead of being targeted at the provision of gender neutral facilities?

You have explained your problem using mens loos, which I can see must be a real problem when you're wearing very feminine clothes. As a tall woman with short hair, narrow pelvis and broad shoulders I've experienced a little of that (but women are kinder!) during my life.

This isn’t about clothes, feminine or otherwise. I don’t wear feminine clothes or makeup very often. The issue with men’s loos (that I think you are referencing) was when I was a teenager, typically wearing jeans and a jumper.

What I don't pick up from your posts is any understanding of the genuine distress that you are causing some women by using women's facilities.
You seem to believe that your own distress at using the men's overrides the distress of women caused by you using the women's.
Am I reading this right?

I do not cause distress in women I am amongst in the world.

Perhaps, due to the disclosure of my history here, there are some men and women on mumsnet who are distressed at the suggestion that I am roaming the world untethered by biological sex. There are men and women here who also may have a belief that what I say is impossible. I am not responsible for their feelings.

I maintain no distress about using the men’s. I’ve used the men’s when in a ‘digestive emergency’ and it was the closest room available. I shouted on entry and shouted as I heard a man enter.

It would be near impossible to segregate me apart from other women though. When I approach a woman holding a machine gun who looks like she’s had a bad day to ask where the loo is and she walks me to the women’s… When I’m accompanied by a local associate to an open plan squat toilet room with barely any nook dividers… Tell me what am I supposed to feel? This is normal.

Toilets can also be a social space as much as they are a place to do highly personal tasks. I accompany family members, friends, associates and clients. Breaking conversation because random people on the internet feel I must hunt for a fourth space just isn’t going to happen. So, I think you are reading it wrongly, but again, I don’t control what you think.

I can still remember how men and women tried to exclude gays and lesbians from spaces because of their genuinely expressed distress. Public accommodations are not operated on personal preference. When provided for a class of people, they provide a service across a wide variety of people within that class of people. If people must guarantee the environment they wish to occupy, they can create their own space to their own specifications. Such a place doesn't exist in public.

My second question is that if using the facilties which match your biological sex causes issues, why is the campaigning all targeted at allowing biological males to use women's facilities instead of being targeted at the provision of gender neutral facilities?

This statement is on the same level as a demand that someone must only use razors that match their biological sex. There is no such thing as a biological sex space.

As to why people had issues when I was using men's toilets, that was their problem. I experienced constant friction around men's spaces when I was a teen and zero friction around women's spaces as a teen and then an adult. If this is due to biology, then so be it.

I’ve never campaigned. I don’t ideologically support all campaigns. My biological sex is irrelevant to other people. It is only relevant here because I disclosed it to provide context to my contributions.

If you are questioning the wider cultural effort to integrate trans men with men and trans women with women, I can’t answer that because you choose to reframe the argument as a biological sex targeting a gendered space rather than requesting a special new fourth space. I imagine it is because not every trans person passes and some people wish trans people to be able to participate in public life rather than be the subject of scorn, distrust and abuse.

I'm not involved in the provision of gender neutral facilities. All public facility providers should be renovating immediately if they expect trans people to require fourth spaces. They don't need campaigns for this. They can also improve third spaces too, while they're at it.

OP posts:
Taztoy · Yesterday 04:01

@polypostwonder what surgery have you had or other intervention will change your hand size, your gait, your voice?

Givne that the direction of the law in the U.K. is clear on single sex spaces and that you are a transgender individual, do you intend to continue to ignore the law?

borntobequiet · Yesterday 04:24

Toilets can also be a social space as much as they are a place to do highly personal tasks. I accompany family members, friends, associates and clients.

Said no woman ever.

GenderlessVoid · Yesterday 05:32

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.
@polypostwonder

I’m sorry but I don’t quite follow. Can you explain what you mean?

Part of the issue is that it's not clear what the pronouns in bold are referring to. The main problem is that I don't understand the phrase 'It feeds the framework of gendered power over women."

I believe that you pass. I might be alright if I saw you in a loo. Seeing you might
not trigger my PTSD. It doesn't matter.

  1. Consent is not transferable.
  2. Consent obtained by fraud or deception, including deception via failure to disclose material information, is not consent.
Helleofabore · Yesterday 06:50

Catiette · 23/05/2026 19:57

That’s what struck me, Imdunfer. A lot of theorising, which is all very well, but ironically shows a degree of unthinking privilege in the total absence of any acknowledgement of women’s key concern here. The simple fact is that 1) Some women, through no fault - or prejudice - of their own, are simply unable to enter an enclosed space a male person may inhabit, and 2) All women are placed at greater risk by the degradation of the previous social contract of single-sex spaces being single sex (relative physical strength and offending rates - to quibble over that is to argue apples are oranges and Popes are atheist, and although that doesn’t stop many trying, I suspect OP is more sensible and honest then that?)

Given 1) and 2), as well as 3) the proportionate number of trans women versus the millions of women who have been subjected to male threats, violence and abuse, and 4) that most trans women will stand a better chance of defending themselves against male bodies than most women, it seems clear to me that the fairest and most practical approach is third spaces.

The blindness to these realities of female experience come through in some of the theorising itself, too. The idea, for example, that the uncanny valley effect fades with familiarity - very likely it may, but this is irrelevant to the concerns of the woman now fearful of entering any space labelled “Female” in case an unfamiliar male body may interpret that as including him.

And I find some of the theorising similarly blind to feminist history and thinking. I found the below fascinating.

‘perception’ being aligned to biological sex 99+% of the time… feeds the framework of gendered power over women (and influences which characteristics are culturally desired of women for reproductive purposes)

This is a counsel of despair if ever there was one. To say that the human ability to recognise the female sex (through physical characteristics directly associated with reproductive biology) “feeds gendered power over women” is to accept the inevitability of our oppression… while also being ironically - frighteningly? -reminiscent of Islamic fundamentalist arguments for whole-body coverage (I mean, the burqa’s necessary to ensuring women can be respected, isn’t it?) It’s also the attitude that a lot of GC feminists (so often misrepresented as being indifferent to trans men) would say is driving the exponential increase in girls identifying as trans or NB.

The way to overcome “gendered power over women” can never be to deny our bodies and their capabilities, because to do so is 1) impossible and 2) as such, unhealthy.

Women have had millennia of men wrestling with their own preoccupations with and anxieties over the female body, and this anxiety has manifested in an infinity of creative ways to oppress, control, capture and define us.

Honestly, I don’t see how we can ever be free of it as long as we’re both sexed animals and able to recognise and analyse our status as such (ie. never). But certainly, addressing problematic societal/cultural exploitation and perceptions of the female body simply can’t start with a denial of said body, whether through the burqa or Pomo Butlerian crap. It just can’t work.

I mean, talk about cart before horse and wishful thinking.

Edited

Nailed it.

Even though it feels that we are on repeat and that some of us have written versions of the points encapsulated in your post over the past months that onepost has been telling us all onepost’s reasons that he is female and will continue to use any female single sex provision he fucking wants to, it is good to see it countered again and again.

The philosophising to make some male people fit the description of female people is a display of entitlement that those male
people cannot escape. There is no emotional back story that removes that entitlement.

That entitlement was and is amplified every time the poster writes ‘that is your belief’ to the many excellent posts that have appeared from women making valid point after valid point. The very fact that a male person thinks that women can fucking choose to believe that they are female or male and that their needs are beliefs is misogyny.

It all comes down to male people wheedling and attempting to find just the right way to express their personal philosophy to make as many female people agree to accept those male people as being female. Wheedle, wheedle, wheedle.

Helleofabore · Yesterday 06:55

Consent obtained by fraud or deception, including deception via failure to disclose material information, is not consent.

I think that we should continue to post this in bigly letters. Maybe the message will get through that consent cannot be philosophised away either.

Consent obtained by fraud or deception, including deception via failure to disclose material information, is not consent.

Helleofabore · Yesterday 07:07

“*I do not cause distress in women I am amongst in the world.

Perhaps, due to the disclosure of my history here, there are some men and women on mumsnet who are distressed at the suggestion that I am roaming the world untethered by biological sex. There are men and women here who also may have a belief that what I say is impossible. I am not responsible for their feelings.

I maintain no distress about using the men’s. I’ve used the men’s when in a ‘digestive emergency’ and it was the closest room available. I shouted on entry and shouted as I heard a man enter.
It would be near impossible to segregate me apart from other women though. When I approach a woman holding a machine gun who looks like she’s had a bad day to ask where the loo is and she walks me to the women’s… When I’m accompanied by a local associate to an open plan squat toilet room with barely any nook dividers… Tell me what am I supposed to feel? This is normal.”*

This all revolves around a male person who passively allows others to sort that person’s sex category while then also holding the belief based purely on philosophy and his subjective reality that he is the opposite sex category to the material reality of his sexed body.

This is actually a path to then blaming female people and individual female people for creating a situation that potentially could cause them distress if they understood their error.

This is just another form of misogyny.

Helleofabore · Yesterday 07:20

Toilets can also be a social space as much as they are a place to do highly personal tasks. I accompany family members, friends, associates and clients. Breaking conversation because random people on the internet feel I must hunt for a fourth space just isn’t going to happen.

This is just another excuse. It is not a valid reason for you to negate the consent of female people who need that female single sex provision to exclude you. Your investment in your appearance does not give you the right to ignore the law in the UK, and it does not give you the right to negate the consent of any female person who may by distressed with your presence.

Many male people have to put a hold on that conversation to use appropriate provisions. Many female people, including myself, have to put that conversation on hold while male family members, friends, associates and clients use the correct single sex provision. This is normal human interaction.

You have assumed an entitlement that is not yours at all in making that statement.

Plus you have also assumed the consent of the female people you have not disclosed your sex to but enter a female single sex provision with.

Smooth business conversations leading to potentally advantagious outcomes is not a reason to ignore the material reality that you are male and you are accessing female single sex provisions.

This is just more wheedling.

MagpiePi · Yesterday 07:58

I do not cause distress in women I am amongst in the world.

What you actually mean is:

“I dismiss, refuse to see, or can’t perceive distress and just don’t care if I cause distress in women I am amongst in the world.”

Imdunfer · Yesterday 08:01

polypostwonder · Yesterday 00:09

You have explained your problem using mens loos, which I can see must be a real problem when you're wearing very feminine clothes. As a tall woman with short hair, narrow pelvis and broad shoulders I've experienced a little of that (but women are kinder!) during my life.

This isn’t about clothes, feminine or otherwise. I don’t wear feminine clothes or makeup very often. The issue with men’s loos (that I think you are referencing) was when I was a teenager, typically wearing jeans and a jumper.

What I don't pick up from your posts is any understanding of the genuine distress that you are causing some women by using women's facilities.
You seem to believe that your own distress at using the men's overrides the distress of women caused by you using the women's.
Am I reading this right?

I do not cause distress in women I am amongst in the world.

Perhaps, due to the disclosure of my history here, there are some men and women on mumsnet who are distressed at the suggestion that I am roaming the world untethered by biological sex. There are men and women here who also may have a belief that what I say is impossible. I am not responsible for their feelings.

I maintain no distress about using the men’s. I’ve used the men’s when in a ‘digestive emergency’ and it was the closest room available. I shouted on entry and shouted as I heard a man enter.

It would be near impossible to segregate me apart from other women though. When I approach a woman holding a machine gun who looks like she’s had a bad day to ask where the loo is and she walks me to the women’s… When I’m accompanied by a local associate to an open plan squat toilet room with barely any nook dividers… Tell me what am I supposed to feel? This is normal.

Toilets can also be a social space as much as they are a place to do highly personal tasks. I accompany family members, friends, associates and clients. Breaking conversation because random people on the internet feel I must hunt for a fourth space just isn’t going to happen. So, I think you are reading it wrongly, but again, I don’t control what you think.

I can still remember how men and women tried to exclude gays and lesbians from spaces because of their genuinely expressed distress. Public accommodations are not operated on personal preference. When provided for a class of people, they provide a service across a wide variety of people within that class of people. If people must guarantee the environment they wish to occupy, they can create their own space to their own specifications. Such a place doesn't exist in public.

My second question is that if using the facilties which match your biological sex causes issues, why is the campaigning all targeted at allowing biological males to use women's facilities instead of being targeted at the provision of gender neutral facilities?

This statement is on the same level as a demand that someone must only use razors that match their biological sex. There is no such thing as a biological sex space.

As to why people had issues when I was using men's toilets, that was their problem. I experienced constant friction around men's spaces when I was a teen and zero friction around women's spaces as a teen and then an adult. If this is due to biology, then so be it.

I’ve never campaigned. I don’t ideologically support all campaigns. My biological sex is irrelevant to other people. It is only relevant here because I disclosed it to provide context to my contributions.

If you are questioning the wider cultural effort to integrate trans men with men and trans women with women, I can’t answer that because you choose to reframe the argument as a biological sex targeting a gendered space rather than requesting a special new fourth space. I imagine it is because not every trans person passes and some people wish trans people to be able to participate in public life rather than be the subject of scorn, distrust and abuse.

I'm not involved in the provision of gender neutral facilities. All public facility providers should be renovating immediately if they expect trans people to require fourth spaces. They don't need campaigns for this. They can also improve third spaces too, while they're at it.

Edited

Christ, your male entitlement screams out from every word of that answer.

I do not cause distress in women I am amongst in the world.

You have absolutely no idea whether this is true.

There is no such thing as a biological sex space.

The law says there is.

It would be near impossible to segregate me apart from other women

You are not a woman. I'm sorry, I know that offends you, but a woman has no Y chromosome and you do. Your arguments are full of confusion of sex with gender.

Look I get it. You pass quite convincingly as female. Nobody is threatened by you that you know of.

But don't you care?, or maybe you don't understand, that your campaign for you and people like you to be legally allowed to use female spaces means that the ex rugby player of 6ft 4 built like a brick shithouse that I know also feels entitled to use the female facilities when he is very, very obviously a man.

And many women are afraid of people like him.

And that's before we start on the autogynophyles who are in the women's spaces precisely because they're getting a sexual kick out of it.

Helleofabore · Yesterday 08:16

” I am roaming the world untethered by biological sex. There are men and women here who also may have a belief that what I say is impossible.”

This is contradictory.

You aren’t roaming the world untethered by biological sex if you insist that you are not the sex you materially are and you keep telling us that you are fully and only ever perceived as being female.

That statement is a direct contradiction to your claimed situation. Your every interaction is tethered to biological sex, just not the sex category you materially are and have remained since you were conceived. It seems that your entire adult life has been invested in being tethered to being treated as the biological sex you want to be perceived as.