Continuation of Polypostwonder thread

[Imdunfer]

Follow on from this thread

www.mumsnet.com/talk/womens_rights/5532352-the-liminality-of-sex-perception-sex-based-spaces-and-bodily-autonomy?page=39

For argument sake, I understand Blaire White to be a woman. This is independent of the knowledge she chose to only undergo cosmetic facial surgeries and breast augmentation, while retaining everything else.
I think I remember reading that she politically aligns 'right' and is politically vocal about being a male, living as a trans woman. I'm not 100% sure, though. It's not a way that I could understand living, but it is financially lucrative in her case.

There is a person who declares themselves to be male.

That person chooses to live presenting as a female.

In spite of their self declaration as a male, complete with male genitals, you understand that they are a woman.

And you ascribe their understanding of themselves being male, at least partly, to financial motives.

This is either monumentally arrogant or monumentally stupid thinking, or possibly both. Or perhaps you just like playing with a largely female forum and seeing how many feathers you can ruffle.

One thing is for sure, and that is that I don't think anything you write on this subject from now on is going to be of any value to read.

I don't believe I am lying. I don't believe everyone needs to know what my chromosomes are, how my body is organised to support gametes or what colour bracelet was placed on me when I was born.

I don't pretend. Yes, my life and development as a teen was interrupted and redirected somewhere different. I've lived since then and the closest socially relevant word I have available is 'woman.' It's not about beliefs, it's about relating sense about my life to others.

Globally I am recognised legally and socially as a woman now. In the UK, I also believe I am legally and socially a woman regardless of interpretation of the EA2010 and GRA because a lack of any way to prove I was born in any form different than I've lived since before adulthood.

If the UK created a law that required everyone to take tests and it was prepared to redefine society by the results of those tests, I wouldn't have any option but to accept it, would I?

I didn't ask if you are, I asked if you believe you should be.

In the context of the impact that redefining womanhood has on female people, that is a meaningful distinction and one that you seem keen to avoid by portraying your social womanhood as something passively bestowed upon you rather than something you actively choose and seek.

So, I am keen to understand if this wasn't something that passively happened to you (something I actually don't accept BTW as per previous post aboit your choice to transition), would you actively pursue it?

Culture has changed a lot since I transitioned, specifically around trans people. I would argue that any 'be kind' social acceptance efforts were outside of the control of trans people as much as the reinterpretation of the EA was last year. The only consistency is the placement of trans people within an already existing sex/gender. Whether that's by self-identification by some people, or social 'adoption.' I think non-binary people had made some slight progress in self-definition until more dominant social forces were 'exhausted' with cognitive load and have reverted to whatever makes sense to the person individually.

I do understand, I think. But I'm personally not prepared to sacrifice my life (and the life of my family) to ignore the effects of culture upon me for my entire adulthood. I know my life is not homogenous to all women, from birth. But there has been (and is, in other environments than gender critical spaces) a place for me for 40 years. It makes more sense to me and arguably others to remain here than to homogenise with trans people who aren't even in control over the definition of the phrase 'trans people.'

I believe it most accurately and concisely conveys the facts of my life, from before I became adult. In that context, I believe I should be.

In any gender, I've had no control over how people see me, or treat me. It's not so much passive as it is coercive and restrictive.

I changed sex as a teen. It wasn't passive. HRT was involved. My body developed in a direction that wouldn't have been possible otherwise. I'm not interested in discussing whether I had a choice or not. It isn't important. I don't believe most people would choose it, and they don't.

I understand. It must be incredibly hard.

But the problem is that the path you took ultimately leads society to a place that is not good for anyone.

Not for women, not for men, not even for trans people.

We can't just link personality to sex and pretend that's ok because people with the wrong personality can just "transition"..It's limiting all of us and ultimately it's hurting "trans" people most of all.

Because it is trans people who have to bear the consequences in their medically compromised bodies, who carry the social load of having to constantly police that others are accepting your identity / right to be a man/woman despite your body, and who feel it as personal rejection and even fear when parts of society say no.

There has to be a better way than smooshing sex and gender together into one thing that doesn't really fit either of us properly.

This is his passively taking consent as being given while dishonestly denying he is doing it.

He keeps denying that his actions assume consent and ignore anyone’s rejection of consernt. It is like saying consent is happening ‘to’ him rather than acknowledging it would not be happening at all if he respected female people’s needs one iota and didn’t make these claims that demanded (even passively demanded) that female people simply accept this claim.

There is disordered thinking behind that lack of ability to take responsibility for an individual’s own actions, even if those actions are determinedly forcing acceptance by quietly persisting in continuing to do what the individual wants to do.

All while constructing a subjective reality to suit that demanded acceptance when that acceptance is harmful to others.

“I don't name 'woman' in the sense that you are suggesting, it is used upon me.”

and

”The word has been used upon me since I transitioned decades ago.”

and

”My access and place in the world is determined by the word as it has been since I was a teen. My life makes sense through the word. I don't control anyone's use of the word. I am not provided the opportunity to force anyone to use any other word. I am unable to find any example of how the use of the word upon me alters the use of the word upon you.”

There is that passive force again.

No, YOU force it by your acquisition of it. You use it for yourself then claim that it is ‘used upon’ you.

This is just so fucking dishonest.

“I have no other culturally relevant word available to me that most accurately represents the cultural place I exist.”

I understand you were a child when you made choices about your future and perhaps the concept never occurred to you that you were attempting to forcibly acquire female language and causing harm. However, you are an adult now.

You made choices and those choices led to this situation. You then demand that everyone else subscribe to your personal subjective reality as if it is material reality, while actively denying that this is the outcome of your demand, either active demands or passive demands.

coming back to this

“I don't control anyone's use of the word. I am not provided the opportunity to force anyone to use any other word. I am unable to find any example of how the use of the word upon me alters the use of the word upon you.”

“I don't control anyone's use of the word.”

Yes. You do. Every single time you use the words for female people for yourself.

That is how language works.

”I am not provided the opportunity to force anyone to use any other word.”

And yet, your passive acquisition of female language does force others to use that language out of either politeness or in belief that you have portrayed yourself honestly as being materially female when you are not.

”I am unable to find any example of how the use of the word upon me alters the use of the word upon you.”

We have spent months telling you how your forced acquisition of language and the concept of being female harms us.

You have ignored us.

“Its use upon me does not prevent anyone else from using the word for you or any other woman. I have no control over their use of the word.”

This is more passiveness that is directly contradicting what is happening.

You DO have control because you can disclose to people that you are male. You made choices but you are still a male person. Even if you simply allow everyone to believe what they want about you or you have used female language for yourself when you are not female, your failure to correct the situation in the first place is the cause of this situation you are claiming you have no control over.

Expanding to my personal belief that 'woman' can also include some trans women. I acknowledge that this is also different than your belief, but I doubt my belief affects you personally or has an impact on the billions of other women in the world.

How many more times can we explain it to you ?

Your denial is irrelevant as the negative impact has indeed happened.

It is absurd to deny the negative impact in the face of so much pushback and now many court cases and published negative incidents. That it is not likely that you, personally, have been responsible for those incidents, it is the outcome of the many others who, similar to you, acquired the female language and then acted as if they had every right to act as if their subjective reality was every other person’s material reality when that subjective reality has no basis in material reality.

We have explained it to you for months what the collective negative impact to all female people and to individuals. Even to ourselves.

Forcibly acquiring female language and using it for yourself, even you simply accepting the outcome of what is essentially a form of passive force, has negative impacts for every female person.

Because in that action of acquisition, you are trying to force the female language to be rendered meaningless by including you.

Because in that action of acquisition and then using that acquired language to access female single sex provisions, you actively change those single sex provisions to be no longer single sex.

But so many of us have explained this to you for months. This is just rinse and repeat now.

This is a great example of that passive force.

“I accept my placement within women.”

Again, this shows just how little you understand consent.

You do not have consent to take any role within ‘women’. You therefore do this by force. You actually as if you are something that you are materially not, you are acting as if you are entitled to something which you are not and never were entitled to.

“It does feel comfortable to me and I even find it empowering sometimes.”

I even find it empowering sometimes.

Did you even think before you wrote this on a feminist forum?

Of course a male person who acts as if they are entitled to being treated as if they were female will feel empowered. Anyone who has their needs and wants met will feel ‘empowered’ to be seen and treated as what they want to be seen and treated as.

However, when it is a male person who uses any type of force, possible or active, to acquire female language and access to female single sex provisions, it is the very epitome of sexism. You have even accepted a female representational role! How very empowering for you!

This is entirely incoherent.

By using the female language for yourself when you are not female in any materially real way, only if you philosophise that you are female, you are indeed being dishonest.

I don't really see what PPW's problem is. By his own admission everyone in his daily life, family, friends, colleagues, treats him as a woman. He lives "as a woman", whatever that means. Nobody wants to take that away from him.

As long as he does the very simple thing of staying out of public single-sex spaces, what's the problem? He can just peacefully live his life.

Plus it would be a real step forward for society if it could recognize that there's subgroup of men who reject the gender box traditionally labelled "masculine" and choose instead the one labelled "feminine". It would be really good for men as a whole to get used to sharing their toilets, changing rooms and sports teams with men who superficially resemble that despised creature, woman. It would real genuine progress if society became a place where a man could live the way PPW is living and still be acknowledged as a man.

If PPW was actually confident that he exists in the liminal space of 'woman' then he could stop lying to his friends and presumably family and nothing would change. It is because he knows it WOULD change that he has to continue lying.

I think he admitted that he expected there may be some negative reaction before.

What I see is a male person who has invested massively in not being seen as being male. Personally (emotionally and energy wise), and financially (even if that finance was governmental or via health insurance it is still someone paying for it under his control). There was no thought ever given to the negative impact on female people from him or any one else who supported that initial investment and since.

What I see now is desperation to keep that investment from losing gains, or from sinking into negative equity. The constant dishonesty (since February) where a person tries to claim that none of it is his doing that womanhood is being done to him because he denies that first decision to stake acquisition and then denies that that first decision has a momentum that could be stopped as soon as he relinquished the language acquisition and stated ‘I am a male
person’ is enlightening in some ways.

It really is a lesson in the harm people’s decisions to use demanded language causes, when that language is based on subjective belief and not on material reality.

Exactly.
”I wasn’t using ‘subjective’ and ‘objective’ in this way”.
Words can mean whatever PPW wants!
No wonder there is no clarity and the goalposts just keep sliding around.

I don't think PPW is a sensible example for us to have this discussion with.

PPW is physically small and had surgery decades ago and has been taking feminising hormones ever since.

I fully believe that he is accepted totally as a woman and that no woman would blink at sharing female spaces with him, even if he was naked.

I don't believe that any woman would find PPW a threat.

And I don't believe PPW is any danger to women .......

except

PPWs expectation of officially recognised acceptance of his presence in female spaces and on female shortlists would open those doors to the six foot four guy in a dress I meet at social events, the autogynophiles masturbating in women's changing areas, the convicted rapist in a female prison, the potential rapist on a women only hospital ward, the male bodied people insisting on joining clubs reserved for women sexyually attracted to female anatomy, the males attending (or even counselling) at women only rape crisis centres

and

and all the harmless guys of medium size who would use women's spaces when they clearly still have a penis, traumatising many women and making it impossible for large groups of women (eg Moslem women, sexually abused women with ptsd) to use those spaces.

And that is what I very much blame PPW for not accepting, and it is what cannot be allowed.

It is irrelevant what any individual thinks about another individual and whether the fuck a male person ‘passes’, is a direct physical threat or has any reason for that male to feel like he should be able to make a claim that he is female when he is not female at all.

If a male person above the age of about 8 years old accesses female single sex provisions they are potentially causing harm to female people there, regardless of what body parts they have or have not got, or how tall that male person is or how he is built or even how gentle he is or what trauma he has suffered, or how long he has been accessing those provisions. That action poses a direct threat of harm and it is a ‘danger’. To individual female people or collectively to female people.

And any male person who takes a role or position that was created for or designated for being only for female people is a ‘threat’ and ‘danger’ to female people. The threat of lost opportunity is still a threat and a danger

In that way those individual male people are a threat and a danger to female people - individual female people and female people collectively.

Not only that, but the accumulated impact of all those single individual male people is also a threat and a danger to female people.

Small gay men are still male. This was covered in the last thread, and again why should small men, small gay men, or any other man be allowed into single sex female spaces? They all male and they don't belong in there!

"I fully believe that he is accepted totally as a woman..."

You only have his word for this and he has proven himself an unreliable narrator at best.

"...and that no woman would blink at sharing female spaces with him, even if he was naked."

You don't know this!
A lot of women are actually very good at spotting male bodies from their movement etc, even from a distance, even after surgical modifications.

"I don't believe that any woman would find PPW a threat."

You have already been told by women on the other thread that you are categorically wrong about this.
Some of us would find his presence in single sex spaces a violation and possible threat, because he is male.

"And I don't believe PPW is any danger to women"

We don't know this. Even if you discount a physical danger, there are other dangers to women to consider when trans identified males are allowed to colonise our words and violate our rights and spaces.

Edited to add the bit in bold above.

@Imdunfer

And even if no women did clock him as male in female single sex spaces, he knows he's male! He knows he shouldn't be in there, and he knows some women would find it a violation if they knew.

This was what prompted the conversation around consent in the last thread.

"...and that no woman would blink at sharing female spaces with him, even if he was naked."

I resent someone telling me that I wouldn’t blink at sharing a space with a male person, that I would not be able to correctly identify that male person’s sex.

Quite frankly, if someone thinks that that cannot correctly identify a male person’s sex they need to stop wrongly making the assumption that no one else can. It is incorrect to assume that no female person will be able to correctly identify the sex of a male person even after surgery.

Considering how often we are told
we will not be able to correctly identify the sex of puberty blocked males yet it is still possible to do so even with filtered images, it is just a falsity to make such a claim. And why the fuck would we take a heavily invested male poster’s opinion that they never have their sex correctly identified at face value?

I don't care if a man has a penis. I've been raped many times by objects and it's often more painful and traumatic than being raped by a penis. Why does it matter if a man has a penis?

I don't care if they're small or medium sized. I've been raped by slight, fragile men. A petite man is still a man. A fragile man is still a man. Why does their size matter? Why is it acceptable for any man to be in a woman's single-sex space or use women's single-sex services?

There really is this false perception that a short slight man is not a physical threat.

I would like to see all the evidence that proves that. Because I don’t believe that the evidence shows this at all. Quite the contrary considering the sports examples.

For instance, one example is Becky Pepper Jackson has had his puberty blocked for a long time. He is now 15/16 and holds girl’s shot put titles. His winning shot was over 2 feet longer than second place. How is he not a threat of physical harm to female people?

A slight man is not a woman, he is a man for all the reasons other than height.

I am small. I am also shaped like a woman, because I developed as a woman. I wear size 6 clothes that fit my body much better than 'unisex' xs clothing ever has. My voice never dropped, I've never had a beard or hairy body, I don't have an adams apple, and for those women who keep asking about them, my hands and feet are normally sized for women. As far as I know, I've never seen off the rack men's shoes or gloves for my sizes.

As for your sports example, I looked up Becky Pepper Jackson. She won the 2026 AAA Girls WV State Shot Put title. Her result is almost 4 feet shorter than the WV State record and just under 2 feet from the best recorded AAA Girls score in the year. She got lucky. Her score is also well within the normal expected range for a top performer of her age.

What is it about her sport performance that becomes proof of a violent threat against female people in your mind?

As I've said before, there is no sensible way of discussing this issue while women (some of whom, not necessarily on this forum, are becoming as verbally aggressive in their stance as many trans activities) insist that there isn't a female identified trans person in the world who they would not recognise as male.

If we genuinely did not know, and if PPWs history and description of himself is correct then I do not believe any woman would realise, then an incident of his presence beside us in a female space could not hurt us.

What can hurt us is the knowledge that there may be genetically male people in female spaces, which is why we are all agreed (in spite of the fact that people are attacking me as if I've said anything different) that they shouldn't be there.

You are a man for all the reasons other than height.