To think that society would not be immensely simpler were women denied the right to vote and own property

It's very concerning that them's been allowed to get away with pretending that lesbians almost always support transw to live their lives free of hassle and prejudice means:

Most lesbians want to shag transw.

Trust the Guardian to grovel up sycophantically and not correct they. It's not a grey area, as far as I know, it's an outright untruth.

It's utterly bonkers and a testimony to RWM's dead cat strategy that anyone is even discussing the merits of this "simplification" as a suggestion, even if only to reject it.

Firstly, it was used in the context of an offensive and logically bankrupt attempt to imply that if society sees women (original female meaning) as having the moral right to be socially equal to men, we also have some sort of moral obligation to redefine ourselves as people with a wommanny sort of mind and agree our spaces, rights and physical presence be made available for the identity validation of men who feel they also have a wommanny sort of mind, and that any downsides to us of so doing are simply the justifiable cost of doing the right thing.

I mean, it's just an utterly false analogy. When you write out the actual argument it makes no sense at all. The two things have nothing in common. Society's acceptance of the justifable rights of one group are not a shortcut to society accepting the demands of a totally different and unrelated group demanding totally different and unrelated things for different reasons. It's basically saying because we all accept 2+2=4 we must also accept 3+1=7 because they both have a plus sign😂

Secondly, and the really concerning thing, the only thing that really needs to be said about the whole offsensive analogy, is that RMW has just made it clear and undeniable that he sees men's rights as the default society and women's rights as some sort of optional nice to have.

In any sane society a person demonstrating that view of women should be given no credibility whatsoever in any serious discussion of women's needs, rights and lives.

Not to mention the basic hypocrisy that if you wanted to go entirely on 'simplifying' then we could start by stopping indulging and worrying about less than 0.02% of the population who require to make life difficult for everyone else.

That wouldn't be right either, but we can all play at that game.

It’s textbook MRA.

I suppose it varies. Some women might be provided for and cared for by a wonderful man, some might enjoy that and some might not
Some might be abused by a horrible man and no one's going to like that. Some men might like being the boss some might resent the pressure to provide and protect.

I don't think there is one answer but as the article says it isn't right.

Yes! And bring back the Rotten Boroughs and the property qualification for men to vote while you're about it!

Surely the point though is in the example given for simplifying things?
They didn’t say ‘take away men’s right to vote’ or ‘disabled people’s right to vote’ or ‘poor people’s right to vote’, or ‘under-educated people’s right to vote’. They chose women.

Just in case I’m missing some hidden meaning that @Tandora claims, I’ll place my breakdown of the full section below and see what everyone thinks:

Life isn’t simple
With respect to the Supreme Court, if you try to make it ‘simple,’ it just will not work. We could simplify society immensely by removing women from voting, property ownership, and working in the professions, but that would not be right.

The headline point for this section. As we have observed, the starting position is that society would be simpler if women had no power and utilising that to argue that the ‘simplicity’ (ie. ‘men’ and ‘women’ refer to our biology/sex for the purposes of the EA and therefore provision of services, sex segregation in sports etc) of the SC judgement is bad.

Similarly, excluding trans people or placing them in the Goodwin ‘intermediate zone’ (Judgment para 65) is unacceptable.

Now comparing the exclusion of women from society to saying that ‘transwomen’ are not actual women.

An example of simplification is the section on lesbians, paragraphs 205 to 209. The UKSC only heard from lesbians who wish to exclude trans people from their groups. They are a minority of the lesbian world, the vast majority of which accepts a trans woman in a relationship with a natal woman as a lesbian.

Now focusing in on lesbians and an interesting repurposing of the word ‘simplification’ in a clumsy attempt to position the SC listening to actual lesbians who are solely attracted to other women as a bad thing. Also making a false (and homophobic) claim that the majority of lesbians are attracted to men. Also apparently ignoring that the majority of heterosexual women also support lesbians right to be lesbians and exclude men from their relevant groups.

The court makes no mention of this, presumably because they were not told so.
The danger of the Supreme Court hearing only from some interested parties and (without explanation) excluding others is neatly illustrated

So now entirely focusing on what A BAD THING it is that the SC apparently didn’t take into account the views of a tiny minority of women who claim to be lesbian but are actually heterosexual (or raging hypocrites) for representation of lesbian views.

So overall an ‘interesting’ segue from ‘society would be simpler [if women had no rights]’ to ‘we must listen to the male attracted ‘lesbians’.

This is no other mention of the ‘simple’ point in relation to the SC judgement elsewhere in his article as far as I can see.

Feedback anybody? Have I missed anything that would support Tandora’s assertion that he meant exactly the opposite?

While being quite clear that he's not one of them.

We're seeing the abandonment really of all positions now except the core MRA one.

It’s not simpler at all, as Aston says. Rather, it strikes me as RMW issuing a sly threat: “You want things simple, do you? Simple this, bitches!”

But more importantly, has it benefited from him?

The UKSC only heard from lesbians who wish to exclude trans people from their groups. They are a minority of the lesbian world, the vast majority of which accepts a trans woman in a relationship with a natal woman as a lesbian.

That is what is known, in diplomatic terms, as "a big, fat, hairy fucking lie."

The world has benefited RMW as a man in both version 1.0 and the later model.

Surely, it makes society simpler if all adults can vote, own property and work in professional occupations.

It's logically more complex to have a two-tier society on the basis of sex, and to have some people (the female ones) be automatically classified as not full adults, while their (male) siblings are automatically entitled to vote, own property and work in the professions. Imagine explaining to an anthropologist from another planet, that your son can own property but his older sister can't. Or even more ridiculously, why only the boy from a set of boy-girl fraternal twins is automatically deemed capable of owning property.

(Although I do wonder if RMW would still be so keen to be seen as a woman if women really did lose the right to vote, own property and work in the professions. Trans women believe female people are privileged because we are unequivocally accepted as women but tend to overlook their own privilege of having the choice to be treated as men, a much more powerful group.)

I think you are missing the point.

Yes, that is what the author was saying. That was his point.

But for that point to hold, it requires one to agree that women not having rights would make society simpler in the first place.

I mean, do you agree with that? Is it a truth that women simply having the same rights as men makes society more complex than it needs to be? That we accept an extra complexity as the cost of giving women rights - that men have rights anyway, but women's rights, well that's an extra add-on?

And does it work the other way round? Could we say that scoeity would be simpler if only women could vote, own property or work in the professions, but we accept the extra complexity of extending those rights to men as well because it's the right thing to do for men? Or is it just women's rights that we like to consider in terms of trade-offs?

Do you see? The point isn't what RMW said, it's what it betrays about how he sees women in society relative to men.

Exactly this.

It would be simpler, but far far worse

It would also be simpler to just have a dictator and no personal freedoms

Simpler doesn't mean better

I'm working towards this but the cat won't play ball

It’s what he said though. Although looking at para 3 it’s possible that he doesn’t understand the meaning of simplification.

Life isn’t simple
With respect to the Supreme Court, if you try to make it ‘simple,’ it just will not work. We could simplify society immensely by removing women from voting, property ownership, and working in the professions, but that would not be right.
Similarly, excluding trans people or placing them in the Goodwin ‘intermediate zone’ (Judgment para 65) is unacceptable.
An example of simplification is the section on lesbians, paragraphs 205 to 209. The UKSC only heard from lesbians who wish to exclude trans people from their groups. They are a minority of the lesbian world, the vast majority of which accepts a trans woman in a relationship with a natal woman as a lesbian. The court makes no mention of this, presumably because they were not told so.
The danger of the Supreme Court hearing only from some interested parties and (without explanation) excluding others is neatly illustrated.

This is what this about though. Removing women from positions of power and influence.

What about the rest of his screed, based on the lie that no transw has ever posed any sort of problem, or threat, in women's spaces?

No comments?

It's an extremely odd and revealing comment in several ways. But not at all surprising from a position of extreme misogyny that struggles to see that women are equal to men and not a kind of support animal. From that perspective it probably does seem a very minor and unproblematic thing to say.

Well I suppose arranging childcare would be simpler if no woman worked, and inheritance would be simpler if the oldest son inherited everything like in days of yore, and so on. But simpler doesn't always mean better.

A lot of sexist men would feel their lives were simpler, if women were just obliged to cater to them at all times or be homeless. Maybe some women would find life simpler if they had their lives mapped out for them and didn't have to make complex choices. But, again, not better.

I think it’s a daft analogy - and one which demonstrates RMW’s misogyny - because it really wouldn’t make society simpler. It might well make some men happy though (hmmm I wonder where we have seen a focus on keeping men happy at all costs before 🤔).