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

Um no. The author thinks that the Supreme Court judgment (over)-simplifies the legislation and society and does so unfairly.

That's why the author has sought to draw a parallel with women's rights as follows: We could simplify society immensely by removing women from voting, property ownership, and working in the professions, but that would not be right

The point is that he thinks it would simplify society to remove women from participating in key aspects.

Um no. The author does not think this any more than the author thinks the Supreme Court judgement “simplifies society”. The point being made is the opposite.

That’s not the point OP is making though. The point is that he thinks it would simplify society to remove women from participating in key aspects.

He claims to be a woman but his attitude towards women appears to be that of a man from the Victorian era. His point is not mitigated by observing that it would be wrong to do that - he thinks that you could simplify society by excluding women.

Some people like Lady Hale, many MPs and some Ministers argue that men like him should be allowed to take up spaces in women’s representation and speak on our behalf.

If some women can’t see the issue with allowing a man like him to speak and act on behalf of women then they may have a bad case of internalised misogyny.

“We could simplify society immensely by removing women from voting, property ownership, and working in the professions, but that would not be right."

The point the author is making- as you know- is that the Supreme Court decision is illogical, unworkable, unjust, wrong, just as it would be all of those things to remove rights from women.

Calling a policy “simple” , has nothing to do with whether it’s actually a good policy- whether it is practical, workable, reasonable, fair, just, etc.

As part of this, the point is made that just because a solution is simpler, that doesn't make it right or better than a complex solution.

Right - but OP was asking whether the example given WAS an example of making something simpler. I don't see that it would be.

The article is coming from a position where it disagrees with the high court judgement. As part of this, the point is made that just because a solution is simpler, that doesn't make it right or better than a complex solution.

So no, I don't think that's particularly odd, and I think the point the writer makes is fine. Whether or not you agree or disagree is a different point, but they aren't wrong to say a simpler solution isn't necessarily the right one.

I don't get how it would make society simpler, given that women compose half of society.

Perhaps if one's unexamined misogyny led one to unthinkingly presume that person is a synonym for "man", and that society is a synonym for "multiple persons, i.e. lots of men"? If you start from a premise that men make up society, and that women are a modern-day adjunct to an original male-only society, the analogy makes sense.

The point is that making things simple doesn't always make them better.

This feels very obvious, whether you agree with it or not. It is very clear.

Exactly this. First post nails it.

Completely missed the point didn’t you OP- deliberately so, no doubt.

I expect it would make for a simpler society for men, who would go back to living in caves, hitting each other with sticks and not being able to find anything within the space of a year.

I suppose by extension that would mean our all-female Utopia would be simpler too 🥳

Robin Moira White is an entitled misogynistic twat. They fact they choose to present as female makes zero difference to their anti woman rhetoric

You didn't select the whole paragraph though OP. Strange that you missed the first sentence of it that made the point that simple isn't better.

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.

I suspect the author is making that illogical assumption that so many people make that there was once a simpler time when everyone knew their place, all women were married off young and stuck to the domestic area of life.

The thing that people have always done throughout history. Look back to a fictional time when things were just better.

Interesting that his go-to idea for a simpler time is one where women were just kept in their place.

I guess it feels tempting for anyone who is fed up with argumentative women who won’t just shut up and do the drudge work to dream of a time when men were living amongst powerless support humans.

A 'strawman' is where someone misrepresents an argument. OP has quoted and linked to it so it can be read, in full and in context.

I'm not sure if a PP didn't understand the term or hadn't bothered to read the OP fully in their desperation to make out that someone's said something they haven't (!).

Wrt the question, I'd be interested to know what percentage of the workforce are women and what would happen if they stopped being able to work starting tomorrow.
A LOT of surgeries, court cases, medical treatments, public transport, banking, etc etc etc would not take place. In my view that would complicate things immensely, so I'm sort of interested in what 'simplified' means and why that's something to strive for?

The effect of these failures is to have produced a judgment which strikes down the rights and protections that trans people have enjoyed since 1999, with no evidence of harm to the general population.

Says White.

White conveniently ignores all of the women girls who have been frightened & intimidated, leered at & been propositioned, filmed, assaulted and yes, raped in female only spaces.

By men pretending to be women. White sees this as unproblematic.

Others think that Napoleon gives them messages over the radio, or that they are the reincarnation of Elizabeth the First.

i meant "men" not me, but i guess the sentiment is the same: simpler does not necessarily mean better.

But if we assume that broadly what men want is the same sort of thing, taking out the necessity of having to think about what women want when making decisions makes things a lot less complicated.

I'm still wondering at the reply saying it's a dig at trans people tho. Is it that RMW is trans and therefore any criticism is anti-trans? that is reducing RMW to one aspect of his personality. Not brilliant, eh?

You might say it would be simpler for women because there would be no choice, you wouldn't have to weigh things up you just obey, do as you're told etc. You are kept in a child-like state and so you remain at a simple or primitive level of psychological development, I think that would be the argument?

I can't see that it would be in any way better for women, but men would want to argue that it was better for women because men benefit hugely from the oppression and subordination of women.

Of course it would be simpler... for men. If they got to make all the decisions, if their neds and wants were the only ones considered, if their piorities were everyone's priorities, live would be much easier and simpler. For them. They wouldn't have to compromise. they wouldn' thave to prove themselves. They could go where they wanted, do what they wanted, spend what they wanted.

It's just flat out misogyny and becuase he's really really stupid, he thinks it's a hilariously insightful argument into right and wrong.

It would be simpler to do it. As the article states though, this wouldn't be better or indeed right.

It's literally explained by all the lines around it. I feel this OP is almost trying to mislead the thread here to attack a trans woman. I wonder why.....

History disproves his suggestion.