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

Nothing you have said refutes the point at the heart of this thread.

There’s a reason the word ‘simple’ is in inverted commas. Also the statement: if you try to make it ‘simple’. It’s a simple idea, an idea that simple people with simple minds might adopt. A simplism. An oversimplification.

Yes, it’s a simple idea, the simple idea that life would be simpler if women had no rights.

Both things (the SC judgement and removing rights for women) are simple ideas , made my simple minds, oversimplifications. They are both shit ideas, wrong , unjust, nonsensical that will make society a lot worse and certainly not actually simpler.

You can say ‘simple’ as much as you like and yes, it is a shit idea. That doesn’t change what his idea is - that life would be simpler if women had no rights.

It’s not the best written article , granted. But nonetheless all this is all fairly obvious if you aren’t ragingly transphobic.
So no excuse really for the malicious misrepresentation.

You’re absolutely right there - it’s all over the place as an ‘article’ as per my previous post on this. None of what you said is ‘fairly obvious’ otherwise that would be clear in the article. It is not. You are coming across as rather desperate now.

The problem is that curiosity is never answered. Straight answers are never given, only negatives.

Despite being very certain that women-only spaces and rights need to exist and that trans women need to be in them, gender ideologists never answer the question of what a man, a woman or the difference between them actually is, nor how this difference leads to the need to separate provisions.

All they do is wait for someone else to suggest definitions then say "No, it's more complicated than that".

It is a subtle hallmark of the ideology but once you see it it's very obvious. You are doing it yourself here.

I believe you have no answer. And that's fine, you can believe in the ineffableness of womanhood if you want.

But you don't get to demand that the rights, provisions, identity, history and even language of female people, who may not be this "ineffable woman" but still nevertheless exist, are taken away and bestowed upon a group you can't even define, let alone explain why they need them and we don't.

I really struggle with Tandora's statement that by wanting biological sex acknowledged in law, healthcare, public facilities, sports etc, this is enforcing gender stereotypes.

I think, and Tandora, please let me know if way off here, that Tandora's concern is that by saying women are slower with regard to sports, or more impacted by menstruation cycles or menopause, or uncomfortable in mixed sex changing rooms or overall more vulnerable, that in Tandora's mind is showing weakness and she is strong so hence she doesn't want this?

Because I don't understand how wanting society to work for both sexes, different but equal, would enforce the stereotypes feminism doesn't want.

ultimately this is where gender critical feminism ends up reinforcing the stereotypes and hierarchies it purports to dismantle.

This can only be true if other people cannot separate 'female' from the gender stereotypes. Which is incredibly common.
Gender critical feminism says that the ONLY thing women have in common is their sex. Nothing about what that means about a person.

You're going to have to explain how the fact that someone has a sex automatically means sterotypes are reinforced, because that seems an extremely muddled statement.

Please rest assured that I am nothing if not intellectually curious, and I am genuinely very interested in what people on mumsnet think about trans people

You realise that nothing I've been discussing with you has even mentioned trans people, apart from the definition of transgender that relies on the belief that each sex has a matching gender identity. To me, that edges far closer to biological essentialism than, well, the exact opposite position does.

@Tandora

Taking away the word woman, do you accept that

• two physical sexes do exist (as evidenced that every human has to have one biological parent of each sex - whether or not you consider the word "sex" to be a cultural simplification of sonething complex, ultimately behind all that there is a real, material difference)
• DSDs notwithstanding, the vast majority of humans can be identified at birth as being of one sex or the other and this is a fact that is known to them and their families even if they later chose not to identify as that sex
• that being of the physical sex known as female causes those people in particular to have certain challenges, some due to the sexism of a patriarchal society, some due to the different physical capabilities, some the consequences of the female reproductive role, and some a layering of all three
• that because of this such people are disadvantaged in society relative to the other main type of body
• that for such people to be fully empowered in society we need to recognise those challenges exist and support those people in sex-specific ways

Without asking you to opine either way on whether those people should be called "women" or not, do you accept they exist and have challenges and needs that it is reasonable to talk about and reasonable to want society to recognise?

Biological essentialsm: a belief system that suggests certain characteristics, behaviors, or abilities are inherently linked to one’s biology or genetics.

Me: One's biology has nothing to do with one's characteristics, behaviours or abilities.

I'm fascinated that you are insisting these are the same @tandora ?

So it’s just a coincidence that every single human that ever existed was made with an egg and sperm and came out of a female body? Yet there’s still no way of telling what sex anyone is?

It is absolutely a form biological essentialism to state that a woman is defined by “birth sex”- even if you say that this says nothing about what she is like otherwise , etc., etc.

How? What is it you think biological essentialism is?
I'm not saying anyone is "defined by" anything - you keep putting those words into my mouth, and I'm trying to avoid the word "defined" delibeately because it is misinterpreted.

So please could you explain, clearly, why "a woman is female and there are no other requirements or expectations" is the same as "because a person is female they must also be xyz..." ?

Logically they are opposing positions.

I'm afraid a hole is blown in this immediately by the quote coming from a male person who is using precisely this simplist, sexist, hierarchical and sex based one to identify the group of the population he considers the voting and property rights of. He has no difficulty in identifying them as women, on a binary sexed basis, and clearly not counting himself in that group.

Equally the judgment he is seeking to make go away - for want of a better term if 'overturn' is inaccurate' - is in fact about seeking a sex based right to destroy the protections in law for women, homosexual people and for women with trans identities, because the only people who benefit from additional access to biological women's spaces in this plan are biological men .

He is seeking a benefit that would in fact be a hierarchy of rights where men are legally permitted to oppress and deprive women, homosexual people and women of trans identities equality and rights. This is not an opinion, this is just the hard facts of what the intention of dismantling this judgment seeks to do.

Currently I'm satisfied that we disagree on whether it's sexist to say 'a woman is a female with no other requirements' and that you think it's neither body nor personality that makes someone a woman or man.

this is correct.

If nothing else, I really hope that you've acknowledged that "biological essentialism" is completely at odds with 'a woman is a female and this says nothing about what she is like, what she is expected to do, what skills or desires she might have'

I disagree.
It is absolutely a form biological essentialism to state that a woman is defined by “birth sex”- even if you say that this says nothing about what she is like otherwise , etc., etc. ultimately this is where gender critical feminism ends up reinforcing the stereotypes and hierarchies it purports to dismantle. Because it fails to interrogate how “birth sex” itself is a social construct- that there is no way to even observe differences in bodies other than through a process of meaning making, and to deny this process is to impose a (simplified) fixed account of that meaning. This is the core of the problem with GC feminism.

And even if you don't come back I would hope you're intellectually curious enough to try and work this through in your own mind, rather than just pack it away as 'someone was being wrong on the internet

Please rest assured that I am nothing if not intellectually curious, and I am genuinely very interested in what people on mumsnet think about trans people and why- although it is very upsetting. I’d much rather think about that than clean the bathroom,

Right, well it's a Bank Holiday and no doubt we all have stuff to do and this thread will move on. I am still none the wiser as to what Tandora's position actually is, which is a shame as I was hoping to learn a bit, but I've noted this is a common pattern. If you do think of a way of articulating it clearly, tandora, please feel free to come back or even PM me.

Currently I'm satisfied that we disagree on whether it's sexist to say 'a woman is a female with no other requirements' and that you think it's neither body nor personality that makes someone a woman or man.

If nothing else, I really hope that you've acknowledged that "biological essentialism" is completely at odds with 'a woman is a female and this says nothing about what she is like, what she is expected to do, what skills or desires she might have' so that won't be confused with the gender-critical position from now on.

And even if you don't come back I would hope you're intellectually curious enough to try and work this through in your own mind, rather than just pack it away as 'someone was being wrong on the internet; I couldn't explain exactly why we disagreed but it's too complicated to bother unpacking because I have bathrooms to clean and a baby to see to' (that was meant in good humour - we've all been there!)

Laws are written to make complex situations clear. In this situation that it is legal to exclude all males, be they men, transwomen, with or withour a GRC, if a space, sport or facility are women only as women is based on biological sex. Simple, maybe not with passing, not passing, pasports that say F for a male person. But clear, yes. With the expectation that people adhere to the law and any lawbreakers can be removed when they are discovered.

For @Tandora, how would you change the law to achieve what Robin wants and what most women want? It doesn't have to be simple, but it has to be clear and any lawbreakers need to be dealt with

Just noticed that Tandora thinks that feminism is based on thinking there’s no such thing as women - which is quite the eye-popper!

Yes, I’m agog to hear what is sexist about it.

Again, you are completely misinterpretating what de Beauvoir said. Her reasoning how someone becomes a woman is about the gendered expectations based on a womans sex. The solution is to stop with the gendered expectations and build a society that supports a womans freedom to discover her self taking into account that her sex is different to a mans.

Btw, de Beauvoir is also very involved in identity and self, too much and also doesn't work for women as shown by third wave feminism. Imo second wave, that focused on race, reproductive rights and equal pay needs to come back.

(Yes supima I'm ignoring that, as I'm interested in what that poster thinks herself rather than just repeating what someone else has said... it's interesting how different the tone is when it's a soundbite vs someone's actually coming up with their own words).

what EXACTLY is sexist about saying a woman is an adult human female with any personality, interests, sexual orientation, race, beliefs or achievements?

Poor old de Beauvoir, doomed to be misappropriated and misunderstood for all eternity. She knew perfectly well that there are two sexes -male and female - and that girls and women are discriminated against because of their sex. She knew that women are adult human females. By ‘made’ she means that girls are moulded from infancy into the feminine ideals of their time, not that they weren’t actually female to start with.

Life is less complicated for men when women, children and disabled people can be shut away and not heard.

Oh I’m sure not all trans people talk such uttter shite

Am going to go against the grain and say that life was a lot less complicated when you had one working parent and one at home with children.
I doubt that is what he meant, let’s face it RMW is no supporter of women who probably spends most of his life in Malaga, but sometimes, as I hold down a full time job, carry the mental load of children (even if my husband absolutely does 50% of everything and all he cooking), I do wonder if life wouldn’t be simpler if my husband was the sole breadwinner and I was at home with the children. I’m saying all of that, we could easily afford that scenario and we did it for a few years when I took tome out post children; I couldn’t wait to hightail it back to work. But I do think, in the main, that a working mum has a lot more on her shoulders than a working dad, even a supportive one.the freedom and independence of earning one’s own money can’t be underestimated. (Think I’ve just shat all over my own theory). 😁

Tandora, I'm trying to understand your position of what it is that you mean when you say 'woman' but you can't seem to articulate it.

As far as I can follow, it appears that you think (sorry if I'm wrong - please correct me) that a man is a male/female with any personality. And a woman is a male/female with any personality - is that right?

I'm curious and trying not to make any assumptions. If you could be courteous enough to be likewise to me we might get somewhere. I'm asking the questions to which your answers would help me understand where you're coming from.

I guess it would be simpler for second rate men as there would be less competition and less difficult things to think about

So go on, explain transness to us. Can you explain why a male who has no notion of what is is to be a woman can claim to be one? I understand why a lot of girls and young women are opting out if womanhood, but they have no idea of what it is to be a man.