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

More curiosity and fewer assumptions (and negative judgements) about this is what is desperately needed.

No it’s also le question. Can you define woman to include every woman and TW bur exclude every man, TM and non binary person without using sexist stereotypes.

De Bouvoir was saying women are made through being born female, their experiences during girlhood and womanhood, not that they could be surgically constructed. How come it’s only lately that society can’t define a woman? I mean, all throughout history women have been oppressed because of their sex.

Of course biology plays a fundamental role but it is not destiny.

Again - no-one is saying this. This is the OPPOSITE of the gender-critical position, that women are female - and there are no other requirements.

If you think there are other requirements, what are they? Can you put your finger on even one?

So this is a question about what it is to be trans and how we understand transness.

There isn’t just one way to be a ‘man’ or a ‘woman’ because both are deeply complex social constructs.

@tandora You've confused 'there is at least one thing that differentiates man/woman' with 'there is only one way to be a man/woman'.

No-one is saying there is one way to be a man or a woman, we all agree on that.

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?

Sorry to bang on but I really don't understand what it is when you use the word 'woman' as different from 'man'.

So @tandora, if woman does not equal birth sex, and I do really really think you’re misinterpreting DeBouvoir, than what is a woman? If you can’t define woman, how does a TW know they are one? Without using gendered stereotypes, how would a TW know they were a woman?

There isn’t just one way to be a ‘man’ or a ‘woman’ because both are deeply complex social constructs. Beauvoir wrote a huge book on how women are ‘made’ (not born. Women =/ birth sex is one of the foundational principles of feminism). Of course biology plays a fundamental role but it is not destiny. Biology is also profoundly complex.

woman = birth sex is a simplism and a sexist , oppressive, hierarchical , violent one. (Just like the idea of depriving women of property/ voting rights- the subject of this thread.)

OK, cool, so we've gotten somewhere.
You would say it's sexist that 'A woman is a female with any personality'.

And it's also sexist to say that a woman is male/female with a specific type of personality.

So what is a fair and non-sexist description of a woman? How do we know what one is?

@tandora. How so? How is saying a woman is a female who can do or be anything sexist? Surely saying a woman is a male or female who presents using outdated gender stereotypes is more sexist as it’s saying you can only be a woman if you follow certain rules?

They are both sexist.

But the use of women's rights to illustrate that point is deliberate and reinforces an 'us-and-them' stance, which is startlingly incongruent if the author identifies as a woman.

Of course, in that scenario, which is a real one in the world today, not a hypothetical one, things are much more complicated and difficult for the majority, women and children; things are only simpler for men – only for the men who are misogynists, who want a patriarchal system – so the implication, or logical conclusion, even, of the statement is that the author must be one of these.

Ooh no! I thought it was an “essence” @Supima ! I’ve been feverishly searching for this magic formula. Even boots doesn’t stock it!

I fear this refusal to address this straightforward question means we might be getting into the realm of gendered souls here. The kind that can be seen by looking into someone’s eyes.

Probably because your style is so antagonistic and you seem too busy trying to score points to be able to intellectually engage with anything being said to you.

Both statements are simplifications of the issue. I don’t agree with either.

I'm not trying to summarise any issue. In and of itself, regardless of anything else, do you not see that one of those mindsets is sexist?

and now I'm really curious. If it's not someone's body or their personality that makes them a man or woman, what are you saying it is? I truly honestly can't grasp your position here.

I'm not being arsey, it is hard to realise that 'biological essentialism' is the total opposite of 'women are people who are female, regardless of what they're like as a person' because it's been repeated over and over that these are actually the same thing.

It's the gender ideology that thinks there is something prescriptive about one sex or gender - even the DEFINITION of 'transgender' literally relies on accepting that each sex has corresponding matching or aligning gender identities- i.e. what someone is like, or how feminine/masculine they would class themselves as (as far as I can tell!)

If you think that you can be male, or female, and have ANY personality, character traits, skillset, desires, preferences, level of societally defined femininity/masculinity and that has NO EFFECT ON YOUR SEX whatsoever, then that's the opposite of biological essentialism.

Would you agree tandora?

Yes it’s quite a simple question (as we are discussing simplicity). Which is more sexist, to say ‘women are adult human females with any personality or interests’? Or, ‘women are people of either sex who like and do stereotypically feminine things’?

Both statements are simplifications of the issue. I don’t agree with either.

I said it’s complicated- because it is. This isn’t to say I’m not willing to engage, it’s to acknowledge how long and complex this conversation is and it’s not one to be had through shouting at each other in soundbites on social media.

I simply wanted to acknowledge your points- I agree with many of your sentiments- the points where we disagree are complex. I wanted to acknowledge this to acknowledge that there are points of consensus to be had- that’s important, given how acerbic and polarised this conversation has become.

Why do the questions and conversations suddenly become “complicated” when the answer is obvious, but would show the sexism and misogyny of gender ideology? Surely it’s an easy answer. Either a woman is an adult female however she presents, or a woman is anyone who claims they are one, even though there is no definition?

And you still failed to answer the question potpourree asked.

So what are the benefits to women of gender ideology were to take priority over sex based law. I mean, women would lose their sex based rights, homosexuals would lose their protections, transmen would lose all abortion and maternity rights, so which group would benefit?

Got it, it's complicated.

So to you, would you say both of those views are equally sexist (or not sexist)? Do you see any issues with either of them?

I do get what you are saying. This conversation is complicated. I’ve tried having it on mumsnet before- it doesn’t go well.