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

It wasn’t clear to me at all? It appeared she was mocking me and other women for pointing out the pitfalls of biological essentialism.

@Tandora are you able to answer this? Not to hound you, but so I know where you are coming from, as it's not too clear.

Which is the least sexist mindset - that women are people with female bodies and any personality...
or that women are people with either male or female bodies but with a type of character/behaviour/skillset/preference/demeanour/psyche?

If the latter, what is one characteristic of that character that would differentiate them from men?

Yes. Funny how Robins first group of reference was women, can you imagine if he’d used any other group as an example? There would have been uproar.

Are you saying women are being whiny babies when they point out how biological essentialism has been used to oppress women and challenge that? And mocking them? And you think this is feminism?

I mean, it's clear that this isn't what the post meant, right? (It's that people wilfully misinterpret the use of the word 'define', as was being discussed) - So are you being disingenuous when you say you thought it was, or is that actually how you interpreted it in the context of the discussion and preceding posts?

And you don’t wonder if you’ve lost your way somewhere down the line?

OP is asking how would society be simpler?

It wouldn’t would it? It wouldn’t be simpler for the 51% of people who are women, it wouldn’t be simpler be a much harder, more complicated and difficult society to navigate.

Robin’s argument rests on his ( undoubtedly unconscious) assumption that society is composed of men, but not women. Everyone thinking he is making a valid or clever point also have this assumption.

It’s revealing as the entire gender ideology movement is also based on the assumption that women don’t really matter. Robin has revealed what he really thinks about women and ‘our place’.

Erish was referring to my post which she quoted.

I'd genuinely be interested to know, because you seem almost close to getting it but then come up with posts that suggest you're not actually interested in engaging, whether you agree or disagree with any of my posts today?

Which of the two mindsets I described would you say is less sexist?

You don’t challenge oppression by pretending that there’s no such thing as male and female. You do it by challenging discrimination.

This is what your prejudice against trans people has led you to?

Exactly,

And without a fixed, clear meaning in law that applies to all, protections for people within those situations are no longer possible.

“Waaaaah I’m more than that, I’m not just a body with a specific reproductive role”.

it’s actually shocking how misogynistic this is. Are you saying women are being whiny babies when they point out how biological essentialism has been used to oppress women and challenge that? And mocking them? And you think this is feminism?

I find it very telling that the example Robin uses is stripping away all womens rights, in his drive to argue stripping away some womens rights is the right thing to do.

Btw, just look at Afganistan and see that stripping away all womens rights does not in any way simplify society. It just creates additional issues elsewhere. Society is never simple.

Ideally, one's sex would be absolutely irrelevant in most of your daily actions and interactions. People should treat you the same whether you're male or female (imagine!). This is what we're striving for. No assumptions, no criticising for not meeting gender expectations, based on sex.

No difference between 'living as a woman' and 'living as a man' - you'd get up, shower, pick out clothes, go to work/do your caring responsibilities, eat your meals, have a bit of fun, exercise, recreation, do your boring life jobs, sleep, cook, stress about bills. None of this would be categorically different as a woman or man because your sex doesn't come into it. None of this has 'sex = female' or 'sex = male' as a defining requirement.

There would be a relatively small proportion of times where sex matters, such as single-sex spaces, risk assessment, medical situations, sex/dating, pregnancy. In these cases it helps no-one to be dishonest about your sex.

This isn’t directed at anyone personally, it’s a cliched argument often heard from genderist women on social media.

Very well put. A woman is an adult human female. “Waaaaah I’m more than that, I’m not just a body with a specific reproductive role”. Well no, no one is. No one is saying that is all you are. But a woman is still an adult female human being all the same. And adult male humans are still men.

Exactly @Supima

but it [sex] doesn’t define who women are-

Exactly. That's the gender-critical position
Nothing about which sex you are has anything to do with what you must be like as a person. Yes you might be more likely to be socialised in a certain way. But there is no character trait that is unique to men or to women.

You have (knowingly or not) tried a linguistic sleight-of-hand with the word "define".
We define women as female in the sense that that is the required characteristic. It's one descriptor.

There seems to have been a weird move to using "define" to also mean something along the lines of "says everything about a person".

i agree OP. It’s a bizarre and illogical paragraph. There is no way that society would become ‘simpler’ if women had all their rights stripped away. It’s an incel fantasy. As you say, if he had written ‘society would be immeasurably simpler if Jews/Black people were banned from property ownership and the professions’ he would be eviscerated for his obvious racism and stupidity even if he did put ‘but we mustn’t do that because it would be bad’ afterwards. He’s telling on himself with his choice of comparison.

Which is the least sexist mindset - that women are people with female bodies and any personality...

or that women are people with either male or female bodies but with a type of character/behaviour/skillset/preference/demeanour/psyche? If so, what is one characteristic of that character that would differentiate them from men?

But the second sex is all about ensuring women can thrive without society's expectation of their sex class. Acknowledging that there are two sexes but society shouldn't define gender expectation based on your sex. She did not say ignore biological differences and treat men and women the same. She actually argued both men and women had to change.
Gender ideology abuses de Beauvoirs theories to argue men can become women and that is not what she wrote.

It’s because when men claim they are women, they never seem to want to take on the childcare, cleaning, mental load, family admin etc…. Funny that

So we should be critical of sex role stereotypes. Glad we got there in the end!

And all the things that flow from adhering to sex role stereotypes as templates of how each sex should be... right?

Such as "women are people who are like this, and men are people who are like that".

Haha another malicious misinterpretation 🙄.

feminists should be focused on exploring why it is that woman are so often the people bearing a disproportionate burden for doing these activities. As I am now. Is what I meant.

How do you see that working?

To add or change the EA to reframe sex in a way that permits these freedoms would have to mean making the law incoherent, and removing those protections that are currently there for women, homosexuals and women with trans identities. It would just be to the effect of making it so that those groups were less able to defend themselves using that law. Men having these freedoms and those groups having those rights and protections cannot exist in the same space. It's one or the other.