Page 12 | To think that society would not be immensely simpler were women denied the right to vote and own property

Annoyedone · 27/05/2025 12:04

Did we ever work out any of the other ways of being a woman if it’s not human female and doesn’t rely on outdated sexist stereotypes @Tandora

Nameychangington · 27/05/2025 12:41

Tandora · 27/05/2025 08:46

I think it’s really important to distinguish two things.

The first is what being trans is. The second is how we should organise society to include trans people. Anti trans sentiment so often conflates the two - as questions about policy start from a position that being trans is not really legitimate or real, that it is simply a false (and harmful) ideology.

The fact that some women are trans, says nothing about who you are: it does not redefine your person in any way. You are still the woman you were before, with the characteristics you had before, for the reasons as before. Just as someone being gay says nothing about who you are or what your sexuality is. Yes you could say that recognition of gay people redefined understandings of sexuality - it expanded our understandings of diversity - that not everyone was straight, that differences exist, but it didn’t redefine straight people. This is exactly the same for recognising trans people.

Show quote history

The first is what being trans is.

What is it? If it's not about biology, and it's not about stereotypes, what is being trans?

Discussions don't get anywhere if there is no common understanding of what the words being used mean. Maybe a lot of this could be cleared up if we all know what the definition of being trans is

What is being trans?

TheOtherRaven · 27/05/2025 12:49

The whole idea of trans and identifying as the other sex (or not a sex) is based on everyone first knowing exactly what those sexes are, who is of those sexes, and therefore having something to transition to and perform.

It's an act of profound disingenuity to claim a belief that there's no such things as a 'woman' in biological sex terms when it's the entire basis of what to hang the assigned stereotypes and performance/cosmetic appearance on.

StandFirm · 27/05/2025 13:32

I have read the whole article and OP has taken the quote out of its context.
This is the full quote and its argument is that simplification does not work, and is plain wrong:
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.

The argument that the writer makes is not advocating for the removal of women's right to vote. In fact, it is used to illustrate what they consider to be a ludicrous scenario and argues that the SC ruling excludes trans people and that would be just as ludicrous. Basically they're saying that brute oppression may simplify things -only one group lords it over others, eminently 'simple' - but simple does not equate right.
Of course, this particular argument and its phrasing will not sit well with many - but I thought I would point out the full context.

Ereshkigalangcleg · 27/05/2025 13:58

Can you imagine the same “argument” used as a glib talking point for any other oppressed class than women? The point is that society is half women. It wouldn’t be “simpler” for everyone it would only benefit half the population, unless you have some sort of tradwife fantasy. Misogynistic men only see the benefit to men, that’s why they consider this a) a good analogy for telling a group of entitled men they can’t use women’s spaces and b) a “simpler” society, as a thought experiment.

Original poster

BungeeCord · 27/05/2025 14:12

@StandFirm I know that RMW is not advocating for removing women's rights and never said that was what he thought. My point is that it is strange that he thinks removing women's rights would make the world simpler (also strange that he thinks its acceptable to voice that thought).

OP posts:

FlirtsWithRhinos · 27/05/2025 15:00

TipsyRaven247 · 27/05/2025 11:23

We will not fall for your evil attempt at defamation, OP . It is blatantly obvious that this person is trying to making a point by using a figure of speech.

Sigh. This has been explained many times already.

Yes, we understand it's a figure of speech.

This thread is not about the merits or not of the actual suggestion. It's about what that figure of speech revealed about the way the speaker sees the world.

His baseline assumption is that removing women's rights would make society simpler but we don't do it because it's morally wrong.

That is his worldview.

But that baseline assumption iitself is wrong isn't it? It might make society simpler for men, but men aren't the only people in society are they?

Well apparently they are in RMW's eyes.

FlirtsWithRhinos · 27/05/2025 15:09

StandFirm · 27/05/2025 13:32

I have read the whole article and OP has taken the quote out of its context.
This is the full quote and its argument is that simplification does not work, and is plain wrong:
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.

The argument that the writer makes is not advocating for the removal of women's right to vote. In fact, it is used to illustrate what they consider to be a ludicrous scenario and argues that the SC ruling excludes trans people and that would be just as ludicrous. Basically they're saying that brute oppression may simplify things -only one group lords it over others, eminently 'simple' - but simple does not equate right.
Of course, this particular argument and its phrasing will not sit well with many - but I thought I would point out the full context.

Ugh. We get that. It's been addressed many times. You are misunderstanding what the issue is. Please see my previous post.

BundleBoogie · 27/05/2025 16:36

StandFirm · 27/05/2025 13:32

I have read the whole article and OP has taken the quote out of its context.
This is the full quote and its argument is that simplification does not work, and is plain wrong:
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.

The argument that the writer makes is not advocating for the removal of women's right to vote. In fact, it is used to illustrate what they consider to be a ludicrous scenario and argues that the SC ruling excludes trans people and that would be just as ludicrous. Basically they're saying that brute oppression may simplify things -only one group lords it over others, eminently 'simple' - but simple does not equate right.
Of course, this particular argument and its phrasing will not sit well with many - but I thought I would point out the full context.

It’s a shame you haven’t also read the full thread, otherwise you might actually understand the point that has currently escaped you.

Annoyedone · 27/05/2025 16:42

So in the writers scenario.. are you saying women are the oppressors and transpeople are an oppressed class?