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

[BungeeCord]

The link to this article was originally posted in FWR but I think this paragraph (written by trans woman Robin Moira White) is so offensive and telling that it needs to be seen widely.

translucent.org.uk/a-supremely-poor-job/

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

How? How would removing women from society make for a simpler society? Is this what some people think of women? Clearly some people do think that, I didn't think that was an acceptable belief to hold in our society though.

Do you not think it's odd to use the example of stripping womens rights making society simpler? How would you feel if it had said "society would be simpler if we could still enslave black people, but that would not be right"? Hopefully you would be disgusted and think first "wtf, how would that make society simpler" and secondly come to the realisation "jeeze some people actually think it would make society simpler. How worrying".

If the intention is to shock then I think a better example might have been "society would be simpler if we had the death penalty, but that would not be right".

I don't see where better or not better has been mentioned?

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 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.

What exactly is complicated about the solution Robin proposes? If anything I'd say it would be massively simpler for society to say "ah never mind, leave everything as it is, everyone is who they say they are, bad things don't happen". Simpler, not better.

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 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.

I know that Robin Moira White is against the SC judgement and that that is the thrust of the article, obviously. But this statement in particular seemed odd, hence why I posted.

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 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.

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

I think it’s a daft analogy - and one which demonstrates RMW’s misogyny - because it really wouldn’t make society simpler. It might well make some men happy though (hmmm I wonder where we have seen a focus on keeping men happy at all costs before 🤔).

Well I suppose arranging childcare would be simpler if no woman worked, and inheritance would be simpler if the oldest son inherited everything like in days of yore, and so on. But simpler doesn't always mean better.

A lot of sexist men would feel their lives were simpler, if women were just obliged to cater to them at all times or be homeless. Maybe some women would find life simpler if they had their lives mapped out for them and didn't have to make complex choices. But, again, not better.

It's an extremely odd and revealing comment in several ways. But not at all surprising from a position of extreme misogyny that struggles to see that women are equal to men and not a kind of support animal. From that perspective it probably does seem a very minor and unproblematic thing to say.

What about the rest of his screed, based on the lie that no transw has ever posed any sort of problem, or threat, in women's spaces?

No comments?

This is what this about though. Removing women from positions of power and influence.

It’s what he said though. Although looking at para 3 it’s possible that he doesn’t understand the meaning of simplification.

Life isn’t simple
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.
An example of simplification is the section on lesbians, paragraphs 205 to 209. The UKSC only heard from lesbians who wish to exclude trans people from their groups. They are a minority of the lesbian world, the vast majority of which accepts a trans woman in a relationship with a natal woman as a lesbian. The court makes no mention of this, presumably because they were not told so.
The danger of the Supreme Court hearing only from some interested parties and (without explanation) excluding others is neatly illustrated.

I'm working towards this but the cat won't play ball

It would be simpler, but far far worse

It would also be simpler to just have a dictator and no personal freedoms

Simpler doesn't mean better

Exactly this.

I think you are missing the point.

Yes, that is what the author was saying. That was his point.

But for that point to hold, it requires one to agree that women not having rights would make society simpler in the first place.

I mean, do you agree with that? Is it a truth that women simply having the same rights as men makes society more complex than it needs to be? That we accept an extra complexity as the cost of giving women rights - that men have rights anyway, but women's rights, well that's an extra add-on?

And does it work the other way round? Could we say that scoeity would be simpler if only women could vote, own property or work in the professions, but we accept the extra complexity of extending those rights to men as well because it's the right thing to do for men? Or is it just women's rights that we like to consider in terms of trade-offs?

Do you see? The point isn't what RMW said, it's what it betrays about how he sees women in society relative to men.

(Although I do wonder if RMW would still be so keen to be seen as a woman if women really did lose the right to vote, own property and work in the professions. Trans women believe female people are privileged because we are unequivocally accepted as women but tend to overlook their own privilege of having the choice to be treated as men, a much more powerful group.)

Surely, it makes society simpler if all adults can vote, own property and work in professional occupations.

It's logically more complex to have a two-tier society on the basis of sex, and to have some people (the female ones) be automatically classified as not full adults, while their (male) siblings are automatically entitled to vote, own property and work in the professions. Imagine explaining to an anthropologist from another planet, that your son can own property but his older sister can't. Or even more ridiculously, why only the boy from a set of boy-girl fraternal twins is automatically deemed capable of owning property.

@FlirtsWithRhinos yes, you said exactly what I was trying to say but better.

I deliberately didn't even comment on the trans argument. It's not relevant to the point I was interested in.

The world has benefited RMW as a man in both version 1.0 and the later model.

But more importantly, has it benefited from him?

The UKSC only heard from lesbians who wish to exclude trans people from their groups. They are a minority of the lesbian world, the vast majority of which accepts a trans woman in a relationship with a natal woman as a lesbian.

That is what is known, in diplomatic terms, as "a big, fat, hairy fucking lie."