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.

It’s not simpler at all, as Aston says. Rather, it strikes me as RMW issuing a sly threat: “You want things simple, do you? Simple this, bitches!”

While being quite clear that he's not one of them.

We're seeing the abandonment really of all positions now except the core MRA one.

Just in case I’m missing some hidden meaning that @Tandora claims, I’ll place my breakdown of the full section below and see what everyone thinks:

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.

The headline point for this section. As we have observed, the starting position is that society would be simpler if women had no power and utilising that to argue that the ‘simplicity’ (ie. ‘men’ and ‘women’ refer to our biology/sex for the purposes of the EA and therefore provision of services, sex segregation in sports etc) of the SC judgement is bad.

Similarly, excluding trans people or placing them in the Goodwin ‘intermediate zone’ (Judgment para 65) is unacceptable.

Now comparing the exclusion of women from society to saying that ‘transwomen’ are not actual women.

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.

Now focusing in on lesbians and an interesting repurposing of the word ‘simplification’ in a clumsy attempt to position the SC listening to actual lesbians who are solely attracted to other women as a bad thing. Also making a false (and homophobic) claim that the majority of lesbians are attracted to men. Also apparently ignoring that the majority of heterosexual women also support lesbians right to be lesbians and exclude men from their relevant groups.

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

So now entirely focusing on what A BAD THING it is that the SC apparently didn’t take into account the views of a tiny minority of women who claim to be lesbian but are actually heterosexual (or raging hypocrites) for representation of lesbian views.

So overall an ‘interesting’ segue from ‘society would be simpler [if women had no rights]’ to ‘we must listen to the male attracted ‘lesbians’.

This is no other mention of the ‘simple’ point in relation to the SC judgement elsewhere in his article as far as I can see.

Feedback anybody? Have I missed anything that would support Tandora’s assertion that he meant exactly the opposite?

Surely the point though is in the example given for simplifying things?
They didn’t say ‘take away men’s right to vote’ or ‘disabled people’s right to vote’ or ‘poor people’s right to vote’, or ‘under-educated people’s right to vote’. They chose women.

Yes! And bring back the Rotten Boroughs and the property qualification for men to vote while you're about it!

I suppose it varies. Some women might be provided for and cared for by a wonderful man, some might enjoy that and some might not
Some might be abused by a horrible man and no one's going to like that. Some men might like being the boss some might resent the pressure to provide and protect.

I don't think there is one answer but as the article says it isn't right.

It’s textbook MRA.

Not to mention the basic hypocrisy that if you wanted to go entirely on 'simplifying' then we could start by stopping indulging and worrying about less than 0.02% of the population who require to make life difficult for everyone else.

That wouldn't be right either, but we can all play at that game.

It's utterly bonkers and a testimony to RWM's dead cat strategy that anyone is even discussing the merits of this "simplification" as a suggestion, even if only to reject it.

Firstly, it was used in the context of an offensive and logically bankrupt attempt to imply that if society sees women (original female meaning) as having the moral right to be socially equal to men, we also have some sort of moral obligation to redefine ourselves as people with a wommanny sort of mind and agree our spaces, rights and physical presence be made available for the identity validation of men who feel they also have a wommanny sort of mind, and that any downsides to us of so doing are simply the justifiable cost of doing the right thing.

I mean, it's just an utterly false analogy. When you write out the actual argument it makes no sense at all. The two things have nothing in common. Society's acceptance of the justifable rights of one group are not a shortcut to society accepting the demands of a totally different and unrelated group demanding totally different and unrelated things for different reasons. It's basically saying because we all accept 2+2=4 we must also accept 3+1=7 because they both have a plus sign😂

Secondly, and the really concerning thing, the only thing that really needs to be said about the whole offsensive analogy, is that RMW has just made it clear and undeniable that he sees men's rights as the default society and women's rights as some sort of optional nice to have.

In any sane society a person demonstrating that view of women should be given no credibility whatsoever in any serious discussion of women's needs, rights and lives.

It's very concerning that them's been allowed to get away with pretending that lesbians almost always support transw to live their lives free of hassle and prejudice means:

Most lesbians want to shag transw.

Trust the Guardian to grovel up sycophantically and not correct they. It's not a grey area, as far as I know, it's an outright untruth.

The most idiotic thing of all in this odd example of something that is supposed to exemplify something that is unfair but make society simpler

is that, whether it's toilets or the right to vote that is the reason that you need to discern consistently who is a man or woman, you still have the same problem.

If it's not simple to determine who is a woman for the purposes of prisons or loos, why would it "simplify society" to say woman also can't vote, or work, or whatever hypothetical policy you think would make things simple-but-not-fair...

you still run into the exact same problem of having to differentiate between men and women.

Robin is fundamentally unable to suggest a way of doing that.

So not only would saying "women can't own property" not be fair, it would still be at least as complicated as saying "women can't go in the men's loos".

Oh I’m all for a bit of simplification. Let’s start with simple biology. Humans can’t change sex.

Still, misogynists gotta misogynise - even when wearing woman’s clothing.

That's the point being made. But the SC hasn't said we can simply ignore transgender people. They are still, rightly, protected from discrimination and should be accommodated where possible.

This is a ridiculously clickbait post.
I had to read the entire thing to find it and while her point is nonsensical (it is not clear how women not voting and not owning property would simplify society) she was trying to make a point

Who was? OP? RMW is a man so I’m not sure which she you are referring to if you don’t mean the OP?

Oh is this dogwhistle thread about a completely straw man non- point still going?

It is illuminating to see who doesn't see the problem with a mindset that sees women's equality as an optional add-on to a default male-only society.

I guess it's like fish having no word for water. So used to women being defined by reference to men that they don't even notice it or ever really think abot what that means.

That post is a chef's kiss example of

1. disingenuous question
2. ensuring that the thing you are complaining about is perpetuated
3. sneering tone instead of solid counter-claim because you can't actually find anything factually wrong
4. misunderstanding of "straw-man' And 5) ultimate agreement with the op that the point is not valid.

Keep it up!

It is a blatant lie. Studies have shown that only a small proportion of lesbians or gay men would consider an opposite sex trans person as part of their dating pool.

Yes, such totally male centric thinking. I am continually fascinated by people that visit threads with a view to stopping people discussing the topic at hand. It doesn’t occur to them that they could just scroll on past - they just want us to stop the conversation as they have run out of arguments (not that there were really any in the first place - hence ‘no debate’).

I am celebrating the fact however that the SC judgement has enabled a greater freedom for us to discuss these issues without being strangled by excessive language restraints that made it very challenging to highlight the actual problems. It means the power of the trans activists is slipping away.

JHound · Today 14:41

I had to read the entire thing to find it and while her point is nonsensical (it is not clear how women not voting and not owning property would simplify society) she was trying to make a point.

She? Her? Are you referring to the person who wrote the risible article, or BungeeCord?

White is not female and it may be best not to assume the sex of posters here.

You...had to read the whole article? To find a quote from the article? That is, generally, how quotes work. You take one statement from a piece of writing that you find interesting and share that quote for discussion.

What point do you think the quoteed statement was trying to make?

@BungeeCord (“what point do you think the article is trying to make)

This is the point being made:

Life isn’t simple
With respect to the Supreme Court, if you try to make it ‘simple,’ it just will not work.

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.

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.

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.

So @Tandora you don’t believe transmen should have maternity and abortion rights? You don’t believe transpeople should be protected under the PC of gender reassignment? You don’t believe homosexuals should be protected from discrimination? Why? What is hateful and bigoted about these judgements?

Eh? That’s got nothing to do with anything I wrote lol.
As wonderful a straw man as the OP.