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.

Because sex isn’t just about biology. Yes biology is important - we should acknowledge biology (but not in a simple “at birth way” - in the reality of all its diverse complexities) but it doesn’t define who women are- this is actually a really problematic and harmful idea. the second sex - one of the foundational works of feminism - provides a really great exploration of this

Anyway as above. Cleaning bathroom it is!

This is the law that the SC judgment defined. That you're very uncomfortable with hearing the realities of it, I have some sympathy for, but reality cannot be imagined away or walked away from. What did you think it was that women here were so concerned about?

Did you mean to name two gender stereotypes society attributes to female people?

A free open ended version of 'sex' would be nice in theory, I can see your point here and why you see it this way, but how would you retain legal protections for those three groups of women, homosexual people and women with trans identities if you had this free and nebulous, progressive definition of sex within law?

The SC went into this in some depth as they considered it, you might find their reasoning interesting as you read the judgment. Their decision was that it was not possible. Not and still retain the protections for those groups.

Therefore to achieve this different meaning of sex in law would certainly benefit this group of men that White speaks for, but would necessarily have to mean removing the protections from those other three groups. If this goes to the EHRC White is going to have to justify the destruction of those protections from those other groups in law.

Ooh yes Simone de Beauvoir. Didn’t she also advocate for the removal of the age of consent as she and her group of contemporaries believed children could make their own decisions at any age? So again, which definition of sex should we use that will protect all groups?

Well it’s what I am in fact doing right now, but also yes. These are the issues feminists should be focused on- not their beliefs and prejudices about trans people and how wrong they are for being trans

You know what? No, life would not be simpler for the poor little men who end up having to do everything by themselves. They will be as miserable as ever and end up hating women even more for being utterly dependent on them - those same women they mercilessly imprison.
Taking women's rights away is only a downward spiral for all of humanity. Instead of endlessly whining about women, the so-called 'manosphere' (vomit emoji) should just grow the fuck up.

Actually, They didn’t say it wasn’t possible per se, they said it wasn’t possible in the context of the wording of the current statute and invited parliament to rectify that as they are perfectly able to do.

Feminists should be focussed in cleaning and looking after babies? Righty ho. I’m obviously not a feminist then so I’ll just concentrate on fighting for women’s rights 😂😂😂😂😂😂

So go on, you obviously know a way to define se which will give TW access to women’s spaces and protect all vulnerable groups so do please share.

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.

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.

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".

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

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.

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?

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.

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".

Exactly @Supima

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.

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

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.

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.

“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?

Exactly,

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