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.

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

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

I'm sorry to laugh Tandora but your assertion about being allowed to discuss and debate is quite funny given that #nodebate was a slogan popularly associated with this issue for a long time.

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?

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’.

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

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?

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.

@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?

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.

@Greekrolls yes. My first though when I read that was wtf, why? Like how would someone even come up with that as the best example for something morally wrong that might simplify society.

I do get what you are saying. This conversation is complicated. I’ve tried having it on mumsnet before- it doesn’t go well.

Got it, it's complicated.

So to you, would you say both of those views are equally sexist (or not sexist)? Do you see any issues with either of them?

So what are the benefits to women of gender ideology were to take priority over sex based law. I mean, women would lose their sex based rights, homosexuals would lose their protections, transmen would lose all abortion and maternity rights, so which group would benefit?

And you still failed to answer the question potpourree asked.

Why do the questions and conversations suddenly become “complicated” when the answer is obvious, but would show the sexism and misogyny of gender ideology? Surely it’s an easy answer. Either a woman is an adult female however she presents, or a woman is anyone who claims they are one, even though there is no definition?

Both statements are simplifications of the issue. I don’t agree with either.

I said it’s complicated- because it is. This isn’t to say I’m not willing to engage, it’s to acknowledge how long and complex this conversation is and it’s not one to be had through shouting at each other in soundbites on social media.

I simply wanted to acknowledge your points- I agree with many of your sentiments- the points where we disagree are complex. I wanted to acknowledge this to acknowledge that there are points of consensus to be had- that’s important, given how acerbic and polarised this conversation has become.

Yes it’s quite a simple question (as we are discussing simplicity). Which is more sexist, to say ‘women are adult human females with any personality or interests’? Or, ‘women are people of either sex who like and do stereotypically feminine things’?

I'm not being arsey, it is hard to realise that 'biological essentialism' is the total opposite of 'women are people who are female, regardless of what they're like as a person' because it's been repeated over and over that these are actually the same thing.

It's the gender ideology that thinks there is something prescriptive about one sex or gender - even the DEFINITION of 'transgender' literally relies on accepting that each sex has corresponding matching or aligning gender identities- i.e. what someone is like, or how feminine/masculine they would class themselves as (as far as I can tell!)

If you think that you can be male, or female, and have ANY personality, character traits, skillset, desires, preferences, level of societally defined femininity/masculinity and that has NO EFFECT ON YOUR SEX whatsoever, then that's the opposite of biological essentialism.

Would you agree tandora?

Both statements are simplifications of the issue. I don’t agree with either.

I'm not trying to summarise any issue. In and of itself, regardless of anything else, do you not see that one of those mindsets is sexist?

and now I'm really curious. If it's not someone's body or their personality that makes them a man or woman, what are you saying it is? I truly honestly can't grasp your position here.

Probably because your style is so antagonistic and you seem too busy trying to score points to be able to intellectually engage with anything being said to you.

I fear this refusal to address this straightforward question means we might be getting into the realm of gendered souls here. The kind that can be seen by looking into someone’s eyes.

Ooh no! I thought it was an “essence” @Supima ! I’ve been feverishly searching for this magic formula. Even boots doesn’t stock it!

But the use of women's rights to illustrate that point is deliberate and reinforces an 'us-and-them' stance, which is startlingly incongruent if the author identifies as a woman.

Of course, in that scenario, which is a real one in the world today, not a hypothetical one, things are much more complicated and difficult for the majority, women and children; things are only simpler for men – only for the men who are misogynists, who want a patriarchal system – so the implication, or logical conclusion, even, of the statement is that the author must be one of these.

They are both sexist.