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.

@tandora. How so? How is saying a woman is a female who can do or be anything sexist? Surely saying a woman is a male or female who presents using outdated gender stereotypes is more sexist as it’s saying you can only be a woman if you follow certain rules?

OK, cool, so we've gotten somewhere.
You would say it's sexist that 'A woman is a female with any personality'.

And it's also sexist to say that a woman is male/female with a specific type of personality.

So what is a fair and non-sexist description of a woman? How do we know what one is?

There isn’t just one way to be a ‘man’ or a ‘woman’ because both are deeply complex social constructs. Beauvoir wrote a huge book on how women are ‘made’ (not born. Women =/ birth sex is one of the foundational principles of feminism). Of course biology plays a fundamental role but it is not destiny. Biology is also profoundly complex.

woman = birth sex is a simplism and a sexist , oppressive, hierarchical , violent one. (Just like the idea of depriving women of property/ voting rights- the subject of this thread.)

So @tandora, if woman does not equal birth sex, and I do really really think you’re misinterpreting DeBouvoir, than what is a woman? If you can’t define woman, how does a TW know they are one? Without using gendered stereotypes, how would a TW know they were a woman?

There isn’t just one way to be a ‘man’ or a ‘woman’ because both are deeply complex social constructs.

@tandora You've confused 'there is at least one thing that differentiates man/woman' with 'there is only one way to be a man/woman'.

No-one is saying there is one way to be a man or a woman, we all agree on that.

It appears that you think (sorry if I'm wrong - please correct me) that a man is a male/female with any personality. And a woman is a male/female with any personality - is that right?

Sorry to bang on but I really don't understand what it is when you use the word 'woman' as different from 'man'.

So this is a question about what it is to be trans and how we understand transness.

Of course biology plays a fundamental role but it is not destiny.

Again - no-one is saying this. This is the OPPOSITE of the gender-critical position, that women are female - and there are no other requirements.

If you think there are other requirements, what are they? Can you put your finger on even one?

De Bouvoir was saying women are made through being born female, their experiences during girlhood and womanhood, not that they could be surgically constructed. How come it’s only lately that society can’t define a woman? I mean, all throughout history women have been oppressed because of their sex.

No it’s also le question. Can you define woman to include every woman and TW bur exclude every man, TM and non binary person without using sexist stereotypes.

More curiosity and fewer assumptions (and negative judgements) about this is what is desperately needed.

So go on, explain transness to us. Can you explain why a male who has no notion of what is is to be a woman can claim to be one? I understand why a lot of girls and young women are opting out if womanhood, but they have no idea of what it is to be a man.

I guess it would be simpler for second rate men as there would be less competition and less difficult things to think about

Tandora, I'm trying to understand your position of what it is that you mean when you say 'woman' but you can't seem to articulate it.

As far as I can follow, it appears that you think (sorry if I'm wrong - please correct me) that a man is a male/female with any personality. And a woman is a male/female with any personality - is that right?

I'm curious and trying not to make any assumptions. If you could be courteous enough to be likewise to me we might get somewhere. I'm asking the questions to which your answers would help me understand where you're coming from.

Am going to go against the grain and say that life was a lot less complicated when you had one working parent and one at home with children.
I doubt that is what he meant, let’s face it RMW is no supporter of women who probably spends most of his life in Malaga, but sometimes, as I hold down a full time job, carry the mental load of children (even if my husband absolutely does 50% of everything and all he cooking), I do wonder if life wouldn’t be simpler if my husband was the sole breadwinner and I was at home with the children. I’m saying all of that, we could easily afford that scenario and we did it for a few years when I took tome out post children; I couldn’t wait to hightail it back to work. But I do think, in the main, that a working mum has a lot more on her shoulders than a working dad, even a supportive one.the freedom and independence of earning one’s own money can’t be underestimated. (Think I’ve just shat all over my own theory). 😁

Oh I’m sure not all trans people talk such uttter shite

Life is less complicated for men when women, children and disabled people can be shut away and not heard.

Poor old de Beauvoir, doomed to be misappropriated and misunderstood for all eternity. She knew perfectly well that there are two sexes -male and female - and that girls and women are discriminated against because of their sex. She knew that women are adult human females. By ‘made’ she means that girls are moulded from infancy into the feminine ideals of their time, not that they weren’t actually female to start with.

what EXACTLY is sexist about saying a woman is an adult human female with any personality, interests, sexual orientation, race, beliefs or achievements?

(Yes supima I'm ignoring that, as I'm interested in what that poster thinks herself rather than just repeating what someone else has said... it's interesting how different the tone is when it's a soundbite vs someone's actually coming up with their own words).

Again, you are completely misinterpretating what de Beauvoir said. Her reasoning how someone becomes a woman is about the gendered expectations based on a womans sex. The solution is to stop with the gendered expectations and build a society that supports a womans freedom to discover her self taking into account that her sex is different to a mans.

Btw, de Beauvoir is also very involved in identity and self, too much and also doesn't work for women as shown by third wave feminism. Imo second wave, that focused on race, reproductive rights and equal pay needs to come back.

Yes, I’m agog to hear what is sexist about it.

Just noticed that Tandora thinks that feminism is based on thinking there’s no such thing as women - which is quite the eye-popper!

Laws are written to make complex situations clear. In this situation that it is legal to exclude all males, be they men, transwomen, with or withour a GRC, if a space, sport or facility are women only as women is based on biological sex. Simple, maybe not with passing, not passing, pasports that say F for a male person. But clear, yes. With the expectation that people adhere to the law and any lawbreakers can be removed when they are discovered.

For @Tandora, how would you change the law to achieve what Robin wants and what most women want? It doesn't have to be simple, but it has to be clear and any lawbreakers need to be dealt with

Right, well it's a Bank Holiday and no doubt we all have stuff to do and this thread will move on. I am still none the wiser as to what Tandora's position actually is, which is a shame as I was hoping to learn a bit, but I've noted this is a common pattern. If you do think of a way of articulating it clearly, tandora, please feel free to come back or even PM me.

Currently I'm satisfied that we disagree on whether it's sexist to say 'a woman is a female with no other requirements' and that you think it's neither body nor personality that makes someone a woman or man.

If nothing else, I really hope that you've acknowledged that "biological essentialism" is completely at odds with 'a woman is a female and this says nothing about what she is like, what she is expected to do, what skills or desires she might have' so that won't be confused with the gender-critical position from now on.

And even if you don't come back I would hope you're intellectually curious enough to try and work this through in your own mind, rather than just pack it away as 'someone was being wrong on the internet; I couldn't explain exactly why we disagreed but it's too complicated to bother unpacking because I have bathrooms to clean and a baby to see to' (that was meant in good humour - we've all been there!)

Currently I'm satisfied that we disagree on whether it's sexist to say 'a woman is a female with no other requirements' and that you think it's neither body nor personality that makes someone a woman or man.

this is correct.

If nothing else, I really hope that you've acknowledged that "biological essentialism" is completely at odds with 'a woman is a female and this says nothing about what she is like, what she is expected to do, what skills or desires she might have'

I disagree.
It is absolutely a form biological essentialism to state that a woman is defined by “birth sex”- even if you say that this says nothing about what she is like otherwise , etc., etc. ultimately this is where gender critical feminism ends up reinforcing the stereotypes and hierarchies it purports to dismantle. Because it fails to interrogate how “birth sex” itself is a social construct- that there is no way to even observe differences in bodies other than through a process of meaning making, and to deny this process is to impose a (simplified) fixed account of that meaning. This is the core of the problem with GC feminism.

And even if you don't come back I would hope you're intellectually curious enough to try and work this through in your own mind, rather than just pack it away as 'someone was being wrong on the internet

Please rest assured that I am nothing if not intellectually curious, and I am genuinely very interested in what people on mumsnet think about trans people and why- although it is very upsetting. I’d much rather think about that than clean the bathroom,