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.

I'm afraid a hole is blown in this immediately by the quote coming from a male person who is using precisely this simplist, sexist, hierarchical and sex based one to identify the group of the population he considers the voting and property rights of. He has no difficulty in identifying them as women, on a binary sexed basis, and clearly not counting himself in that group.

Equally the judgment he is seeking to make go away - for want of a better term if 'overturn' is inaccurate' - is in fact about seeking a sex based right to destroy the protections in law for women, homosexual people and for women with trans identities, because the only people who benefit from additional access to biological women's spaces in this plan are biological men .

He is seeking a benefit that would in fact be a hierarchy of rights where men are legally permitted to oppress and deprive women, homosexual people and women of trans identities equality and rights. This is not an opinion, this is just the hard facts of what the intention of dismantling this judgment seeks to do.

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.

How? What is it you think biological essentialism is?
I'm not saying anyone is "defined by" anything - you keep putting those words into my mouth, and I'm trying to avoid the word "defined" delibeately because it is misinterpreted.

So please could you explain, clearly, why "a woman is female and there are no other requirements or expectations" is the same as "because a person is female they must also be xyz..." ?

Logically they are opposing positions.

So it’s just a coincidence that every single human that ever existed was made with an egg and sperm and came out of a female body? Yet there’s still no way of telling what sex anyone is?

Biological essentialsm: a belief system that suggests certain characteristics, behaviors, or abilities are inherently linked to one’s biology or genetics.

Me: One's biology has nothing to do with one's characteristics, behaviours or abilities.

I'm fascinated that you are insisting these are the same @tandora ?

@Tandora

Taking away the word woman, do you accept that

• two physical sexes do exist (as evidenced that every human has to have one biological parent of each sex - whether or not you consider the word "sex" to be a cultural simplification of sonething complex, ultimately behind all that there is a real, material difference)
• DSDs notwithstanding, the vast majority of humans can be identified at birth as being of one sex or the other and this is a fact that is known to them and their families even if they later chose not to identify as that sex
• that being of the physical sex known as female causes those people in particular to have certain challenges, some due to the sexism of a patriarchal society, some due to the different physical capabilities, some the consequences of the female reproductive role, and some a layering of all three
• that because of this such people are disadvantaged in society relative to the other main type of body
• that for such people to be fully empowered in society we need to recognise those challenges exist and support those people in sex-specific ways

Without asking you to opine either way on whether those people should be called "women" or not, do you accept they exist and have challenges and needs that it is reasonable to talk about and reasonable to want society to recognise?

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

You realise that nothing I've been discussing with you has even mentioned trans people, apart from the definition of transgender that relies on the belief that each sex has a matching gender identity. To me, that edges far closer to biological essentialism than, well, the exact opposite position does.

ultimately this is where gender critical feminism ends up reinforcing the stereotypes and hierarchies it purports to dismantle.

This can only be true if other people cannot separate 'female' from the gender stereotypes. Which is incredibly common.
Gender critical feminism says that the ONLY thing women have in common is their sex. Nothing about what that means about a person.

You're going to have to explain how the fact that someone has a sex automatically means sterotypes are reinforced, because that seems an extremely muddled statement.

I really struggle with Tandora's statement that by wanting biological sex acknowledged in law, healthcare, public facilities, sports etc, this is enforcing gender stereotypes.

I think, and Tandora, please let me know if way off here, that Tandora's concern is that by saying women are slower with regard to sports, or more impacted by menstruation cycles or menopause, or uncomfortable in mixed sex changing rooms or overall more vulnerable, that in Tandora's mind is showing weakness and she is strong so hence she doesn't want this?

Because I don't understand how wanting society to work for both sexes, different but equal, would enforce the stereotypes feminism doesn't want.

The problem is that curiosity is never answered. Straight answers are never given, only negatives.

Despite being very certain that women-only spaces and rights need to exist and that trans women need to be in them, gender ideologists never answer the question of what a man, a woman or the difference between them actually is, nor how this difference leads to the need to separate provisions.

All they do is wait for someone else to suggest definitions then say "No, it's more complicated than that".

It is a subtle hallmark of the ideology but once you see it it's very obvious. You are doing it yourself here.

I believe you have no answer. And that's fine, you can believe in the ineffableness of womanhood if you want.

But you don't get to demand that the rights, provisions, identity, history and even language of female people, who may not be this "ineffable woman" but still nevertheless exist, are taken away and bestowed upon a group you can't even define, let alone explain why they need them and we don't.

Nothing you have said refutes the point at the heart of this thread.

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.

Yes, it’s a simple idea, the simple idea that life would be simpler if women had no rights.

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.

You can say ‘simple’ as much as you like and yes, it is a shit idea. That doesn’t change what his idea is - that life would be simpler if women had no rights.

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.

You’re absolutely right there - it’s all over the place as an ‘article’ as per my previous post on this. None of what you said is ‘fairly obvious’ otherwise that would be clear in the article. It is not. You are coming across as rather desperate now.

It's an interesting thesis: does the 'it's complicated' terminology and approach actually serve no other purpose than to try and cause complication and obfuscation?

And if so, how many people use it quite intentionally to a purposeful political agenda as White is doing, and how many simply use it to block out what they have not fully understood, do not know or understand the consequences of, and to avoid facing the uncomfortable conflicts and realities within it?

Eh? How can you claim that rushing the law to protect women, homosexual people and women with trans identities as ‘transphobic’??

Is your definition of transphobia ‘anything that doesn’t fully satisfy every desire of ‘transwomen’’?

All they do is wait for someone else to suggest definitions then say "No, it's more complicated than that".

And saying "it's neither body nor personality" that makes someone a woman or a man, but something that is literally indefinable.

Someone who truly thought that, would not accept that surgery or hormones had any affect on whether someone is a woman or a man. In fact, taking it to its logical conclusion, it would probably be sexist and/or transphobic for a transitioning person to seek to change anything about oneself other than this indefinable quality. Because belief that womanhood lies in the body is sexist.

As above- because “sex” itself is a social construct- sex is the system of social and scientific knowledge that gives meaning to bodily differences. There is no way to know, recognise, observe sex other than through a process of meaning-making. To deny that process, is to assume a fixed account of it . This is biological essentialism.

Well, quite Potpouree. If it’s impossible to distinguish men from women by their biology or, indeed, any other attributes, how can anyone transition to become a woman? Or indeed know that they aren’t one to start with? I mean I assumed that because I have XX chromosomes, a vagina, vulva, ovaries, fallopian tubes and a womb, have gone through puberty, menstruated, become pregnant and given birth twice, and experienced menopause, I was pretty sure I was an adult human female- a woman. But maybe I was a man all along?

There is no way to know, recognise, observe sex other than through a process of meaning-making.

Can you describe this process in practical terms please? I don't understand.

I mean, that's the same for any other thing, abstract or material, on Earth - sleep, happiness, red, sand, belief, skin - so let's just say that's a given for everything. Once we have done that, for things that exist, we see it exists, would you agree?

To deny that process, is to assume a fixed account of it .

I also don't understand this. Please could you clarify - practical examples would help.

I'm also slightly confused what you mean by 'sexist' @tandora if you don't believe there is such as thing as sex.

That’s not what biological essentialism mean though.

Yes I’m not saying that bodies don’t exist- absolutely they do. And bodies are important. I’m saying that there is know way to observe, know, recognise bodies other than through a process of meaning making. We cannot assume a fixed account of how that meaning is made. For example, we assume that being born with a vagina/ xx chromosomes etc , will cause a person to know, understand, recognise “self” as female. For most people this is the case. For a minority of people this isn’t (ie trans people). Some trans people seek transition- not because they think having female body parts is what makes a person female, but because it can be profoundly painful, difficult and disorienting to live in a situation where their very selfhood is not understood and recognised. The paradox in which trans people live can be seen in anti-trans sentiment in which trans people are simultaneously accused of performing sex stereotypes if they try to “pass” and judged, ridiculed, subject to so much anger if they don’t try to “pass”. Eg people on mumsnet posting pictures of trans women with beards , penises etc

For example, we assume that being born with a vagina/ xx chromosomes etc , will cause a person to know, understand, recognise “self” as female. For most people this is the case. For a minority of people this isn’t (ie trans people).

Ah, that's where the confusion has arisen. No, again, no-one is saying that is what 'being male' or 'being female' means.

We are saying that they will biologically be female, regardless of understanding or recognising. Their bodies. That is what is meant when I use the word 'sex', regardless of anyone's reactions, assumptions, beliefs around that sex. A person born with no concept of themselves or their bodies would still have a sexed body.

Again, I'm trying to get away from 'trans' people because you seem distracted by that. I'm talking about the sex everyone has.

(Trans people are, according to Stonewall, "people whose gender is not the same as, or does not sit comfortably with, the sex they were assigned at birth."
So to acknowledge that trans people exist, you need to acknowledge that you have a sex, and then believe that that sex 'is the same as' or 'sits comfortably with' various genders.)

So - back to your explanation. When we say that people have a body that is of one sex or the other, (and GC people say that that says nothing about them as a person) how does it logically follow that stereotypes are reinforced? What are the steps here?

We are saying that they will biologically be female, regardless of understanding or recognising.
Exaclty. And here is the biological essentialism. You are assuming your meaning, your account of “female”, and declaring it to be self evident. It isn’t.

That is not what "biological essentialism" means. But I'll put terminology aside and deal with your basic point.

There are observed physical facts that underly our concept of "sex", not the least of which being that it is an unmodifiable fact that one type of body gets pregnant and one type does not, and moving cultural classification around and even having no name for the difference at all will not change one iota which group an individual falls into.

However, as you say, how we think about those facts of "sex" and the significance and meaning we ascribe to them are socially constructed. We can observe or imagine societies that place less significance on sex, or draw lines on secondary characteristics in different ways, eg societies which subdivide males into Men and AnotherType of some sort. They don't turn male people into female in the biological sense but they do create different social meanings within that biological binary.

But all that notwithstanding, in this society we did construct the meaning of sex in this way, and that has material consequences for both sexes but for women, who bore the brunt of patriarchy and still live under its social structures and expectations, particularly.

So I reject utterly the idea that because the meaning and significance of sex is in part socially constructed, it is an irrelevance that can be ignored or undefined. It is as offsensive to me as a female person as it would be to tell someone with lived experience of racism that because race is culturally constructed their race is not relevant to their needs and experiences.

Women, in the original sex-based meaning, will continue to exist in a meaningful social and cultural sense for as long as they are identified as such in ways that have consequences.

And as long as that exists we have a moral right to say we are not the same as trans women, we are not two subsets of "women" with much in common and little to separate us, we are fully realised humans in our own right dealing with the consequences both nature and society have constructed around our bodies and we need our own name, our own spaces, our own political movement and our own voice to manage those consequences.

I get it. You think if society stops constructing meaning on sex differences wonen would be free of sexism. You think women only get treated badly because society keeps reinforcing that bodies matter. Hey, in the long term, and assuming appropriate mitigation of the asymmetric consequences reproduction, you are probably right. Women's spaces protect women in the short term but also maintain the idea of women's privacy as erotic and exciting for men. Catch 22.

But you remind me of the type of "progressive" who wants to free veiled women but is too scared of challenging men so brings in laws that veils can't be worn. He thinks he is freeing the women but all he is doing is controlling them a different way, forcing them to act out his idea of a better world from a place of vulnerability and expecting that somehow changes the behaviour of the people with the actual power. Why on earth would anyone think that would work?

Forcing women to pretend our body sex is not significant and has no consequences in a society where it clearly clearly does isn't Feminism, it's gaslighting and its just opening the door for men to further abuse, exploit and marginlise us.

No, that's incorrect.
Biological essentialism is where you acknowledge that someone has a sex, then extrapolate from that assumptions about their personality, etc, as stated earlier in the thread:

Biological essentialsm: a belief system that suggests certain characteristics, behaviors, or abilities are inherently linked to one’s biology or genetics.

Me: One's biology has nothing to do with one's characteristics, behaviours or abilities.

But they will be female. That’s just a fact. My dog is male. He has a cock and balls. If I wanted him sterilised, he would need to be castrated. My cat is female. She’s been neutered otherwise she would have had many litters of kittens. I doubt either of them have much ‘sense of self’ but they are still male and female.

What other account of female is there then? And for what purpose would your account exist?

My and others definition works around the principle that bodies are developed around the capability to be pregnant or to impregnate. Regardless if someone ever uses that capability or if it works. Because the way the body develops has significant consequences, not just societal. Did you know most medication is not tested on women and if it is, it is tested on menopausal women because female hormonal cycle means the results can vary and the pharamceutical companies don't like it. I want it to be mandatory to do research on 50-50 for example (and no, transwomen are not part of the group for women). That is fighting for women to be seen and heard.