Debates that affect their lives and which they feel strongly about as they have lived experience of being women and facing the problems most of us face. You do not therefore you are wading into something you don't understand. It's very arrogant.
Well, they do concern me, because I am a gendered person in a patriarchal culture too. I haven't waded into any debates directly concerning women's experience of oppression, incidentally. I wouldn't do that - and if I have done so obliviously, then please let me know. That would be wrong.
The only ones I've really have had anything to do with are those concerning how gender is assigned and constructed in our society - not just the female gender but the male too, and how that creates quandaries. That really interests me.
I've got no intention of getting up anyone's nose, or traducing feminism per se. There are lots of feminist causes I support - particularly those surrounding the sex industry, which I think is wholly iniquitous, and doing huge damage to women and our sexual culture more widely. If women are discussing their negative experiences of such things, then that's totally none of my business as a man.
However, I do have issues with some of the theory underpinning third wave feminism. I find it to be (sometimes - mega emphasis) incoherent, closed minded, and complicit in reinforcing the very divisions it critiques. It seems that some (mega emphasis) feminists are caught between two contradictory positions. On the one hand they can't let go of an idea of femininity, or famine difference, connoting women to be nobler and more caring than men. People have even suggested on here that a matriarchy would be a more morally advanced society than a patriarchy. Yet at the same time they trounce these tropes as essentialist and patriarchal. And all of these contradictory positions are often couched within an oppressor/oppressed dialectic that fails to accommodate the fact that power is dynamic - not statically binary. In particular, some (mega emphasis) third wave feminists have a habit of failing to integrate social class (or indeed structural economics as a whole) into their analysis, instead focusing disproportionately on issues of language and identity.
I don't know - I think there are HUGE tensions between men and women at the moment, and it only seems to be getting worse. And the way some of the debates around gender are framed is not often very constructive - or conducive to a more wide-ranging, nuanced and inclusive discussion.
I get the whole female spaces thing, but if we are to move beyond a gendered culture that is creating enormous misery for both men and women, then that debate will have to involve men at some level. After all, ion men are part of the problem then they cannot be unconditionally excluded from the debate that aims at a solution. Of course that doesn't mean anyone should have any place weighing into debates around serious issues which only concern women, or that any form of misogynist abuse should be tolerated. Obviously.