Not sure how to concisely explain how female only events aren't similar to like, white only events

Your friend is American, so the EA2010 does not apply. However, in UK, protection against discrimination on the basis of sex is explicitly disapplied when it's "a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate end". Or words to that effect. The law recognises that there are legitimate situations where women and men need single sex spaces and services. I'm fairly sure this doesn't apply to the characteristic of race and ethnicity. I guess that if it did apply, and there was a legitimate reason for single race groups, then it would be OK to have whites only and blacks only groups and services. But for the life of me I can't think of one. That's as concise and succinct as I can get.

Can you gives some examples within the different contexts of which you speak.

Oh, I can't answer that. But of course it depends on where you are. If you are in a majority black country the scenario would be different from say living in the US.

I didn't understand your point about "population level" fears..so I was seeking some examples to provide some clarification, and allow me to understand what this might look life in real life. ( as these relate to the sorts of things that black people may fear about white people at a population level)

I am not sure I understand what you are asking.

Cheers for taking the time to elaborate, I appreciate it. Your comments always make me think.

I'm not really in the mood for a lengthy exposition right now...but I did suggest, in my previous post, that at root we instinctively know, as females, that males are bigger and stronger and can physcally over-power us. The male sex drive is differently configured. And we instinctively know that it is females who become pregnant. This creates a certain level of vulnerability.... which makes women's 'situation' dependent on the prevailing social conditions and culture. These are the reasons, I think, we have single sex spaces, categories and facilities. Because they accommodate and give protection to certain female vulnerabilities.

My comments about liking/not liking men were just my own personal expression of my general realtionship to men...not a comment on other women (some of whom may perceive things in terms of oppression) and their relationship to men.

I'm not at all sure how helpful or productive viewing things through the lens of oppressor/ oppressed really is. Certainly not in our culture in which we have most likely evened out/legislated as much as is ever going to be practicable/possible. Beyond generalised legal 'equality' this I mainly see things in terms of differences.

Fucks sake, oppression not opossum!!

@Shortshriftandlethal I've really been interested to read your other thoughts so am genuinely interested. If the comment sounded snippy, it wasn't meant to

I don't see male/ female relationships primarily through the lens of oppression either.

But I though we were discussing the need for women only spaces and whether oppression was a relevant factor to consider?

I wondered whether you appreciated that opossum could be quite subtle, that it didn't need to be an overt sense of not liking or getting on with men (I'm not sure that is oppression in any case). You seemed to be saying that because it's not necessarily a massive, obvious factor that is not useful to consider (in conjunction with other factors), and i disagree.

I'm not mixing up anything, thanks! I'm explaining that I don't see male/female relationships primarily in terms of 'oppression'. I don't perceive my femaleness as being inherently prone to 'oppression' either. Oppression is a partcular type of lens with which to view a situation or a set of conditions, not the only one.

This is what Paul Peace (@ NoCisgender) writes on ‘X’:

”Black people did not demand stuff belonging to whites, as trans men demand women's stuff. Black people sought what should already be shared, and was being withheld, as did gay and lesbian people. Transid people seek what rightfully belongs to ANOTHER social group and for that group's safety, privacy, modesty, and dignity.

Transgender ideology is not a civil rights movement. It's an anti-feminist, anti-woman, and unreasonable men's demands movement. Resistance is reframed as hate to manipulate the public using emotive tactics, and to piggyback black and gay rights, pretending that these are all analogous. This is a particularly cynical, despicable, trivialising, and appropriating act”

There is a significant statistical differernce around the racial distribution of crime in the US.

I don't think anyone would have to say it would need to be exactly the same as sex, or any other, differentiation. If it is valid to say that real increased risk is in itself enough, then people could reasonably make that kind of argument.

I think it's a bit of a red herring in terms of sex based differentiation. Yes, risk is part of it, but I don't think that, or oppression for that matter, are the most fundamental issues.

After all - how many of us would be happy to change with an opposite sex sibling or parent, where there was no worry about risk, and oppression wasn't a relevant point? Most would not be that keen.

There are elements that are unique to sex segregation, as opposed to things like race, and I think they relate to the nature of sex itself, sexual desire which is one of the most powerful drives, and even sexual taboos. Which may be why people find it difficult to talk about these ideas, because they are related to some uncomfortable elements of human sexuality that we don't like to address head on.

There were more than a few rich black people on the continent of Africa, and have always been. Indeed, the richest man to ever live was the ruler of the Mali empire (he had 50k slaves in his train when he visited Europe). You need to be geo-specific if you want to make a point like this, otherwise you get people like me, basically nit-picking, posting.
Certainly, that there have been and are rich black people in the US does not negate the fact that in the US black people are discriminated against as a class. This does not apply to the UK, btw, where a) we have never had black slaves in any number (and those that got into the country made good fists of going to law over it) and not had slaves of any sort at all since c.1150 (slavery being outlawed during the reign of Henry Beauclerc). This is so much the case that when slaves did appear and went to court (or their friends did) the only answer was that slavery did not exist in England and thus no-one could be a slave - we have no laws against slavery, we just do not have slavery (and I know about trafficked people etc.).
As to women, yes indeed, and even powerful women have been oppressed! But the analogy with black people does not work here.

In the UK, white people are not typically underrepresented or disadvantaged, this is why provision for white people is unlikely to be deemed legitimate and proportionate.

There are many instances of females being underrepresented and/or disadvantaged, which is why many single sex services for women are often legal, wanted and needed.

It’s still not equivalent though. Do ethnic minority people commit 97% of violent crimes and are the majority of their victims white? Are white people substantially smaller and weaker than ethnic minority, making them especially vulnerable to ethnic violence? . Are ethnic people enjoy being voyeurs of white people to enjoy feelings of power and control and dominance, especially when white people are in vulnerable situations? Do they do all this because they are ethnic people?

Because these are the equivalence’s you would have to meet, to make the ‘but race is just like sex’ argument OPs friend is trying to make.

Male sexual violence against women is rooted in the biology of men and of women.

Questions about inequality do not exist within the framework of current US politics.

Black lives matter was a Marxist movement. The Democrats got hold of it and turned it into an identity issue that ignored the financial arguments, thus casting aside huge amounts of the entire point. Rather than addressing economic arguments that might affect the lifestyles of better off, educated white Americans it became just about morality and signalling you did the right thing. It meant the difference between pushing for meaningful structural change and being hyper focused on identity and tribalism.

Socialism is regarded with an extraordinary level of suspicion and fear. That's another reason identity politics born in the US really doesn't travel well to Europe.

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/5a74c502ed915d4d83b5ed12/vcs-associations.pdf

Rules for the UK explained. Not allowed rules based on skin colour per se.

I would argue that a group based on skin colour like white doesn't have anything inherently in common i.e. white Russian, white Americans just no non-whites.

It is historically a way to exclude one group of protected characteristics based on a skin colour seen as "inferior" (and also rather vague).

Women's only groups do have something in common that is biological sex. Mens only groups are also permitted, that's fine by me.

I see it as pretty fundamental that groups are allowed to be formed of a particular sex.

What wouldn't be okay would be a group that was women, men, no "transwomen".

Well there are lots of forums for black people only, so we feel safe to speak openly about our experiences, just as there are for women.

We decided to do all we can to make the only two sexes that exist equal. We acknowledged that prior to certain acts being passed women were at a disadvantage. examples:
*Widows did not automatically assume custody of her children, they could be sent into the care of another depending on the Will of their Father.
*Married women's Property Act, It allowed a woman to have her own property and assets.
*The right to Vote or be a member of Parliament.

*It was decided that wages should be equal between men and women
More recently it was necessary to re-state the laws of 20 years ago that the wording of the Equality legislation defined women and men according to their sex which could only be Male or Female and were easily identified at birth. As yet no one has challenged their own classification.

In short OP the answer is: "Because Parliament or the Law Courts have said so.

Well that would be a good question, if it weren't for the fact that much of the American left claims, in other contexts, that that is a racist question.

They seem very strongly believe that correlation is enough to make claims that seem to support their argument. So it seems to me that if you make the argument the other way, it should also be valid.

Personally, I think poverty may account for all of it. Though there are also elements like gang violence, and racially divided control of the drug trade, and that might complicate the picture.

Is it race or poverty?

You are entirely right.

I love the discussion on this thread, thought provoking conversation on the what makes sex as a protected class different from race.

But keep in mind, TRAs are just fine with female only events; it's just that they want to be included as females. In general they reject unisex alternatives.

Do we really want to rest the claim that racial discrimination is not ok because of risk?

There are places in the US where it is very possible to make statistically true generalisations about race and violence, specifically, that violent crime is disproportionately committed by black men.

Now typically it's the case that those most affected by this violence are other black men. But it's also true that other people living in those neighbourhoods are typically affected, including in some places poor white people.

I'm not sure I would be coming to the conclusion that it's therefore ok to exclude blacks, or even just black men, in order to increase people's feelings of safety.

I don't think the oppression argument holds up either.

Aside from that fact that I think it is dangerous and just leads to new power hierarchies, we also allow men's only groups, washrooms, and so on.

Not because of danger for women, or because of oppression, but because men deserve privacy and dignity, and also have things things in common that mean they may have common interests with other men.

Race and sex are just differernt. The UK doesn't think it is ok to discriminate or segregate around race, but with sex it can be fine in some situations, though not in others.