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

In the US especially, many colleges have scholarships for black students. White students cannot apply for those scholarships. Why? Well, because we know that throughout history, black people have been oppressed and having separate scholarships offer a chance to redress the balance.

Similarly, women throughout history have been disadvantaged. Before the invention of public toilets, women couldn't even travel freely because biologically we are disadvantaged when evacuating our bladders, not to mention when we have periods or post patrum/menopausal incontinence. Throughout history, women have been disadvantaged in education, in health care, in safety, in sports. This is why the Equality Act came about. So history could be rebalanced and women have the same opportunities.

If the SC ruling continues to be questioned, and women's spaces become available to anyone who states they're a woman, how is that historical imbalance being corrected? The answer is it isn't. Women won't want to go out in enclosed spaces like toilets (as an example) for fear of attack, they won't bother competing in sports if all competitors end up being trans women, they're losing work placements designed to encourage women (like the recent IT apprenticeship scheme where men just called themselves girls and couldn't be denied admission)

Women are fighting to keep on the path of historical rebalance. If all doors are open to anyone stating they're a woman then we're regressing by 100 years, and women are once again being oppressed.

My argument is also, we don't protect children because every adult is a paedophile. We safeguard to limit any harm.
Similarly, we protect women's spaces not because all transwomen or men are predators. We safeguard to limit harm.

Trans people also have rights and deserve protection. This shouldn't come at the expense of trashing an already disadvantaged group. The fight continues for third spaces.

In answer to the OP, if white people took over Black History month and attended lectures and said it was their struggle too, what would happen? If White people compared their police treatment to those of black people, what would happen? If white people could apply for scholarships intended for black students, what would happen? If your making a weak skin colour argument then women are akin to black people, not privileged white/privileged men.

There are so many differences.

Neither men nor women are a "minority group" in a broad societal context, as is usually the case with one or other ethnicity.

Men and women come from and can be found in every family, every region/country, every community and every culture across earth. Often, different racial groups are distinct from one another in terms of one or more of these categorisations. Which is why race can mean a lot more than just race, sometimes.

Race is subjective. Fundamentally, it is a social construct to define, describe, categorise (and in some cases exclude) people who "look similar" as according to arbitrary criteria set by a particular culture/society. For example, indigenous Australians, dark skinned South Indians and people from very different parts of Africa might all be termed "black" if viewed from a white European perspective. Realistically they have nothing particularly in common culturally, historically, genetically or otherwise other than dark skin eg "not whiteness".

Sex on the other hand is an objective biological reality for every single human being who has ever lived, and indeed all mammals.

They are both protected characteristics because they can lead to disadvantage. Not because they are both as biologically real as one another. Biologically speaking, sex is real and race is not.

When it comes to biology - women are smaller, weaker, more easily injured and killed, vulnerable to sexual assault and impregnation, and carry nearly all of the reproductive burden of our species. There are no such biological differences between different races.

When it comes to social disadvantage, within white European culture, black people have and continue to be disadvantaged. The historical (and in many cases current) context that exists, is of white colonialism, slavery and racism. So a black only group would potentially be a way of offsetting that disadvantage within that context, whereas a white only group is more likely to be the direct opposite, unless there is a very specific reason for it to exist. Women have and continue to be disadvantaged. Their historical (and in many instances current) context is also one of oppression, slavery and sexism.

Without women's only groups, women will be further disadvantaged, excluded and in some instances frankly put at risk of harm. But without white only groups, the same cannot be said for white people (I'm adding a disclaimer that there might be some specific context in which a white only group is justified, I just haven't thought of one).

Forgot to even mention that being of male sex is a risk factor for violence and particularly sexual violence in a way which that just doesn't really compare to any other characteristic. Just under 2 women are killed by men every week in the UK.

Do you appreciate that recognising female oppression doesn't mean you don't get on with men, or you think all men are bastards, or you don't trust them or that you are fearful of them?

it's about recognising a general thread running through the fabric of western society. The fact that it affects different people to a greater or lesser degree doesn't mean that it isn't there.

I think you may be mixing up the specific and the general.

Yes, I think women can be sexist too....and burden men with expectations of what they do and don't expect from them.

And some women clearly don't like men, or have a distrust or fear of men...based on past life experiences within their own family, with their father, or with other males.

I don't tend to view things ( as a woman) through a lens of 'oppression' when it comes to men, though.....I tend to see things in terms of difference. I get on with men generally even though I can still recognise sexist double standards and expectations when I come across them; and even though I've been subject to a lifetime of the usual leering, lascivious, offensive behaviour and remarks that most women have been subject to throughout their lives.

I don't walk around being fearful of men, though I do still have an instinctive awareness of the differences that in certain types of situation make me, as a woman, vulnerable when around men. I don't want to get changed in front of men, for example...and I appreciate the dignity and privacy of single sex spaces.

Women obviously don't have the physical size or strength to potentially over-come a man in the way that a man could potentially over-come a woman, and women don't tend to be fetishists or voyeurs in the way that men are more prone to.

Its nothing like the same thing.

Ethnic people are not more likely to be violent than white people.

However, men are far, far, far more likely to be violent to women than other women, especially regarding sexual violence.

Single sex spaces for women are a foundational safeguarding measure for women.

Whites only spaces were not about safeguarding, but were based on racist ideas of white supremecy.

It’s a fantastically stupid false equivalence to compare the two.

Equality legislation works both ways - for instance pensions that have different terms for men and women have been found to be discriminatory.

Hopefully the goal of equality law is that neither women nor men are oppressed.

However, part of that is recognising that women and men are different, so e.g. you can’t achieve parity of opportunity if all sporting competition is mixed sex.

And Kill The Boer, vile as it is, I in South Africa, NOT the US.

Race does not bestow biologic advantage, or disadvantage. Separation on the basis of race is not needed for safety - and has become unlawful.

Being male is biological advantage - in terms of strength, speed. Female are at a disadvantage. Clearly ALL women are not weaker than ALL men - but the majority are. Women's sport would not exist if women competed against men. The top 1% of women would not make the top 5% of mens competition - seen across sports from darts to fishing to tennis ... The only sport that I am aware of where the advantage is lessened out is equestrian - and men and women compete on a level field there.

TRAs are not looking for mixed space/competition. They are looking for THEIR access to female only spaces and sports. They are not looking for equality, they are looking for privilege. When offered mixed sport they are not interested - they want to compete in the female category. This is not fair on biological females. Were females to take testosterone to the levels that these males experience, they would be disqualified for cheating. These males who have all the advantage of male biology from puberty do not want to compete in mixed competition. They want to compete against women.

Sport has all sorts of ways to make competition fair. Many sports have weight categories. Masters sport have age categories. We do not have 40yo competing against 50yo. You cannot argue that you 'feel' 'old' or 'light' and therefore should be in a different category. We recognise that youth has an advantage and it would ruin the older category if a younger athlete could 'identify' into it. And remember- it is not about getting rid of the category - it is that I (ME) should be in the category of MY choosing. Can you imagine the situation of a 40yo on the winners podium with a 61yo on either side in second and third place? - and taking the prize money/scholarships involved.

FYI - in mixed relays TA can only qualify for the male position. So a relay team can only consist of 2 each biological M and F. Therefore competing teams (and the men in them) will never be disadvantaged. But it is OK to disadvantage women who are expected to put being kind, above insisting on being treated fairly.

We are expected to applaud and smile at these cheaters! The very men who want to wear womens clothes and use womens private spaces (lingerie dressing rooms, showers) are the very ones women SHOULD be afraid of. These are flags of aberrant sexual behaviour. These men love boasting - I am never stopped (therefore I 'pass' as a woman). Silence being mistaken for agreement. Meanwhile women have been assaulted and ostracised for objecting to men in their spaces. What are women to do?

It is mainly you doing the fighting anyway. I'm simply disputing or taking issue with some of your points or comments; not having a go at you personally.

Can you give a concrete example of the sort of thing that black people may have reaon to fear from white people - at a population level? And do you make any distinctions for the sex of the white people at a population level; the social status the white people at population level, their role at a population level etc.

What might this fear be predicated upon? What it is they potentially may do?

Haven’t read the full thread, so apologies if being repetitive

but

what is ‘black ‘ ( or even ‘non white’) in this context ? Does my friend who has an African grandmother but the other three were all Scottish Highland ( ginger) count? What about the family next door but one, she is of Chinese heritage though born here , married to a white German , do her children count as white or non white?

Colour and race are flexible , but there are only two sexes, male and female. So the line is much easier to draw.

Yet again you are using quotation marks to attribute fictitious quotes to me. There is a copy and paste function available to you. I said:

"Black people on the other hand may well have reason to fear white people"

May. They may well have reason to fear white white people, in the context of systemic racism at population level.

I would never describe an entire race of people as "fearful", as you falsely claimed and which I challenged you on. This is an important distinction that you are completely failing to grasp.

This is a total derail at any rate, because sex and race cannot be compared. I'm not going to fight your made up straw men any more.

Does she think black people are a threat?

I'd argue that men of any race are more of a threat to women than women of any race. And there are plenty of spaces where men shouldn't be. Anywhere where a woman might be undressing or needing to show their genitals.

Does she think women who've been raped should have to share prison cells with men who are rapists?

Does she want to get naked in front of a load of strange men? If she does then I think you've probably lying lost her by this point.

There are different degrees of friendship, and different reasons for being friends. For example, I have a friend I have known since teenage years, and it would take a lot of disagreement to dislodge that friendship, because we share a lot of history and have supported each other through some worrying times. We definitely don't agree on everything, but where do you draw the boundary between "friendship is OK" and "friendship is not OK"? I can find him incredibly annoying at times, and that feeling may be mutual, but in the other hand he can be great (and I hope he sees me similarly). For me, the boundary is far more to do with actions than with beliefs or theoretical attitudes.

White people and black people are intrinsically the same, so there is no need for white only or black only events in my opinion.

Men and women are fundamentally different and woman are often uncomfortable in certain situations with men present and I assume visa versa.

That is not the case, but it is the case that racism works both ways.

Racism is when someone is prejudged to have negative attributes purely on the basis of their race - which is what you are postulating about white people as a group.

You said that "black people have reason to fear white people". If you are not talking about black people, generally ( en masse) what are you talking about?

By that logic having anything women only (even the 'inclusive' definition) is also discriminatory since it's just as exclusionary to anyone outside the definition. Your friend just approves of one definition so is happy to discriminate based on it but doesn't approve the other so tries to come up with shitty analogies.

But primarily because obviously sex and ethnicity aren't the same so the comparison isn't valid.

I did not say "black people en masse are fearful of white people". Please do not dishonestly attribute fictitious quotes to me. This does not represent my view.

As above, Kill the Boer is a direct result of white on black racism and apartheid. This is not to say that murder is OK, but that Kill the Boer is not proof of systemic black on white racism.

An individual white person may have reason to fear an individual black person within a given interaction, but that does not erase the reality that at population level, there is no black on white systemic racism that makes black people a threat to white people.

Dangerous? Don't be silly. There seems little point in engaging with someone who apparently wants to pretend that racism doesn't exist.

I’m also in the US, sadly we don’t have anything similar to MN over here. My best response to this is that during the civil rights movement black people were campaigning to have the rights of white peoples extended to include them. They were not campaigning to be legally recognized as white people. There are no “Black people are white people” signs. Black people were also not trying to alter their physical appearance to look like white people. It’s a bad comparison all around and, I’m my personal oppinion, rather offensive to black people.

Apartheid doesn't excuse murder - either of black people by white people, white people by black people, or any combination thereof.
We had 'Kill the IDF' at Glastonbury the other day - I think I am up to here with people saying other people should die for crimes they didn't commit, were committed by their ancestors (you know, there is no way we can tell our ancestors not to do X!), or randomly because one lot of entitled people have decided that a minority are the victims and another minority should pay for crimes against them. It's racist, apart from anything else - like incitement.

You cannot possibly say that "white people have no reason to fear black people"? It depends on context and/or situation doesn't it?

Or that "black people en masse are fearful of white people"

Have you never heard, for example, of the incitement to " Kill the Boer" which has resulted in the brutal murders of many white farmers in South Africa......or is this to be discounted because of the history of Apartheid?

'Inclusion' of males into women's only groups are 100% about women being serve humans to the desires of men at the expense of their own needs.

Or to put it another way, including males needs you exclude the needs of females and run the risk of undermining the aims and objectives of a women's only space which is to free women from certain obligations and pressures