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

Women are unique in that there is an expectation that our role is to mother everyone.

Maybe not all women, all of the time. But there is a feeling that we should care for and prioritise other people.

Its why we need single sex groups like book groups, or wi. Women can chose books or events without men saying, 'but im not interested in x i want to read y'. Without men, there isnt the pressure to keep the men happy and women dont have to wrestle with all that goes with that.

Men with gender feels have decided that these groups are so crucial that they need to be involved, and their supporters have decided that they are so irrelevant that they shouldnt exist.

The obvious thing would be for TRA to create their own book groups. But thats not the point, while the women are in their women only groups, they arent mothering and prioritising the men.

Edit: it took me so long to write this, i cross posted with others!

The issue is they see that being excluded from a women's group is segregating them from a group for spurious reasons. But racial segregation is spurious. Sex segregation is not.

Its about power and control.

Look at who wants to be the gatekeeper and why.

Females being the gatekeepers to women makes sense.
Males trying to dictate to women who gatekeeps women shows you the nature of the problem

Being inclusive is a weasel word in this context.

Reflect on what is the objective of that single sex space?
For women its about giving opportunity there otherwise would not be, privacy and dignity reasons on a biological level and safety reasons.

The converse does apply to certain things for men - for example the dignity element kicks in for health care and states of undress for biological reasons. You also have socialisation issues, so for example an all male mental health group has a legitimate aim to enable men socialised to be 'the man of the family' to off load without the responsibility they feel they are supposed to carry. And you have the safety reason element in sport, because males don't really want to compete against others they are likely to cause harm to (this relates to weight, age AND sex).

What is the objective of a women's only knitting club? To enable women to gather and socialise free of males dominating the conversation because of socialisation and allow them to gain social confidence.
What is the aim of a women's climbing club? To enable women to gain confidence in the absence of males, to be free of comments about their physical form or attire and perhaps learn techniques that are particularly helpful for women's strength to weight ratios. And again to encourage them to do a sport that often women will self exclude from due to a fairly macho culture.

If you add a male to either of the above, you end up with women self excluding and you defeat some of the aims and purposes of why women set up those groups in the first place

This doesn't mean there isn't a need for transwomen/transmen to socialise and feel they have their own space where they feel free and that encourages participication. Its just that their needs to enable participation are in conflict with those of women. Instead they actually need trans groups which are dedicated to pursuing aims which are not going to lead to self exclusion elsewhere.

Single sex provision is ironically very often about promoting participation in society as a whole rather than separation from it. And thats the really notable point.

Thats also where single sex old fashion mens clubs can fall apart - if they ultimately aim to exclude women, rather than addressing other issues such as for example male isolation - which as an aim SHOULD definitely be a goal.

Gender replacing sex, loses sight of certain things, as does going 'gender neutral' which often isn't neutral at all as it actually favours men as the default human.

A gendered group is reinforcing sexism because you can't define gender without using sexist reference points to stereotypes. An undefined criteria 'in your head' is unenforcable because its too easy to open abuse.

Racism really poisoned American thinking on this issue. I think also homophobia did. I've seen even on fairly recent Reddit threads, and certainly in 2000s-era articles, women expressing that they're uncomfortable w changing w lesbians. So liberal people wrongly feel it's all the same issue. But it's not. UK women generally don't have the same associations

This I the key: black women don't assault white women in bathrooms normally, nor do black men assault white men..lesbians don't assault hetero women in bathrooms. Nor does either group fetishise women's bathrooms. Comparing lesbians or black women to bio men is racist & homphobic, esp as these bio men are mostly agp fetishists

It’s only OK to have exclusionary policies if the group being included is under represented, or in any way disadvantaged compared to the other group. In the UK that is not likely to be white people or men.

Exactly this.

Racial segregation = the rule is unjust.
Sex segregation = the rule is fine but we want to be the exception to it.

The friend has probably been taught that transwomen are oppressed by ‘cis’ women, which is why she thinks it’s like holding an all-white event.
That’s probably based on circular logic, as in transwomen are oppressed by women because they exclude them from their spaces, which is why transwomen are oppressed.
If she’s also believing that trans is an innate feature of a subset of men that really are born in the wrong body, then she will struggle to understand that it’s not oppression. It always comes back to the ‘what is a man/woman’ question. Does woman include a subset of men with special feelings?

I never understand what TRA are trying to say when they equate sex segregation and race segregation?

Surely, if they believe its the same, and they thought race segregation is wrong, wouldn't they oppose sex segregation, and also gender segregation?

But they want to either be the exception in the segregated space - the only male in the female space, or segregate by gender.

So they do agree with all segregation, they just want to be th ones deciding who goes where?

Surely assessments of oppression evolve.

For instance there is a time limit on the legislation that allows all women short lists. There is an (I think sensible) assumption that this shouldn't be a permanent state of affairs - otherwise what is the point?

However, assuming no massive evolutionary leaps in the next few thousand years, it will remain necessary to separate men and women's sport to enable fair competition.

@Fargo79 “Black people on the other hand may well have reason to fear white people”

No they don’t. That way of thinking is dangerous nonsense.

I will preface this by saying that I think sex and race cannot be directly compared for all the well articulated reasons given by various PPs on this thread so far.

But to answer part of your comment...

I completely reject the idea that if a group of black people felt the need for a black-only space, that would therefore make it fine to have a white-only space. For the same reason I gave in my first comment; white people are not oppressed by black people.

White people as a group have no need to fear black people as a group and no legitimate reason to exclude them. Black people on the other hand may well have reason to fear white people, or may feel that their experience of life has been impacted by racism in such a way that there are situations where their dignity and safety relies upon the exclusion of white people. White people's dignity and safety does not necessitate the exclusion of black people and it's racist to claim otherwise.

Your friend is very racist OP. She is suggesting that black people pose the same danger to white people that men pose to women.

Because you can have any skin colour you like, but your hips don't lie.

And hips, body fat and height have huge implications in sport.

Excluding someone of the basis of skin colour is superficial (and illegal), whereas excluding someone on what's going on anatomical is perfectly rational.

Yes, acts and legislation exist to ameliorate but also accommodate some of the differences and predictable disadvantages betwen individuals and groups - in order to provide as equitable access as reasonably possible.

If the female sex is to achieve and be rewarded for sporting excellence and achievement then as a level a playing field as possible needs to be provided. Sex based provision is the obvious first step, and then in some sports you have weight categories too. But a woman and a man of the same height and weight still have distinct sex based differences which would inherently advantage the male, and may even be dangerous or unsafe for the female.

This is not to say that female excellence is any less important or hard won or earned. The same level of commitment is required for success regardless of ultimate raw score outcome.

One of the Icons of black, Rasta, reggae culture
could have identified as white should he have so wished.

He could never have been mistaken for a female

Wow really interesting points to ponder, thank you.

To respond to just one:
"Does equity or equality mean that nobody must have any natural or inbuilt advantage, and if they do how must that advantage be suppressed? Should we all have the exact same opportunities regardless of our suitability, ability or skill?"

I don't think that would be feasible, desirable or ethical. So where should we draw the line?

For me, it comes back to the group vs the individual again.

If we have identifiable groups with a predictable advantage eg men over women, adults over children, then we separate those groups for sport/competition. An individual child who happens to be really tall (Or a swimmer like Michael Phelps with his super long arms) will have a natural advantage over their peers but it's a one off, a roll of the genetic dice if you will.

There's a kind of socio economic parallel, with utter free for all capitalism at one end and communism on the other. We can have social security to support the least well off without having to completely level the playing field of any advantage.

Yes exactly.

But we make laws according to the population as a whole, not individuals.

An unusually weak man is not a woman. An unusually fast woman is not a man. A really nice and gentle man who wouldn't harm anyone is still a man.

Ditto a trans woman.

I'm sure pp said this (or maybe on another thread) that the existence of a few well paid powerful women (individuals, outliers if you like) doesn't negate that women as a group suffer from issues like the sex pay gap.

That doesn't mean that individual men are to blame, or wish that on us.

Kurt Vonnegut had some ideas about how you could suppress advantage:

learn.k20center.ou.edu/lesson/1440/Harrison-Bergeron-Short-Story-Equally-Unequal.pdf?rev=9051

They can argue that all they like, but they are wrong. Males do have general advanatges over women when it comes to matters of size, strength, speed, grip and so on, and the skeletal differences between males and females reflect nature's intended biological function and the roles that tend to flow on from that function.

Now males may well use some of those advantages in order to gain an advantage over females, but they may also use them in service or protection of females or the group more generally Oppression is only the result if one seeks to exert control or undue influence over the other through recourse to one's own inbuilt advantages - and against the will or preference of the other, and this is done this consistently and with intent.

Is oppression therefore being compelled to do things against one's own will or being stuck in a situation in which one has no control or influence over matters?

Are all natural advantages tools of oppression?

Does equity or equality mean that nobody must have any natural or inbuilt advantage, and if they do how must that advantage be suppressed? Should we all have the exact same opportunities regardless of our suitability, ability or skill?

Personally I don't think we have single sex spaces because female people are oppressed, but because of inherent sex based differences which can render women particularly vulnerable in certain types of situation.Could it be that what you are calling 'oppression' is the same thing as having a certain type of vulnerability, maybe?

1.Is 'oppression' a fixed state of being or it it determined by a particular set of conditions?
2.Is being an 'oppressor' a fixed state of being, or is it also determined on a particular set of conditions?
3 Are you still oppressed, even if you don't think or feel that you are? ( does it operate like false class consciousness)?
4.If you belong to an oppressed group, is there anything you can do about it individually or is it in the very nature of your group to be oppressed?
5.If you belong to an oppressor group, is there anything you can do about it at an individual level, or are you doomed to be culpable simply because you belong to the identified oppressor group.
6.Can you be both an oppressor and oppressed at the same time?
7.Is there a hierarchy of oppression - with some being more oppressed than others, and if so how is this hierarchy determined, and by whom?

Some questions and reflections in order to get the ball rolling.......

The other thing that is omitted from this conversation about it being just like racism, is that if it were just like racism you'd be seeking to abolish sex classification NOT replace it with gender.

The replacing it with gender bollocks shows up that it's disengenious as an argument.

Men and women are DIFFERENT; black people and white people AREN'T.

This is the literal transposition of race into gender. But stating it would probably result in a brain short-circuit and a breakdown in the discussion. Although, the fact that that's the most likely scenario makes a strong case that these kind of discussions are mostly futile.

Yes, at the root of it this is the problem – although if she is still asking questions then there’s hope yet! Quite often people think this because other people say it, and they’ve never really interrogated it for themselves. So in principle she can be won round – indeed that must be true for a lot of the now-terven on here.

The fundamental issue at the very bottom of this is: we can run the world according to objective categories, or we can run the world according to everyone having subjective identities, but we can’t do both. I wouldn’t necessarily try to convince anyone using that dry philosophical point on its own – but if she can grasp it, and there’s even one area like sport where she does accept that it’s legitimate to keep men out, then you’ve won the principle, all you’re doing thereafter is arguing out the details.

If I remember the stats correctly 99% of sex crime is carried out by men and 88% of the victims are women. If a racial comparator should be made, men have the power (white people) over women (black people).

the need for single sex provision is considered to be so important for the protection of women prisoners of war it is listed three times in the Geneva Convention. Does your friend think that countries who abide by the Geneva convention are re-enacting Jim Crow Laws?