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

Most of these points are arguing why we have "women only, no men" rather than "born women, no trans," - which we obviously see as synonymous - but it isn't clear which your friend thinks unnecessary. Does she not see any reason to have women only in general, or is she thinking trans women should be included - they are very different arguments/viewpoints.

If she's arguing for trans women to be included as a parallel to racism, then white people identifying as black are your parallel. It's also racist to suggest that someone's race negates being female as much as being male does.

There's a similar problem that arises whenever trying to argue on the basis of physiological differences between women and TW - you get a lot of 'TW are not all stronger/faster/more aggressive than all women', and idiots like jane fae arguing for an end to sex and gender and for prisons and sports to be organised along other lines like severity of crime and body weight 🙄.

I'm interested in the more detail later, will come back for an update 👍

I have some thoughts about this that I'm struggling to put into words, but something along the lines of: the use of oppressor/oppressed dynamic to describe group dynamics is a bit like examining a population according to norms for, let's say, disease risk. It's helpful when considering the population as a whole, but it can't tell you specifically which person out of the population is going to get cancer, or a stroke, or have a bad reaction to a medication (or specifically which is oppressed).

It's a useful tool although it doesn't capture the whole picture. It describes likelihood rather than specific risk.

In the same way, I think that oppressor/ oppressed dynamics can be useful to look at populations as a whole and to work towards equity. Of course there are exceptions and outliers but when there is a general underlying dynamic at play surely it makes sense to recognise and name it?

I do agree though that these dynamic descriptors can be misused and result in unhelpful general assertions (all men are bastards, all white people are inherently racist, etc).

Women are an oppressed group, at significant disadvantage in society. We need our own groups in order to be able to feel safe, but also to discuss and address the structural disadvantages we face as well as feel comfortable knowing those around us deal with the same issues.

The same may apply to black people, or Asian people etc. White people are not an oppressed group though, so excluding people of colour from a group is based on discrimination.

If your friend’s opposition is based on the view that to group by sex is unfair because it excludes men who identify as women, then you may need to point out that women are oppressed because of and using our biological make up, not our presentation of “gender.” We’re not raped because of our gender. We’re not paid less because of it. We’re not facing poorer medical care (including research) because of gender. It’s all to do with our biology. Gender is not sex. It is a tool of sex based oppression.

I went on a weekend for an adventure sport.

The UK's governing body were holding it, to encourage more women into the sport.

They had found, through research, that a lot of women were put off trying the sport due to men and more generally due to coaching techniques not being suited and sympathetic to women.

The men took a macho attitude to the sport and were much more confident. This in part is due to their bigger size and strength. Stuff like considering equipment differences was also relevant to this.

The weekend rather than being a competitive enviroment with men showing off, was one of collaboration and mutual encouragement with the wide range of ability and skill sets.

The coaching was different. It took into account that women had less strength and needed to focus a lot more on skills and needed longer to become confident in what they were doing. They were less competitive and showing off wasn't a thing at all. There was less pressure to do things outside your comfort zone and instead within your own time frame, rather than someone even well meaningly going "come on, just get on with it" which really can be off putting. Its not at the level of "stop being a wimp/girl" but thats how it can feel at times. No one wanted to be the centre of attention or to be around others looking to be the centre of attention.

A transwoman present would have raised certain issues. Firstly shared accomodation for the weekend - lots of women went by themselves and shared with people they didn't know. Secondly, there would still be issues with male socialisation and attitudes - transition doesn't stop many elements of this. Thirdly there's the physical size and strength issue, which does affect confidence and frankly empathy levels. And lastly there were conversations relating to biology - how periods and menopause were affecting women and their experiences with sport.

The feedback the weekend got was, yes it was really helpful and helped women feel more able to participate WITH the men because it had given them a confidence boost they otherwise would not have had. It also gave the governing body and coaches the opportunity to reflect on how the sport naturally defaults to an enviroment that suits men rather than actually being gender neutral and you do need to treat men and women slightly differently due to physical strength, size and socialisation in order to be a unisex sport.

As a rule, I've always found it a particularly welcoming sport and the men really accepting of women despite all this. Theres a lot less sexism than some other sports. But it also was a huge relief NOT to have men there as it really took off pressure and there was more understanding of how its much more challenging for women in various ways. It centred the needs of women rather than the loudness of men.

Saying this shouldn't be allowed, because its on a par with racism really fundamentally is missing the point and tone deaf to how the world works in practice for women and how their life experience and biology impacts on their participation for simply everyday things.

The entire aim of the weekend was to STOP the self exclusion of women from men within the sport. Not to segregate indefinitely by sex. The weekend was a gateway to that. It was about levelling the playing field to increase equality. If you force women to accept males into that environment, you would immediately have some who would self exclude because they are intimidated or the atmosphere changes or puts some subjects off limits. Indeed it ends up reinforcing exclusion of women from participation.

Transwomen simply do not share in the same socialisation or the same physical limitations. They have other barriers to sport, but these are not going to be solved by going to a women's only event. They need their own unique pathway to solve their own specific problems.

PP have all made excellent points about safety, fairness, and modesty, all of which apply to sex but not to race, as well as legality, which also applies to sex but not skin colour under uk law.

But I would start with the fact that it's a universally accepted public good to sometimes have sex segregation just because that's what we humans sometimes like to do. (Admittedly, men have used it historically to conspire against women, but more equal political participation by women has mitigated this somewhat. )

Presumably your friend is happy with single-sex schools, clubs, youth organisations etc. It's the refusal to allow TW to make themselves an exception to the general rule that offends her.

I'm afraid your real problem is that she thinks TWAW. I don't know how to change someone's mind about that.

Does your friend belong to any groups? I’d start there…

Does your friend understand that All Lives Matter is offensive to the Black Lives Matter movement - that the BLM movement arose because it looked like blacks lives matter less? It's okay for black people to fight for equity in an area they identify needs them to, without having to include every other person.

She is essentially saying the All Lives Matter equivalent to Women's rights.

My argument, which i'll outline in greater detail later is a critique of Marxist models of society - which always tend to view situations in terms of power dynamics between different groups, rather than as human society's attempt to civilise and regulate human nature and basic human drives.

If you look purely through a lens of oppression you will find oppression within the black 'community' too - because human nature is universal. Women can be 'oppressive' too. Anyone can be oppressive. Anyone can be oppressed. Just being female does not make you automatically oppressed. Oppressed is a lens with which to view society, but not the only lens.

Male and female ( Sex) are fundamental categories of life in earth - each with their own inherent nature and programming...which human society at best tries to civilise or organise through rules and regulations. Civilisation is the process whereby we attempt to temper human nature to allow people with conflicting views and interests to co-exist with minimum conflict.

Human enslavement, as an example, has happend throughout history ( and still goes on) and there is not a civiisation which has not engaged with it on some level. It is not an inherent characteristic of any one particular group. Just being of a particular group does not automatically make you a victcim.

Oppression doesn't have to be universal to be wide-reaching. The fact that there were a small number of wealthy free black people even hundreds of years ago does not negate that black people have been generally oppressed. The fact that a few powerful and dominant women have existed does not negate that women have been generally oppressed. Actions to redress historical imbalances are a proportionate means towards equality even if their reach sometimes benefits someone who is relatively privileged despite being in the category that is historically disadvantaged, and have a generally beneficial effect even if their necessarily precise criteria do exclude some people who are relatively underprivileged due to them not having the specific disadvantage required by those criteria.

They aren't necessarily forcing trans men out though.

We have seen this in sport, for example, in the NCAA swimming. Both Lia Thomas, who is male but identifies as female, and Iszac Henig, who is female but identifies as male, competed in the same women's categories.

Those two people share neither a sex nor a gender identity, so on what basis were they competing in the same category?

It effectively made the women's category a catch-all for anyone who either isn't a man or is a man but for whatever reason wants to be referred to as a woman. OK it's not quite as easy as that because Lia Thomas took cross sex hormones. So you would have to be quite dedicated to make that crossover from the male to the female category, you couldn't just do it on a self ID basis. But it shouldn't have been allowed on any basis. Women aren't just mediocre men.

If a group is sex-based, trans people are NOT excluded.
That's a false narrative being peddled by the permanently offended.
Since their sex is female, transmen would be welcome at any women-only event.

The issue isn't excluding transpeople at all, that's just sleight of hand by the oppressors (males). The issue is which transpeople are included in our inclusive society with sex-based protections.

By demanding that TW are included, those demanding this are erasing, othering, and forcing out transmen who are biologically women, who share the correct characteristic and are welcome in women's spaces. The TRAs are the problem, because they're not even agitating for trans rights, they're solely agitating for transwomen's (men's) rights, at the exclusion of transmen (women) which is not really on.

Would your friend understand better if you explained it this way OP?

I'll come back to you later on this. I've got a busy morning.

With regard to sport, I think a good way of putting it is to point out that nobody complains that the Paralympics exclude able bodied people. That is literally the point of the Paralympics; to exclude able bodied people so that disabled people have a chance to shine.

Women's sports exist for the same reason that the Paralympics exists. To give a group of people the opportunity to excel in sport which they otherwise would not get if forced to compete against people who have a considerable natural physical advantage over them.

Complaining about trans women being excluded from women's sport is like complaining about able bodied athletes being excluded from the Paralympics.

Can you elaborate further?

'Oppression' arguments don't hold up and are neither universal nor logically consistent.

'Sex' is one of the fundamental organisational characteristics of life on earth. It runs across all species.

'Race' is more a point of differentiation within a category rather than a fundamental organisational principle.

The consequences of' Sex' are far more fundamental than those of 'Race' which tend to be more social and cultural in origin, rather than primal.

Also the safety argument isn't valid because there is no evidence to show that black people commit most crimes against white people, whereas there is ample evidence to show that male people commit most crimes against female people.

Women need women only spaces to give us some respite from members of the male sex who have historically oppressed us, and continue to oppress us. White people aren't oppressed.

White only spaces (e.g. in segregationist era USA or apartheid era South Africa) exist in order to oppress people of colour who are excluded from them.

Female only spaces do not exist in order to oppress men. They exist to protect women from men.

Hope this helps.

There will always be physical and biological differences between males and females. It is not something that can be legislated out of existence.

Altho I loathe the oppressor/oppressed trope since it is possible for an oppressed group also to be oppressors.
Notwithstanding that, a woman only group (so all/any biological women) is akin to a meeting that is blacks only - the oppressor group is excluded even if they wear a black face or a dress.

In 2,000 years perhaps there is no more patriarchy or male violence against women, and racism is a distant memory.

You are still going to need single sex sporting events to ensure that women win medals, and women will still rely on services that men don’t to deal with menstruation, pregnancy, menopause, and sex specific health conditions.

I'm not sure i totally agree about the point around black and white only spaces at all, though.

We have both separate male and female facilties to ensure the dignity and privacy of both sexes. And to provide a level playing field in sport.

If you have black only spaces then there should be no issue with the equivalent white only spaces, surely?

'Sex' and 'Race' are different issues to my mind - even if there are or have been some elements of over-lap. 'Sex' is of more consequnece by its very nature.

Yes, critical thinking skills have all but disappeared in the land of faith based ideological dogmas around identity.

'Whites only' events are indicative of a society in which people with black or brown skins are seen as inferior and with fewer, if any, rights.

'Female only' spaces exist to give protection to female privacy and dignity in situations of undress or in which the body and/or its biological function are centred.