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

She's wrong and you saying my comment makes no sense shows up that you simply have no comprehension about why single sex provision started and why it's the recommended model around the world by so many charities working to improve basic living conditions or in disaster areas.

You don't want to even try to understand why women are demonstrably unsafe in mixed facilities and why so many women (and men) actively WANT privacy and dignity away from the other sex.

You are closed minded.

@UnlockedXCX “My friend keeps insisting that to say 'women only (born women, not trans)' is basically exactly like 'white people only, not black people' and I'm not sure how to explain that one is discriminatory and the other isn't”

I don’t actually think you can explain in the terms you’d like to, because your premise is wrong. The actual truth of it is – it is discriminatory, but this type of discrimination is okay. And then that would open up all the other arguments about physical strength, vulnerabilities, biology, etc

But sadly you’re unlikely to make any headway with your friend (and one of the biggest reasons we’re in this fix) because we’ve collectively brainwashed ourselves into believing that every kind of discrimination is forever and always bad. Hence the trans movement found itself with an unexpected open goal – people literally could no longer explain to themselves why it was okay to follow their own instincts and act according to the most obvious distinction that had served us fine for the entire history of our species.

So personally I’d just say “no, it’s not the same thing, it’s fine to have women’s groups”, and leave it at that. Then the onus is on her to explain why it’s not. Then you can pick at her arguments in the way you find uncomfortable when it’s done to you. You’ll have disabled her best argument (discrimination is bad) and forced her to argue the specifics.

If it’s too late for that, or she’s woke as a matter of principle, then you can use the “it’s not like white-only groups, it’s like black-only groups” line. This works because, when it’s an outcome they like, the woke don’t actually believe in their principle anymore. Your task then becomes explaining why women are the blacks of this situation, and trans are the Rachel Dolezals.

That could work but I don’t like it because I find it dishonest, and because hell lies further down that road—it’s accepting that it’s okay to discriminate against white people, and how exactly do we think that’s going to play out in the long run?—but against someone who already thinks like this, at least she’ll see your point of view.

In areas of endeavour that have typically historically been dominated by men, like chess, or playing pool, or engineering, or politics, women who go to an "open to all" event can often be so outnumbered by men it can be intimidating. Some women are ok in this situation but others will not, and the activities are less accessible to women. Female-only events enable the smaller numbers of women in male-dominated fields to create a situation where they can build up their confidence to be able to compete with the men as equals in the mixed events. A male who grew up with all the privilege of maleness and was never put off from male-dominated activities when young due to their sex, and who later declares a female gender identity has never had such barriers to access and it is dishonest for that person to access the helping hand that is there for people who had that disadvantage.

In sports, the male body has different shaped hips due to not bring evolved for childbirth, and so can run faster, has different reaction mechanisms for muscle twitch responses, and the long-acting effect of testosterone since puberty has an irreversible impact on muscle development that is not negated if testosterone levels are later lowered. The strongest and fastest and most powerful human in pretty much any sport will always be male. Women have no hope of medals or accolades if the competitions are mixed sex, even if the very best women are better than some more average men. In any sport where this is true, any male competing as female is a cheat even if their skill level is average and lower than that of elite women, and this is true even if that male has a feminine gender identity. If any sport is such that the top 1000 most skilled and highest achieving players in the world are close to 50:50 male and female and neither sex has an advantage either physically or due to historical dominance (I can't think of any sport that this is true for, but it's possible) then there is no need for male and female events.

In areas where people are vulnerable due to changing etc, women are more vulnerable than men and the vast majority of predatory individuals are male. If the two sexes are separate this is the simplest and easiest way to massively reduce the abuse that would occur in fully mixed areas. The overwhelming majority of men are not abusive or predatory. The overwhelming majority of transwomen are not abusive or predatory. Excluding them from the female-only area is not a stigma against them. If there is any exception to a female-only rule, the small minority who are abusive and predatory will 100% find ways to qualify for that exception.

Female only has no equivalence to white-only because white-only is all about retaining privilege to the dominant and excluding the disadvantaged. Female-only is not doing this, it is redressing the imbalance and claiming a path to equality by reducing the ways a male person can dominate a female person. Male people with a female gender identity still retain the majority of advantages over women that exist due to their maleness. They may be disadvantaged compared to some other men but that does not mean it is legitimate for them to access opportunities for women, because they are still of the male sex and that is not something that changes when a feminine gender identity is declared or when feminising cosmetic surgery is chosen.

In the U.K., these are the regulations that govern when a service can be single sex:

27(1)A person does not contravene section 29, so far as relating to sex discrimination, by providing a service only to persons of one sex if—
(a)any of the conditions in sub-paragraphs (2) to (7) is satisfied, and
(b)the limited provision is a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim.
(2)The condition is that only persons of that sex have need of the service.
(3)The condition is that—
(a)the service is also provided jointly for persons of both sexes, and
(b)the service would be insufficiently effective were it only to be provided jointly.
(4)The condition is that—
(a)a joint service for persons of both sexes would be less effective, and
(b)the extent to which the service is required by persons of each sex makes it not reasonably practicable to provide separate services.
(5)The condition is that the service is provided at a place which is, or is part of—
(a)a hospital, or
(b)another establishment for persons requiring special care, supervision or attention.
(6)The condition is that—
(a)the service is provided for, or is likely to be used by, two or more persons at the same time, and
(b)the circumstances are such that a person of one sex might reasonably object to the presence of a person of the opposite sex.
(7)The condition is that—
(a)there is likely to be physical contact between a person (A) to whom the service is provided and another person (B), and
(b)B might reasonably object if A were not of the same sex as B.
(8)This paragraph applies to a person exercising a public function in relation to the provision of a service as it applies to the person providing the service.

Is your friend wanting to get rid of women only (even if she is including transwomen in that) groups/spaces? If not, can she explain why she isn’t the same as someone wanting white-only groups? Why doesn’t she consider that discriminating against men, and see it comparable to being racist?

Presumably, she doesn’t agree that all women-only things should be abolished, so whatever her reasoning is for wanting to preserve those, will likely be the same reason a lot of women want to maintain single-sex spaces/groups.

This.

There are lots of groups for people with particular characteristics to enable them a safe space to share with a group of similar experiences.

A white people's group would be strange in a Western country like the UK, because white people are not oppressed or disadvantaged or singled out in the same way as any of these groups ^ on the basis of the characteristic of 'being white'.

They usually wouldn't have a need to seek out other people with that characteristic to share experiences and have a safe space.

I would start with this:

https://boysvswomen.com/#/

Then look up the World Rugby Transgender guidelines for more science. Then visualise what a 10% difference looks like on a 100m race track.

It's not about 'feeling safe' it is about actually being safe. Trans women are biological males, they retain the strength and physical advantages of men.

But most importantly they have at least the same offending patterns as men, there is some evidence they are more likely to attack women than the odd bloke in the street.

Worth pointing out that the UK does not permit associations to select based on skin color. It's one of the explicit exceptions in the the EA. You can, however, have associations based on all types of ethnic heritage.

Sex based associations are legal - the question is whether they should be able to exclude all men or only those without a gender identity. An example, compelling scenario are lesbian spaces that seek to exclude aggressive heterosexual men who identified as lesbians. Why shouldn't lesbians have the right to exclude male sex pests? Why should men have a legal right to access women in an environment where they seek, in particular, to avoid them?

Just in case you were wondering, in the UK single sex associations don't need any justification at all. Both men-only and women-only clubs are lawful without needing a good reason. Men- or women-only services do need a good reason.

Agree with this. I would have no issue with a black only event. Your friend is thick and I doubt you'd be able to explain it to her, so I wouldn't bother. I'd also get new friends.

uh, HAVE not 'gave'

Tell her to imagine she's sharing a house with two or three people who are all bigger, louder and pushier than she is, especially when they get together. Two of them are nice enough, if a bit overwhelming; the third gets drunk and sometimes aggressive. Luckily, she has her own bedroom and a key for it, so she can get away for a bit of peace and quiet without having to leave the house, and has a safe place if Drunk Person starts to get nasty. She isn't "segregating" them, and they aren't "segregating" her; she's just taking refuge for a while, and why shouldn't she? And if the three of them fall out, it's not on her to solve it by letting one or more of them hang out in her bedroom whenever they feel like it. She's entitled to her own space.

@DragonRunor IMO, if there is no good reason for it to be single sex, then it shouldn't be, and all men should be allowed to join

Why do we even need a reason, let alone a "good reason"? Why can't women gave something to ourselves...just because we want to? Why do we need to justify our spaces or our wishes? Why? Why can't we have something for ourselves, just because?

Anyone who wants to have white only spaces and exclude black people would need to explain how black people are different to white people. They can’t do that without resorting to racist lies. Clearly there’s no difference.

Anyone who thinks this argument is akin to women’s only spaces can only logically argue this is they think there also no difference between men (including trans identifying men) and women. They can’t do this without resorting to sexist, misogynistic lies. Clearly there’s a difference and to pretend otherwise, and pretend it’s as valid an argument as race segregation is racist, sexist, misogynistic and completely batshit.

So ask your friend if they genuinely think there’s no difference between men and women, in the tone you would ask someone if they genuinely think the Earth is flat.

Click on the photos to get the full, and clearer, images.

These may help:

It makes perfect sense. HTH

Your OP isn’t entirely clear - If she doesn’t agree with any segregation than she has at least got a somewhat consistent ideology, but I would tell her that women are vulnerable to male violence and oppression and if she isn’t interested in how to liberate and protect women from that she has a pretty brutal value set that you do not share.

But it sound more likely that your friend’s okay with segregation based on gender identity, just not based on sex? (I.e she’s fine with women’s group if the definition of woman is anyone who identifies as a woman).

So if I was inclined to argue with her I would imply say that I don’t share anything in common with trans women that I don’t share with any other non-conforming male and that if we’re going to compare this to the race situation (which is not something black people tend to be happy about) I can’t see any difference between transwomen claiming to be female and Rachel Doziel infiltrating the NAACP.

You could get into the minutia of just how much closer transwomen are to men than women in almost anything statistical, but I don’t think that’s likely to win an argument with a friend who isn’t already pondering those things.

This makes no sense

Your friend is right

I wonder what she would think of white people dressing up as the worst stereotype of a black person then rewriting black history. Demanding black people change their language. Behaving in ways that would bring black people into disrepute or danger?

The issue is that women can have babies. Men can't. This makes women vulnerable.

Black and white people can do exactly the same as each other (if they are the same sex).

Saying it's the same as racism, and comparing transwomen to black women is actually a form of racism because it's always framed in a way that others black women comparing them to men and it's never framed using white women with a comparison to men.

We are not the bigots. She needs a 'are we the baddies' moment.

It's extremely racist. Black people are not inherently more dangerous than white people.
But men ARE inherently more dangerous than women.

THATS the difference