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

Your friend is a racist idiot. I couldn’t be friends with someone like that. Why are you? 🧐

Skin colour is literally skin deep.

On the other hand men and women have different internal organs and skeletal structure.

If your friend conflates the two, it suggests they are at best hard of thinking and at worst racist.

Hmm, hypothetically an interesting question. My response would be on a logical level there is little difference it is true. However, the idea is that one should never discriminate unless it is a reasonable means to a legitimate goal. I can think of plenty of situations where limiting participation to women only could meet that benchmark but I can’t think of any where limiting participation to only white people would.

Yes - I didn't pay enough attention to the OP's nationality.

But - at least one national legislature (ours) drew a bright line distinction between separating people by colour, and separating people by sex. It may not be her legislature, but this fact helps to illuminate why sex is not the same as colour.

Incidentally - in the UK's EA2010 race is defined as including "colour, nationality and ethnic origins". it is permitted in the UK to have single nationality associations, as well as single ethinc-origin associations. Single colour associations are forbidden.

Again, while this is not directly relevant to the US, that a distinction between colour and other characteristics is drawn here should make anyone who says they're the same pause for thought.

TRA usually want to have gender, not sex groups.

They dont equate single gender groups to race segregated groups, only single sex groups .

That is true, although it is lawful to restrict membership of an association to people of a particular nationality, ethnicity or ethnic background. It's only the colour element of race which is excluded from the exceptions.

This is exactly it. White people have not been historically oppressed as a result of their ethnicity. An oppressor cannot suddenly just decide that they are now the oppressed.

Maybe remind your friend that the only reason single-sex spaces exist in the first place is because of male violence against women, so maybe she should spend her time campaigning to end that rather than campaigning to make women even more uncomfortable in public spaces than they already are?

Ask her why it's not enough for women to just say we do not want biological men in our private spaces.

This is not the case everywhere though, likely not where the OP lives. In some places in the US a black only group would go over a lot better than a women only group.

By PriOn1:
''...unlike those opposing racial segregation, who demanded an end to segregation, transactivists are not asking for an end to segregation.
Instead they are demanding that segregation should continue but that they should be given the right to choose which space they use.''

https://www.mumsnet.com/talk/womens_rights/5317250-reframe-your-disappointment?page=6&reply=143633545

I think you are having trouble OP because it really is a complex topic.

One major reason is because sex is a material reality which has material consequences in the world. For example, the potential for pregnancy, or differernt athletic profile. This means women have material common interests that they may want or need to pursue together, like a sporting event.

And while there has been some attempt in recent decades to downplay how much our sex impacts us, and technology has made that seem like a real thing, I think the reality is that it's one of the really biggest elements of who we are, it affects our whole experience of relating to each other, our physicality, our emotions. It also has a huge impact on how our life is likely to be shaped.

Race, on the other hand is almost completely socially constructed. Ethnicity has some material element, but we define race according to what are in many ways arbitrary lines. People can be "mixed race" which in some ways is almost a meaningless category, different societies delineate races differently, and they were often divided differently in the past as well.

As an example - Where I come from, for example, if someone is black, it means they have at least one parent of African descent. Some who would be considered black there would be "mixed-race" in the UK. My partner, who comes from another country, would call anyone who is not of European descent black, including Asians, middle eastern people, and various sorts of Native American groups. None of these are wrong or incorrect because there is no scientific or empirical line that can be drawn around the definition, it's social convention.

So there is really little that people in these arbitrarily defined group have inherently in common. Where they do, it's usually for social-historical reasons in a particular place, for example in North America there could be an interest in the civil rights movement among people who would have been affected by historical laws affecting people with African ancestors.

I’d start by considering why a group would be women only - eg a breast feeding group (self-explanatory); a book club - maybe single sex because its aim is to discuss women’s views; an adventure club - maybe single sex because men are stronger than women and the aim is for the women to do stuff themselves, not rely on a man….. 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, but obv TW are men, so if it is single (female) sex, they wouldn't be included

Useful explanation of why it's a shit comparison, written by a black woman:

https://x.com/therestofus5/status/1111389213704937474

As the OP is American
its worth pointing out that race politics in the USA are unique

It is the ONLY country that built itself on imported black slaves
and then fought a civil war and then a civil rights war to deny them the vote.

Even South American countries enslaved locals rather than importing bodies
and South Africa was minority rule over the majority.

In the USA 18% of the population are "African American" the vast bulk of whom are likely mixed race, due to slave owners sexual habits.

In the UK 3% of the population are "black" of whom half came directly from Africa, by choice.

The imposition of American race values on other countries is "a bad thing"
(and I was born in New York)

therefore it is reasonable to have spaces just for black and brown people.

No - no it's not. It's neither reasonable, nor lawful. EA2010, schedule 16 paragraph 1(4).

It's about power dynamics: your friend can surely agree that historically and currently men have held more power than women; and she surely also knows that historically and currently white people have held more power than black people. In both cases the powerful oppressor group has, on some occasions, exercised their power over the oppressed group in a violent or intimidating way (NB if she can't agree to these basic propositions then I think she's a lost cause).

Having understood those power dynamics and the risk that the oppressed group is at risk of harm from their oppressor, the next step is to say that there may be circumstances in which women might need spaces away from men, or black people might need spaces away white people. I guess some people might disagree with that on principle, but it is the foundation for many of the exceptions in the Equality Act.

Women asking for spaces away from men is akin to black people asking for spaces away from white people, not, as is sometimes suggested by mens rights activists, akin to white people excluding black people.

I've seen TRAs claim over the years that women wanting to exclude TW from single sex spaces are equivalent to white people excluding black people, I think on the (total nonsense) basis that TW are the oppressed group and women are the oppressor group. The SC judgment that TW are men, at least for the purposes of the Equality Act exceptions completely blows this (already very shaky) argument apart.

If it's any help, under the EA2010, the one protected characteristic not eligible for single characteristic associations is race. A whites only club is illegal. (For that matter, so is a blacks-only association.) A single sex association is lawful.

This is not just a legal issue; the law recognizes what we all recognize - that separating people by race has no place in society, while separating by sex is legal, appropriate, and a good idea at times.

Ask your friend to consider each of the following exclusionary groups.

A group for young people only
A group for old people only
A group for people with disabilities
A group for people with mental health problems
A group for French expats
A group for LGBT people
A group for trans people

Are they all like groups for white people only? If not, why are women's groups singled out for this particular comparison?

Black people have historically been oppressed by white people, therefore it is reasonable to have spaces just for black and brown people. It would not work the other way to have a group just for white people as white people are the oppressors.

Women have been oppressed by men forever so it is reasonable for women to have spaces where they are free from male oppression. It is not appropriate for men to identify out of being oppressors to the oppressed class.

Bob Marley's dad was a white bloke from Hastings.
Mixed race is real and common
race cannot be detected accurately in a blood test.

Bob Marley's dad was a bloke
because sex can be tested from before birth and cannot change

Yes it's both reasons:

• Men and women are actually physically different in ways that people of different ethnicities are not. Even if a trans person has all the surgeries and hormones, men are still much, much more dangerous to women than vice versa (and furthermore most TW have absolutely not had it all done and can still rape and impregnate). I have more in common physically with every other female on the planet than I do with any male. And men oppress women in pretty much every culture on Earth, whereas ethnicity doesn't work like that.
• Women are not the "white people" in this analogy, men are. It's not like white people keeping black people out, it's much more like black people wanting their own black-only groups/category when that's appropriate - which they did and still do. Having said that, as the sexes are actually different, I support men having single-sex spaces and services too, because there are things that only relate to men's experiences and it would be appropriation for a female to claim to be part of it.

I agree with pp that it's more like saying "blacks only" than "whites only". It's protecting the more vulnerable group by giving them a space.

Yes, it's interesting how this gets twisted round in the same way TRAs twist it round the other way.

Calling people names (‘racist’) is not going to help the OP. She/ we have to conduct this debate rationally, calmly and politely ( that’s one way of marking out the difference between GC women and …..the rest).

The difference is that women have historically been the section of humanity discriminated against, with fewer rights and privileges. They have had to struggle to attain equality (voting, sports, jobs). If you want to make an analogy to race, women are the black people, not the white people.

A very high proportion of violent crime is carried out by men.