I think the whole concept of inclusion has really been warped in how we think about it tbh.
I posted about a real world experience I've had with a men's only group recently and how a few of them think it's dated and want to make it inclusive to include women.
Except it got me thinking and as part of this I'd been talking to a recently divorced man who had been sent to me to introduce him to the mens group (long story in itself).
Anyway as part of that conversation it became very apparent he'd been almost pushed out of mixed sex organisations locally by his ex. And he was feeling very isolated and it was a very messy divorce.
He actually clearly needs the support of men away from the complications of this.
There are also men in the group who quite frankly are liabilities. Their wives don't trust them (for good reason) so the idea that would get away with spending as much time in a mixed sex group wouldn't exactly work for anyone concerned! Male or female.
Then there's the singletons who don't want to be part of a group dominated by couples. And the men who yeah do actually lack confidence. There's a few who are clearly autistic and don't really do well amongst most women.
And the men who have had health issues (both mental and physical) which are mens concerns.
Or simply as a group to get away from family and work pressures.
DH has been part of it for a long time and it's been really positive for him. I know them well and do socialise with them but it's HIS support network which seems lacking for men at an age where women effectively have the school gate.
So it's massively inclusive in its own right. Within its own legitimate reason for a single sex organisation.
Lots of these men would ultimately self exclude if it did become mixed sex for above reasons. This doesn't mean they can't have inclusive events as part of their running where they do associate with women.
The problem is we have lost sight of why some of these groups were established - both male and female and how they still have a positive and powerful role in our society which we should value.
We should aim for both and inclusivity in multiple ways but also protect single sex where single sex exists.
As I say it comes down to what we are taught to understand and value. We been taught that inclusivity only means men and women. It only is valuable to our society to have almost monotone groups with no diversity of group.
This is about a narrowing of thinking not an expansion of horizons in its own way.
We need plurality of views and opportunities.
There's nothing stopping groups from being mixed sex but declaring they are particularly aimed at providing for women and transwomen but they are not single sex.
Transwomen have different needs which needs recognition in their own right and get lost if women were to dictate and dominant on numbers alone. That's why we need group exclusively for transwomen.
But we also need single sex provision for a reason. A legitimate aim in a heavily stereotyped and gendered world. A legitimate aim for biologically led reasons. Both are valid. And this isn't exclusive to women.
Men do talk differently in the presence of other men. We need to create healthy environments for this because what has happened in recent years is there's almost an unmet need and demand for these spaces which has become toxic masculinity because of this sense of verboten and lack of perceived need/value. We are seeing this recognition slowly creeping in with people like Gareth Southgate saying there's a real need for good male role models for young males.
Why are we seeing this through only one lens? It makes no sense.
Why have we got to this point?