Theres definitely a lot to it (and little typed out messages aren't the best way to have nuanced discussions). It would be helpful to explore this logically step by step so that I can understand your POV and define where our views diverge.
To clarify my statements, I'm not trying to claim that women's experiences with men are equal to / similar to/as bad as the experiences of black people under apartheid - that would be offensive nonsense. Neither am I saying that all women's experiences are the same. Neither am I saying that all black people's experiences are all the same.
What I am saying is that there appear to be some parallels that can be drawn between in terms of how the oppressor class relates to the oppressed for different access of oppression (important note, not saying they're 'the same').
Im then going on to question why this seems to be acceptable on one axis (sex, sexism) but unacceptable and rightly so on the other (race, racism). Humans brains are hard wired to notice patterns, it's how we make sense of the world, and I think it can be useful to explore what these patterns might be telling us , as long as we are mindful to not make assumptions from these patterns.
So, Trevor, as a member of the oppressor class of sex (men), felt it was reasonable for him to speak about and minimise the experiences of women, the oppressed class of sex (women) Do we agree that that was what he was doing? If not, can you offer an alternative explanation?
So, I wondered why he (and some others) thinks that is an acceptable way to behave?
I was trying to highlight the unacceptability of allowing the powerful group to speak on behalf of the powerless group by drawing a parallel and exploring why one is acceptable and the other isn't, when these two things appear to have some similarities (note: not saying they're the same). I possibly expressed this parallel in a clumsy way.
You're right, I don't know that he wouldn't be impressed by a white person denying racism (I admit, that's an assumption). I still stand by that as a reasonable assumption though, as I would imagine that a member of any group would likely get annoyed at someone who is not a member of that group trying to deny the concerns of that group on their behalf.
If you think that's an unreasonable assumption, can you say more about why? And to aid my understanding of your POV, is it the assumption or the parallel that is the issue? Or both?
I think it's interesting that you seem to be implying that concern about women only spaces is an issue that only white women care about ('white women's cries of women's spaces' was how you put it).To say that its something only white women are interested in would seem to be denying the experience of non white women who have been affected by VAWG, and the experience of some religious non white women whose faith precludes them from sharing washing/ changing/toileting spaces with natal males (disclaimer: I realise that some white women are also religious, however this particular facet of the issue likely disproportionately affects non white women).
All of those women's experiences were rubbished and minimised by Trevor Noah in the interests of a cheap laugh, not just the white women's experiences.
I don't know whether it was your intention, but there seems to be a suggestion in your comment that wanting women only spaces is somehow akin to racism. Apologies if that's not what you meant; maybe you could clarify if so? Because it seems like an attempt at a subtle smear on a legally protected belief /point of view. It seems that its OK to draw a parallel between racism and sexism when it suits ones argument, but not the other way around?
My starting point, which I stand by, was this: I don't think its ever OK for a man to minimise and deny women's concerns and experiences, especially as "comedy".