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

[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'll say "it's so women can feel safe" and she'll be like "well what about white people feeling safe?" and it's confusing me that she can't understand, but I guess I'm not clearly explaining. Any wordsmiths on Mumsnet able to help me out?

I am American for reference. I assume I can be here (there's not really any place on the US web to talk about this sort of thing without being inundated by TRAs).

In UK, it's "biological women only; not biological men". It's based on sex.

Saying biological women only is excluding all men, whether or not the men identify as women.

All biological men can be excluded for the safety, dignity and privacy of biological women.

I love that US women are on MN. Seriously. All women should unite!

I don’t have a great answer but in this equation it is like women are the non-whites. Whoever holds the power, they are excluded. And as Trans women are men then they hold the power (traditionally) as they are men. Saying trans women should be allowed in female only spaces is like white men should be allowed in a black men only space. Why would they want to? It’s strange by its very nature.

It’s racist, black women are women. Trans women are men.

Because there is a clear biological difference between men and women.

Without protections, women can be raped and forced into pregnancy. They are weaker. Laws are needed to ensure that they can have equal rights.

This is not the same with regards to race.

I'm no expert but I would be saying that it's more like 'Blacks only'. Women are an oppressed group and have been forever. Allowing women to meet on an environment free from those responsible for the oppression is essential to allowing us to support each other and learn to confront the oppression.

A women only event included all women; black, white, gay, straight, old, young, able, disabled, religious, atheist, left, right, rich, poor...you get the idea. No minority is excluded, even women with trans identities may attend. Men are not a minority. They can organise their own events.

One sex impregnates, the other is impregnated

Yes clearly not all etc etc, but that is the difference.

"well what about white people feeling safe?"

That's a bit of a racist comment from her.

Men are womens' oppressor group. White people are black people's oppressor group.

Your friend sounds spectacularly dim.

Her analogy would be closer to the truth if she said "women-only spaces are similar to black-only spaces". And many of us would perfectly well understand why black people may want or need safe spaces that do not contain white people.

Yes agreed. This is such a shitty argument. False and disgusting.

This. It’s about the power dynamics, the oppressed group are entitled to space away from the oppressing group.

If she wants to use race as the comparator it is a more accurate comparison to say:

Should a white person (oppressor) who identifies a a black person (oppressed) be allowed to attend a black only event as they are in a minority group (the group being those of one race who identify as another).

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.

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).

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

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 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.

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

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.

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?

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.

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.

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).

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)

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

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