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).

uh, HAVE not 'gave'

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.

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.

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?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

@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.

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.

'Whites only' events are indicative of a society in which people with black or brown skins are seen as inferior and with fewer, if any, rights.

'Female only' spaces exist to give protection to female privacy and dignity in situations of undress or in which the body and/or its biological function are centred.

Yes, critical thinking skills have all but disappeared in the land of faith based ideological dogmas around identity.

I'm not sure i totally agree about the point around black and white only spaces at all, though.

We have both separate male and female facilties to ensure the dignity and privacy of both sexes. And to provide a level playing field in sport.

If you have black only spaces then there should be no issue with the equivalent white only spaces, surely?

'Sex' and 'Race' are different issues to my mind - even if there are or have been some elements of over-lap. 'Sex' is of more consequnece by its very nature.

In 2,000 years perhaps there is no more patriarchy or male violence against women, and racism is a distant memory.

You are still going to need single sex sporting events to ensure that women win medals, and women will still rely on services that men don’t to deal with menstruation, pregnancy, menopause, and sex specific health conditions.

Altho I loathe the oppressor/oppressed trope since it is possible for an oppressed group also to be oppressors.
Notwithstanding that, a woman only group (so all/any biological women) is akin to a meeting that is blacks only - the oppressor group is excluded even if they wear a black face or a dress.

There will always be physical and biological differences between males and females. It is not something that can be legislated out of existence.

Women need women only spaces to give us some respite from members of the male sex who have historically oppressed us, and continue to oppress us. White people aren't oppressed.

White only spaces (e.g. in segregationist era USA or apartheid era South Africa) exist in order to oppress people of colour who are excluded from them.

Female only spaces do not exist in order to oppress men. They exist to protect women from men.

Hope this helps.

Also the safety argument isn't valid because there is no evidence to show that black people commit most crimes against white people, whereas there is ample evidence to show that male people commit most crimes against female people.

'Sex' is one of the fundamental organisational characteristics of life on earth. It runs across all species.

'Race' is more a point of differentiation within a category rather than a fundamental organisational principle.

The consequences of' Sex' are far more fundamental than those of 'Race' which tend to be more social and cultural in origin, rather than primal.

'Oppression' arguments don't hold up and are neither universal nor logically consistent.

Can you elaborate further?

With regard to sport, I think a good way of putting it is to point out that nobody complains that the Paralympics exclude able bodied people. That is literally the point of the Paralympics; to exclude able bodied people so that disabled people have a chance to shine.

Women's sports exist for the same reason that the Paralympics exists. To give a group of people the opportunity to excel in sport which they otherwise would not get if forced to compete against people who have a considerable natural physical advantage over them.

Complaining about trans women being excluded from women's sport is like complaining about able bodied athletes being excluded from the Paralympics.

I'll come back to you later on this. I've got a busy morning.