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).

Your friend is very racist OP. She is suggesting that black people pose the same danger to white people that men pose to women.

I will preface this by saying that I think sex and race cannot be directly compared for all the well articulated reasons given by various PPs on this thread so far.

But to answer part of your comment...

I completely reject the idea that if a group of black people felt the need for a black-only space, that would therefore make it fine to have a white-only space. For the same reason I gave in my first comment; white people are not oppressed by black people.

White people as a group have no need to fear black people as a group and no legitimate reason to exclude them. Black people on the other hand may well have reason to fear white people, or may feel that their experience of life has been impacted by racism in such a way that there are situations where their dignity and safety relies upon the exclusion of white people. White people's dignity and safety does not necessitate the exclusion of black people and it's racist to claim otherwise.

@Fargo79 “Black people on the other hand may well have reason to fear white people”

No they don’t. That way of thinking is dangerous nonsense.

Surely assessments of oppression evolve.

For instance there is a time limit on the legislation that allows all women short lists. There is an (I think sensible) assumption that this shouldn't be a permanent state of affairs - otherwise what is the point?

However, assuming no massive evolutionary leaps in the next few thousand years, it will remain necessary to separate men and women's sport to enable fair competition.

I never understand what TRA are trying to say when they equate sex segregation and race segregation?

Surely, if they believe its the same, and they thought race segregation is wrong, wouldn't they oppose sex segregation, and also gender segregation?

But they want to either be the exception in the segregated space - the only male in the female space, or segregate by gender.

So they do agree with all segregation, they just want to be th ones deciding who goes where?

The friend has probably been taught that transwomen are oppressed by ‘cis’ women, which is why she thinks it’s like holding an all-white event.
That’s probably based on circular logic, as in transwomen are oppressed by women because they exclude them from their spaces, which is why transwomen are oppressed.
If she’s also believing that trans is an innate feature of a subset of men that really are born in the wrong body, then she will struggle to understand that it’s not oppression. It always comes back to the ‘what is a man/woman’ question. Does woman include a subset of men with special feelings?

Exactly this.

Racial segregation = the rule is unjust.
Sex segregation = the rule is fine but we want to be the exception to it.

It’s only OK to have exclusionary policies if the group being included is under represented, or in any way disadvantaged compared to the other group. In the UK that is not likely to be white people or men.

Racism really poisoned American thinking on this issue. I think also homophobia did. I've seen even on fairly recent Reddit threads, and certainly in 2000s-era articles, women expressing that they're uncomfortable w changing w lesbians. So liberal people wrongly feel it's all the same issue. But it's not. UK women generally don't have the same associations

This I the key: black women don't assault white women in bathrooms normally, nor do black men assault white men..lesbians don't assault hetero women in bathrooms. Nor does either group fetishise women's bathrooms. Comparing lesbians or black women to bio men is racist & homphobic, esp as these bio men are mostly agp fetishists

Its about power and control.

Look at who wants to be the gatekeeper and why.

Females being the gatekeepers to women makes sense.
Males trying to dictate to women who gatekeeps women shows you the nature of the problem

Being inclusive is a weasel word in this context.

Reflect on what is the objective of that single sex space?
For women its about giving opportunity there otherwise would not be, privacy and dignity reasons on a biological level and safety reasons.

The converse does apply to certain things for men - for example the dignity element kicks in for health care and states of undress for biological reasons. You also have socialisation issues, so for example an all male mental health group has a legitimate aim to enable men socialised to be 'the man of the family' to off load without the responsibility they feel they are supposed to carry. And you have the safety reason element in sport, because males don't really want to compete against others they are likely to cause harm to (this relates to weight, age AND sex).

What is the objective of a women's only knitting club? To enable women to gather and socialise free of males dominating the conversation because of socialisation and allow them to gain social confidence.
What is the aim of a women's climbing club? To enable women to gain confidence in the absence of males, to be free of comments about their physical form or attire and perhaps learn techniques that are particularly helpful for women's strength to weight ratios. And again to encourage them to do a sport that often women will self exclude from due to a fairly macho culture.

If you add a male to either of the above, you end up with women self excluding and you defeat some of the aims and purposes of why women set up those groups in the first place

This doesn't mean there isn't a need for transwomen/transmen to socialise and feel they have their own space where they feel free and that encourages participication. Its just that their needs to enable participation are in conflict with those of women. Instead they actually need trans groups which are dedicated to pursuing aims which are not going to lead to self exclusion elsewhere.

Single sex provision is ironically very often about promoting participation in society as a whole rather than separation from it. And thats the really notable point.

Thats also where single sex old fashion mens clubs can fall apart - if they ultimately aim to exclude women, rather than addressing other issues such as for example male isolation - which as an aim SHOULD definitely be a goal.

Gender replacing sex, loses sight of certain things, as does going 'gender neutral' which often isn't neutral at all as it actually favours men as the default human.

A gendered group is reinforcing sexism because you can't define gender without using sexist reference points to stereotypes. An undefined criteria 'in your head' is unenforcable because its too easy to open abuse.

The issue is they see that being excluded from a women's group is segregating them from a group for spurious reasons. But racial segregation is spurious. Sex segregation is not.

Women are unique in that there is an expectation that our role is to mother everyone.

Maybe not all women, all of the time. But there is a feeling that we should care for and prioritise other people.

Its why we need single sex groups like book groups, or wi. Women can chose books or events without men saying, 'but im not interested in x i want to read y'. Without men, there isnt the pressure to keep the men happy and women dont have to wrestle with all that goes with that.

Men with gender feels have decided that these groups are so crucial that they need to be involved, and their supporters have decided that they are so irrelevant that they shouldnt exist.

The obvious thing would be for TRA to create their own book groups. But thats not the point, while the women are in their women only groups, they arent mothering and prioritising the men.

Edit: it took me so long to write this, i cross posted with others!

'Inclusion' of males into women's only groups are 100% about women being serve humans to the desires of men at the expense of their own needs.

Or to put it another way, including males needs you exclude the needs of females and run the risk of undermining the aims and objectives of a women's only space which is to free women from certain obligations and pressures

You cannot possibly say that "white people have no reason to fear black people"? It depends on context and/or situation doesn't it?

Or that "black people en masse are fearful of white people"

Have you never heard, for example, of the incitement to " Kill the Boer" which has resulted in the brutal murders of many white farmers in South Africa......or is this to be discounted because of the history of Apartheid?

Kill the Boer is a direct consequence of Apartheid, so it's not really applicable. Most white people in the US aren't South African farmers and most African Americans have never stepped foot in Africa.

Apartheid doesn't excuse murder - either of black people by white people, white people by black people, or any combination thereof.
We had 'Kill the IDF' at Glastonbury the other day - I think I am up to here with people saying other people should die for crimes they didn't commit, were committed by their ancestors (you know, there is no way we can tell our ancestors not to do X!), or randomly because one lot of entitled people have decided that a minority are the victims and another minority should pay for crimes against them. It's racist, apart from anything else - like incitement.

I’m also in the US, sadly we don’t have anything similar to MN over here. My best response to this is that during the civil rights movement black people were campaigning to have the rights of white peoples extended to include them. They were not campaigning to be legally recognized as white people. There are no “Black people are white people” signs. Black people were also not trying to alter their physical appearance to look like white people. It’s a bad comparison all around and, I’m my personal oppinion, rather offensive to black people.

Dangerous? Don't be silly. There seems little point in engaging with someone who apparently wants to pretend that racism doesn't exist.

I did not say "black people en masse are fearful of white people". Please do not dishonestly attribute fictitious quotes to me. This does not represent my view.

As above, Kill the Boer is a direct result of white on black racism and apartheid. This is not to say that murder is OK, but that Kill the Boer is not proof of systemic black on white racism.

An individual white person may have reason to fear an individual black person within a given interaction, but that does not erase the reality that at population level, there is no black on white systemic racism that makes black people a threat to white people.

By that logic having anything women only (even the 'inclusive' definition) is also discriminatory since it's just as exclusionary to anyone outside the definition. Your friend just approves of one definition so is happy to discriminate based on it but doesn't approve the other so tries to come up with shitty analogies.

But primarily because obviously sex and ethnicity aren't the same so the comparison isn't valid.

You said that "black people have reason to fear white people". If you are not talking about black people, generally ( en masse) what are you talking about?

That is not the case, but it is the case that racism works both ways.

Racism is when someone is prejudged to have negative attributes purely on the basis of their race - which is what you are postulating about white people as a group.

White people and black people are intrinsically the same, so there is no need for white only or black only events in my opinion.

Men and women are fundamentally different and woman are often uncomfortable in certain situations with men present and I assume visa versa.

There are different degrees of friendship, and different reasons for being friends. For example, I have a friend I have known since teenage years, and it would take a lot of disagreement to dislodge that friendship, because we share a lot of history and have supported each other through some worrying times. We definitely don't agree on everything, but where do you draw the boundary between "friendship is OK" and "friendship is not OK"? I can find him incredibly annoying at times, and that feeling may be mutual, but in the other hand he can be great (and I hope he sees me similarly). For me, the boundary is far more to do with actions than with beliefs or theoretical attitudes.

Does she think black people are a threat?

I'd argue that men of any race are more of a threat to women than women of any race. And there are plenty of spaces where men shouldn't be. Anywhere where a woman might be undressing or needing to show their genitals.

Does she think women who've been raped should have to share prison cells with men who are rapists?

Does she want to get naked in front of a load of strange men? If she does then I think you've probably lying lost her by this point.