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).

Yet again you are using quotation marks to attribute fictitious quotes to me. There is a copy and paste function available to you. I said:

"Black people on the other hand may well have reason to fear white people"

May. They may well have reason to fear white white people, in the context of systemic racism at population level.

I would never describe an entire race of people as "fearful", as you falsely claimed and which I challenged you on. This is an important distinction that you are completely failing to grasp.

This is a total derail at any rate, because sex and race cannot be compared. I'm not going to fight your made up straw men any more.

Haven’t read the full thread, so apologies if being repetitive

but

what is ‘black ‘ ( or even ‘non white’) in this context ? Does my friend who has an African grandmother but the other three were all Scottish Highland ( ginger) count? What about the family next door but one, she is of Chinese heritage though born here , married to a white German , do her children count as white or non white?

Colour and race are flexible , but there are only two sexes, male and female. So the line is much easier to draw.

It is mainly you doing the fighting anyway. I'm simply disputing or taking issue with some of your points or comments; not having a go at you personally.

Can you give a concrete example of the sort of thing that black people may have reaon to fear from white people - at a population level? And do you make any distinctions for the sex of the white people at a population level; the social status the white people at population level, their role at a population level etc.

What might this fear be predicated upon? What it is they potentially may do?

Race does not bestow biologic advantage, or disadvantage. Separation on the basis of race is not needed for safety - and has become unlawful.

Being male is biological advantage - in terms of strength, speed. Female are at a disadvantage. Clearly ALL women are not weaker than ALL men - but the majority are. Women's sport would not exist if women competed against men. The top 1% of women would not make the top 5% of mens competition - seen across sports from darts to fishing to tennis ... The only sport that I am aware of where the advantage is lessened out is equestrian - and men and women compete on a level field there.

TRAs are not looking for mixed space/competition. They are looking for THEIR access to female only spaces and sports. They are not looking for equality, they are looking for privilege. When offered mixed sport they are not interested - they want to compete in the female category. This is not fair on biological females. Were females to take testosterone to the levels that these males experience, they would be disqualified for cheating. These males who have all the advantage of male biology from puberty do not want to compete in mixed competition. They want to compete against women.

Sport has all sorts of ways to make competition fair. Many sports have weight categories. Masters sport have age categories. We do not have 40yo competing against 50yo. You cannot argue that you 'feel' 'old' or 'light' and therefore should be in a different category. We recognise that youth has an advantage and it would ruin the older category if a younger athlete could 'identify' into it. And remember- it is not about getting rid of the category - it is that I (ME) should be in the category of MY choosing. Can you imagine the situation of a 40yo on the winners podium with a 61yo on either side in second and third place? - and taking the prize money/scholarships involved.

FYI - in mixed relays TA can only qualify for the male position. So a relay team can only consist of 2 each biological M and F. Therefore competing teams (and the men in them) will never be disadvantaged. But it is OK to disadvantage women who are expected to put being kind, above insisting on being treated fairly.

We are expected to applaud and smile at these cheaters! The very men who want to wear womens clothes and use womens private spaces (lingerie dressing rooms, showers) are the very ones women SHOULD be afraid of. These are flags of aberrant sexual behaviour. These men love boasting - I am never stopped (therefore I 'pass' as a woman). Silence being mistaken for agreement. Meanwhile women have been assaulted and ostracised for objecting to men in their spaces. What are women to do?

And Kill The Boer, vile as it is, I in South Africa, NOT the US.

Curious, do you think women can be sexist towards men or otherwise oppress them in the way men can women?

Equality legislation works both ways - for instance pensions that have different terms for men and women have been found to be discriminatory.

Hopefully the goal of equality law is that neither women nor men are oppressed.

However, part of that is recognising that women and men are different, so e.g. you can’t achieve parity of opportunity if all sporting competition is mixed sex.

Its nothing like the same thing.

Ethnic people are not more likely to be violent than white people.

However, men are far, far, far more likely to be violent to women than other women, especially regarding sexual violence.

Single sex spaces for women are a foundational safeguarding measure for women.

Whites only spaces were not about safeguarding, but were based on racist ideas of white supremecy.

It’s a fantastically stupid false equivalence to compare the two.

Yes, I think women can be sexist too....and burden men with expectations of what they do and don't expect from them.

And some women clearly don't like men, or have a distrust or fear of men...based on past life experiences within their own family, with their father, or with other males.

I don't tend to view things ( as a woman) through a lens of 'oppression' when it comes to men, though.....I tend to see things in terms of difference. I get on with men generally even though I can still recognise sexist double standards and expectations when I come across them; and even though I've been subject to a lifetime of the usual leering, lascivious, offensive behaviour and remarks that most women have been subject to throughout their lives.

I don't walk around being fearful of men, though I do still have an instinctive awareness of the differences that in certain types of situation make me, as a woman, vulnerable when around men. I don't want to get changed in front of men, for example...and I appreciate the dignity and privacy of single sex spaces.

Women obviously don't have the physical size or strength to potentially over-come a man in the way that a man could potentially over-come a woman, and women don't tend to be fetishists or voyeurs in the way that men are more prone to.

Do you appreciate that recognising female oppression doesn't mean you don't get on with men, or you think all men are bastards, or you don't trust them or that you are fearful of them?

it's about recognising a general thread running through the fabric of western society. The fact that it affects different people to a greater or lesser degree doesn't mean that it isn't there.

I think you may be mixing up the specific and the general.

There are so many differences.

Neither men nor women are a "minority group" in a broad societal context, as is usually the case with one or other ethnicity.

Men and women come from and can be found in every family, every region/country, every community and every culture across earth. Often, different racial groups are distinct from one another in terms of one or more of these categorisations. Which is why race can mean a lot more than just race, sometimes.

Race is subjective. Fundamentally, it is a social construct to define, describe, categorise (and in some cases exclude) people who "look similar" as according to arbitrary criteria set by a particular culture/society. For example, indigenous Australians, dark skinned South Indians and people from very different parts of Africa might all be termed "black" if viewed from a white European perspective. Realistically they have nothing particularly in common culturally, historically, genetically or otherwise other than dark skin eg "not whiteness".

Sex on the other hand is an objective biological reality for every single human being who has ever lived, and indeed all mammals.

They are both protected characteristics because they can lead to disadvantage. Not because they are both as biologically real as one another. Biologically speaking, sex is real and race is not.

When it comes to biology - women are smaller, weaker, more easily injured and killed, vulnerable to sexual assault and impregnation, and carry nearly all of the reproductive burden of our species. There are no such biological differences between different races.

When it comes to social disadvantage, within white European culture, black people have and continue to be disadvantaged. The historical (and in many cases current) context that exists, is of white colonialism, slavery and racism. So a black only group would potentially be a way of offsetting that disadvantage within that context, whereas a white only group is more likely to be the direct opposite, unless there is a very specific reason for it to exist. Women have and continue to be disadvantaged. Their historical (and in many instances current) context is also one of oppression, slavery and sexism.

Without women's only groups, women will be further disadvantaged, excluded and in some instances frankly put at risk of harm. But without white only groups, the same cannot be said for white people (I'm adding a disclaimer that there might be some specific context in which a white only group is justified, I just haven't thought of one).

Forgot to even mention that being of male sex is a risk factor for violence and particularly sexual violence in a way which that just doesn't really compare to any other characteristic. Just under 2 women are killed by men every week in the UK.

In the US especially, many colleges have scholarships for black students. White students cannot apply for those scholarships. Why? Well, because we know that throughout history, black people have been oppressed and having separate scholarships offer a chance to redress the balance.

Similarly, women throughout history have been disadvantaged. Before the invention of public toilets, women couldn't even travel freely because biologically we are disadvantaged when evacuating our bladders, not to mention when we have periods or post patrum/menopausal incontinence. Throughout history, women have been disadvantaged in education, in health care, in safety, in sports. This is why the Equality Act came about. So history could be rebalanced and women have the same opportunities.

If the SC ruling continues to be questioned, and women's spaces become available to anyone who states they're a woman, how is that historical imbalance being corrected? The answer is it isn't. Women won't want to go out in enclosed spaces like toilets (as an example) for fear of attack, they won't bother competing in sports if all competitors end up being trans women, they're losing work placements designed to encourage women (like the recent IT apprenticeship scheme where men just called themselves girls and couldn't be denied admission)

Women are fighting to keep on the path of historical rebalance. If all doors are open to anyone stating they're a woman then we're regressing by 100 years, and women are once again being oppressed.

My argument is also, we don't protect children because every adult is a paedophile. We safeguard to limit any harm.
Similarly, we protect women's spaces not because all transwomen or men are predators. We safeguard to limit harm.

Trans people also have rights and deserve protection. This shouldn't come at the expense of trashing an already disadvantaged group. The fight continues for third spaces.

In answer to the OP, if white people took over Black History month and attended lectures and said it was their struggle too, what would happen? If White people compared their police treatment to those of black people, what would happen? If white people could apply for scholarships intended for black students, what would happen? If your making a weak skin colour argument then women are akin to black people, not privileged white/privileged men.

I don't think the oppression argument holds up either.

Aside from that fact that I think it is dangerous and just leads to new power hierarchies, we also allow men's only groups, washrooms, and so on.

Not because of danger for women, or because of oppression, but because men deserve privacy and dignity, and also have things things in common that mean they may have common interests with other men.

Race and sex are just differernt. The UK doesn't think it is ok to discriminate or segregate around race, but with sex it can be fine in some situations, though not in others.

Do we really want to rest the claim that racial discrimination is not ok because of risk?

There are places in the US where it is very possible to make statistically true generalisations about race and violence, specifically, that violent crime is disproportionately committed by black men.

Now typically it's the case that those most affected by this violence are other black men. But it's also true that other people living in those neighbourhoods are typically affected, including in some places poor white people.

I'm not sure I would be coming to the conclusion that it's therefore ok to exclude blacks, or even just black men, in order to increase people's feelings of safety.

I love the discussion on this thread, thought provoking conversation on the what makes sex as a protected class different from race.

But keep in mind, TRAs are just fine with female only events; it's just that they want to be included as females. In general they reject unisex alternatives.

You are entirely right.

Is it race or poverty?

Well that would be a good question, if it weren't for the fact that much of the American left claims, in other contexts, that that is a racist question.

They seem very strongly believe that correlation is enough to make claims that seem to support their argument. So it seems to me that if you make the argument the other way, it should also be valid.

Personally, I think poverty may account for all of it. Though there are also elements like gang violence, and racially divided control of the drug trade, and that might complicate the picture.

We decided to do all we can to make the only two sexes that exist equal. We acknowledged that prior to certain acts being passed women were at a disadvantage. examples:
*Widows did not automatically assume custody of her children, they could be sent into the care of another depending on the Will of their Father.
*Married women's Property Act, It allowed a woman to have her own property and assets.
*The right to Vote or be a member of Parliament.

*It was decided that wages should be equal between men and women
More recently it was necessary to re-state the laws of 20 years ago that the wording of the Equality legislation defined women and men according to their sex which could only be Male or Female and were easily identified at birth. As yet no one has challenged their own classification.

In short OP the answer is: "Because Parliament or the Law Courts have said so.

Well there are lots of forums for black people only, so we feel safe to speak openly about our experiences, just as there are for women.

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/5a74c502ed915d4d83b5ed12/vcs-associations.pdf

Rules for the UK explained. Not allowed rules based on skin colour per se.

I would argue that a group based on skin colour like white doesn't have anything inherently in common i.e. white Russian, white Americans just no non-whites.

It is historically a way to exclude one group of protected characteristics based on a skin colour seen as "inferior" (and also rather vague).

Women's only groups do have something in common that is biological sex. Mens only groups are also permitted, that's fine by me.

I see it as pretty fundamental that groups are allowed to be formed of a particular sex.

What wouldn't be okay would be a group that was women, men, no "transwomen".

Questions about inequality do not exist within the framework of current US politics.

Black lives matter was a Marxist movement. The Democrats got hold of it and turned it into an identity issue that ignored the financial arguments, thus casting aside huge amounts of the entire point. Rather than addressing economic arguments that might affect the lifestyles of better off, educated white Americans it became just about morality and signalling you did the right thing. It meant the difference between pushing for meaningful structural change and being hyper focused on identity and tribalism.

Socialism is regarded with an extraordinary level of suspicion and fear. That's another reason identity politics born in the US really doesn't travel well to Europe.

It’s still not equivalent though. Do ethnic minority people commit 97% of violent crimes and are the majority of their victims white? Are white people substantially smaller and weaker than ethnic minority, making them especially vulnerable to ethnic violence? . Are ethnic people enjoy being voyeurs of white people to enjoy feelings of power and control and dominance, especially when white people are in vulnerable situations? Do they do all this because they are ethnic people?

Because these are the equivalence’s you would have to meet, to make the ‘but race is just like sex’ argument OPs friend is trying to make.

Male sexual violence against women is rooted in the biology of men and of women.

In the UK, white people are not typically underrepresented or disadvantaged, this is why provision for white people is unlikely to be deemed legitimate and proportionate.

There are many instances of females being underrepresented and/or disadvantaged, which is why many single sex services for women are often legal, wanted and needed.

There were more than a few rich black people on the continent of Africa, and have always been. Indeed, the richest man to ever live was the ruler of the Mali empire (he had 50k slaves in his train when he visited Europe). You need to be geo-specific if you want to make a point like this, otherwise you get people like me, basically nit-picking, posting.
Certainly, that there have been and are rich black people in the US does not negate the fact that in the US black people are discriminated against as a class. This does not apply to the UK, btw, where a) we have never had black slaves in any number (and those that got into the country made good fists of going to law over it) and not had slaves of any sort at all since c.1150 (slavery being outlawed during the reign of Henry Beauclerc). This is so much the case that when slaves did appear and went to court (or their friends did) the only answer was that slavery did not exist in England and thus no-one could be a slave - we have no laws against slavery, we just do not have slavery (and I know about trafficked people etc.).
As to women, yes indeed, and even powerful women have been oppressed! But the analogy with black people does not work here.