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).

There is a significant statistical differernce around the racial distribution of crime in the US.

I don't think anyone would have to say it would need to be exactly the same as sex, or any other, differentiation. If it is valid to say that real increased risk is in itself enough, then people could reasonably make that kind of argument.

I think it's a bit of a red herring in terms of sex based differentiation. Yes, risk is part of it, but I don't think that, or oppression for that matter, are the most fundamental issues.

After all - how many of us would be happy to change with an opposite sex sibling or parent, where there was no worry about risk, and oppression wasn't a relevant point? Most would not be that keen.

There are elements that are unique to sex segregation, as opposed to things like race, and I think they relate to the nature of sex itself, sexual desire which is one of the most powerful drives, and even sexual taboos. Which may be why people find it difficult to talk about these ideas, because they are related to some uncomfortable elements of human sexuality that we don't like to address head on.

This is what Paul Peace (@ NoCisgender) writes on ‘X’:

”Black people did not demand stuff belonging to whites, as trans men demand women's stuff. Black people sought what should already be shared, and was being withheld, as did gay and lesbian people. Transid people seek what rightfully belongs to ANOTHER social group and for that group's safety, privacy, modesty, and dignity.

Transgender ideology is not a civil rights movement. It's an anti-feminist, anti-woman, and unreasonable men's demands movement. Resistance is reframed as hate to manipulate the public using emotive tactics, and to piggyback black and gay rights, pretending that these are all analogous. This is a particularly cynical, despicable, trivialising, and appropriating act”

I'm not mixing up anything, thanks! I'm explaining that I don't see male/female relationships primarily in terms of 'oppression'. I don't perceive my femaleness as being inherently prone to 'oppression' either. Oppression is a partcular type of lens with which to view a situation or a set of conditions, not the only one.

I don't see male/ female relationships primarily through the lens of oppression either.

But I though we were discussing the need for women only spaces and whether oppression was a relevant factor to consider?

I wondered whether you appreciated that opossum could be quite subtle, that it didn't need to be an overt sense of not liking or getting on with men (I'm not sure that is oppression in any case). You seemed to be saying that because it's not necessarily a massive, obvious factor that is not useful to consider (in conjunction with other factors), and i disagree.

Fucks sake, oppression not opossum!!

@Shortshriftandlethal I've really been interested to read your other thoughts so am genuinely interested. If the comment sounded snippy, it wasn't meant to

I'm not really in the mood for a lengthy exposition right now...but I did suggest, in my previous post, that at root we instinctively know, as females, that males are bigger and stronger and can physcally over-power us. The male sex drive is differently configured. And we instinctively know that it is females who become pregnant. This creates a certain level of vulnerability.... which makes women's 'situation' dependent on the prevailing social conditions and culture. These are the reasons, I think, we have single sex spaces, categories and facilities. Because they accommodate and give protection to certain female vulnerabilities.

My comments about liking/not liking men were just my own personal expression of my general realtionship to men...not a comment on other women (some of whom may perceive things in terms of oppression) and their relationship to men.

I'm not at all sure how helpful or productive viewing things through the lens of oppressor/ oppressed really is. Certainly not in our culture in which we have most likely evened out/legislated as much as is ever going to be practicable/possible. Beyond generalised legal 'equality' this I mainly see things in terms of differences.

Cheers for taking the time to elaborate, I appreciate it. Your comments always make me think.

I am not sure I understand what you are asking.

I didn't understand your point about "population level" fears..so I was seeking some examples to provide some clarification, and allow me to understand what this might look life in real life. ( as these relate to the sorts of things that black people may fear about white people at a population level)

Oh, I can't answer that. But of course it depends on where you are. If you are in a majority black country the scenario would be different from say living in the US.

Can you gives some examples within the different contexts of which you speak.

Your friend is American, so the EA2010 does not apply. However, in UK, protection against discrimination on the basis of sex is explicitly disapplied when it's "a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate end". Or words to that effect. The law recognises that there are legitimate situations where women and men need single sex spaces and services. I'm fairly sure this doesn't apply to the characteristic of race and ethnicity. I guess that if it did apply, and there was a legitimate reason for single race groups, then it would be OK to have whites only and blacks only groups and services. But for the life of me I can't think of one. That's as concise and succinct as I can get.