[All these points apply to sex and to gender, so for ease of reading, I’ll just discuss gender]
Gender-exclusive groups are common in many societies, such as men-only and women-only social clubs and casual activity groups like a men’s bowling group or a women’s reading circle.
Sometimes this is de-facto, but sometimes this is enforced by rules or expectations, treating the club as a safe space for airing issues people have with other genders, or avoiding perceived problems with other genders.
I came across this old comment in a garbage subreddit by accident when researching. The topic is Men’s Sheds:
“Here’s the thing. No reasonable person has an issue with women having their own women’s activity groups. The annoying part is that whenever men try to do something similar, that’s a problem. Women either want them banished or demand entry, EVERY time.”
I think their claim is nonsense, grossly exaggerated at best. I also know of many counterexamples of men trying to get into women-only groups (as an extreme case, the Ladies Lounge of the Mona art gallery in Australia was taken to court for sex discrimination, with the creator claiming they would circumvent the ruling by installing a toilet). But nonetheless, I can understand why they feel this way, patriarchal social relations change how most people see men-exclusive spaces vs. women-exclusive spaces.
But my response to their claim is that, I am reasonable and I do have an issue with any group setting up places which discriminate based on gender. These safe places can form as a legitimate rudimentary form of protection, yes, but they maintain and often even promote sexism, and should all be challenged and turned into something better which serves the same purpose.
Of course, I’m limited by my own experiences and perspective, so I’d love to hear your opinions on the topic.
Bonus video: “Why Do Conservative Shows All Look the Same? | Renegade Cut” - a discussion about fake man-caves and sexism.
I’ve had this discussion before.
Symptom v disease
As someone else said, speaking generally, women exclude men and men exclude women, both due to a large, problematic subset of men who believe women are inferior. Sex-/Gender- exclusive spaces sort of solve the problems of sexism, but in the same way a sandwich solves food insecurity, which is to say ‘unsustainably, and in a very limited location.’ However, creating sex-/gender- exclusive spaces is really only focusing on the secondary effects in a way that has no effect on the primary issue, and may in some cases make the issue worse.
Nothing about a sex-/gender- exclusive space inherently creates a positive effect. Arguing against this truth is definitionally sex essentialism, a.k.a. sexism, because if you think something can only happen culturally because of sexual biology of the participants, you’re there. It can be argued that an exclusive space may be a temporary necessary evil, but I’m leery of people saying ‘let me do this bad thing now because I promise it will lead to better things someday.’
A <class>-only space innately encourages/enhances otherization. If you spend your time in a group that frames their definition of the world around some arbitrary distinction, which can be anything from sex to race to religion to job title to grooming habits, it encourages people to think of the division as meaningful. To a racist, your skin color tells them something significant about you. To a sexist, your sex does. And so on, and so on. To my knowledge, there are no current societies that view, say, toenail length as significant, so you won’t see anyone making any clipper-only groups. However, you would know if you saw such a group, even if no one specifically told you, the organizers/members of that group believe the distinction is significant enough to warrant the separation. They would be, whether they knew or wanted to be or not, toenail-lengthists, or at the very least, participating willingly in toenail-lengthism.
Class analysis and racism are the same, folks. I too am shocked, but you can’t lie on the Internet, so here we are.