this post was submitted on 09 Feb 2026
26 points (84.2% liked)

Asklemmy

52905 readers
456 users here now

A loosely moderated place to ask open-ended questions

Search asklemmy ๐Ÿ”

If your post meets the following criteria, it's welcome here!

  1. Open-ended question
  2. Not offensive: at this point, we do not have the bandwidth to moderate overtly political discussions. Assume best intent and be excellent to each other.
  3. Not regarding using or support for Lemmy: context, see the list of support communities and tools for finding communities below
  4. Not ad nauseam inducing: please make sure it is a question that would be new to most members
  5. An actual topic of discussion

Looking for support?

Looking for a community?

~Icon~ ~by~ ~@Double_A@discuss.tchncs.de~

founded 6 years ago
MODERATORS
 

[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.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[โ€“] KoboldCoterie@pawb.social 5 points 14 hours ago (2 children)

I would argue that in private spaces, absolutely. The owner of a private space has the exclusive right to admit anyone they choose and bar anyone they choose, based on any criteria they wish.

I'd argue this is doubly true for support group style groups. If there's a support group for a topic that is exclusively experienced by one sex, I don't think it's at all unreasonable to make that group exclusively for that sex. (Examples might be testicular or ovarian cancer sufferers.)

[โ€“] bus_factor@lemmy.world 6 points 14 hours ago

If the group is for ovarian cancer sufferers and they require a diagnosis to participate, discriminating on sex is just needless complexity. Why open up ambiguity (e.g. for intersex cancer sufferers) when it's already determined by the diagnosis?