Salah [ey/em]

What we refer to as ‘races’ are racialised groups of people.

Racialization is a complex and multifaceted concept that has been used to describe the process by which certain groups are categorized and treated as inferior or superior based on their perceived racial or ethnic identity. This process is deeply rooted in historical and contemporary power dynamics, shaping societal norms and cultural identities.

source

So it’s the society you live in that defines what groups of people get racialised and who belongs to that group. In the US and Europe, racialised groups include Arabs, African descended black and brown people, Eastern Asian people, Southern Asian people, latinx people, Native Americans, Roma/Sinti people, etc.

Since racialisation is purely a social construct, the people who get racialised change over time. Italians used to be a racialised group in the US but are now considered ‘white’.

With white, people usually refer to the ‘in-group’ of a society (from a US and European perspective). Being white means that you are not racialised. The answer to the question if someone would be considered ‘mixed’ if they descend from both England and Swedish is usually no, because English and Swedish people are considered white and don’t face characterisation or discrimination based on how they look.

Racialisation is unscientific and a form of discrimination. It’s a fact in society and it’s important to be aware that some people get racialised and thus treated differently based on their appearance, but trying to characterise people in a set of ‘races’ is not scientific because it is purely based on something as subjective as appearance.

The point is that gender is not binary and that there will always be people who will get excluded for no reason when you try to define a boundary for exclusion.

You sound like a terf.

I’m speaking of my experience of being trans nonbinary and having been discriminated against under the guise of gender exclusive spaces. Cis women have a long history of excluding trans and nonbinary people from ‘women only’ spaces so excuse me for being sceptical of the concept.

Not all women will be at feminist spaces for women’s protection either so it’s important to remove people from a safe space whenever they make the space unsafe. I’m open to the idea of women only spaces if they serve a function but in practice the most common function I have seen them be used as is for enforcing gender norms and excluding trans and nonbinary people.

Most queer spaces make a point to not police on queerness because queer people get excluded so often from gender exclusive spaces. Policing on ideology prevents that issue entirely and doesn’t make the space less safe. It actually makes the space safer of it.

I’d also say that there wasn’t an issue with men only space to discuss testicular cancer, say.

Why wouldn’t trans women be welcome at such spaces?

Can you give an example for when those safe spaces add more value than for example making it a feminist only space where feminist men are welcome as well? In my experience feminists spaces attract very few men anyways.

Why? Benelux and Scandinavia are completely dependent software from technofascist pedophiles and some even let these technofascists store the sensitive data of their own citizens in the US.

Doesn’t have to be transphobic. It’s only suspicious within a pattern of behaviour in which your bf seemingly doesn’t see you as for who you are.