Irrelevant. Haven't you ever belonged to a club many of whose members never show up? Haven't you ever found yourself enlisted in some "club" (usually a business gimmick designed to try to seep money off you) that you have no interest in?
"The Lofty Bar is open to anyone more than 6'3" in height"
I know women that tall; and I expect you'd get a high filtering towards trans women that way!
In any case, also irrelevant. This is a formal rule, which is one difference, and more importantly, it's open to ANYONE more than 6'3", whether they're friends or not. These social groups of married people do exclude their single friends; that's undisputed. But it doesn't make it a club of ALL married people, the way that a women-only space is a club of ALL women (whether the women want to join or not). That was my point of bringing this up: the effects of these definitions on the class of people who want to be considered part of those classes: trans women being women, same-sex married couples being considered married people. People who are not part of the classes are irrelevant to the analogy.
To borrow your own language:
To complain about single people being excluded from social groups of married people is much like complaining about the exclusion of men from women-only spaces.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
(no subject)
Date: 2015-06-29 07:20 pm (UTC)Irrelevant. Haven't you ever belonged to a club many of whose members never show up? Haven't you ever found yourself enlisted in some "club" (usually a business gimmick designed to try to seep money off you) that you have no interest in?
"The Lofty Bar is open to anyone more than 6'3" in height"
I know women that tall; and I expect you'd get a high filtering towards trans women that way!
In any case, also irrelevant. This is a formal rule, which is one difference, and more importantly, it's open to ANYONE more than 6'3", whether they're friends or not. These social groups of married people do exclude their single friends; that's undisputed. But it doesn't make it a club of ALL married people, the way that a women-only space is a club of ALL women (whether the women want to join or not). That was my point of bringing this up: the effects of these definitions on the class of people who want to be considered part of those classes: trans women being women, same-sex married couples being considered married people. People who are not part of the classes are irrelevant to the analogy.
To borrow your own language:
To complain about single people being excluded from social groups of married people is much like complaining about the exclusion of men from women-only spaces.
In fact, it's the exact same argument.