1) Okay, I now understand how you draw the line between exclusionary and discriminatory practices: in your mind it appears to be the difference between an absolute and a tendency.
2) Just no. "I wasn't claiming that objecting to trans women being called "women" was in all respects like objecting to marriage equality" (emphasis in original). The argument I was making concerned the similarity of one specific objection to a) same sex marriage and b) calling trans women women, namely that to do so was oppressive to hetero couples and to cis women respectively. I can't see how that has any relevance to the assertion that "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."
3) I don't want to be tedious, but the sense of "accidental" I was using (what I called "the philosophical sense", as in per accidens) is indeed pretty similar in meaning to "incidental" - indeed I might have used the latter word had I thought of it, as being less ambiguous.
I haven't said anything at all about the club of all women excluding men. Making some allowance for gender-fluid and intersex people that seems a no brainer, like saying that the set of squares excludes triangles. I suspect we've been at some cross purposes here.
no subject
2) Just no. "I wasn't claiming that objecting to trans women being called "women" was in all respects like objecting to marriage equality" (emphasis in original). The argument I was making concerned the similarity of one specific objection to a) same sex marriage and b) calling trans women women, namely that to do so was oppressive to hetero couples and to cis women respectively. I can't see how that has any relevance to the assertion that "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."
3) I don't want to be tedious, but the sense of "accidental" I was using (what I called "the philosophical sense", as in per accidens) is indeed pretty similar in meaning to "incidental" - indeed I might have used the latter word had I thought of it, as being less ambiguous.
I haven't said anything at all about the club of all women excluding men. Making some allowance for gender-fluid and intersex people that seems a no brainer, like saying that the set of squares excludes triangles. I suspect we've been at some cross purposes here.