"I haven't said anything at all about the club of all women excluding men." Really? Yikes! Because that's exactly what this conversation has been about. My initial comment was was an observation that the two cases you discuss differ in this respect: that the class of all women (excluding men) is a socially meaningful concept, while the class of all married people (excluding singles) is not. (I used the word "club".) You've been irritatingly poking at that by pointing out that not all women choose to participate in exclusionary classes of all women, and that there exist clubs exclusively of married people who are friends (which is not the same as a club of all married people; that they are also friends is an essential component). None of which is relevant to the point, which is how this affects the edge conditions of those who consider themselves part of the class but whom others would exclude (trans women, married gays).
2) As I read your first paragraph, it says "I stand by it" and "it seemed worth saying," and also "this particular argument ... was the same in both cases." Since "this particular argument" is what we're discussing, it's relevant here.
3) If what you meant was "incidental" as I mean incidental, which is "consciously apparent to the perpetrators (and least after being pointed out) and not purely happenstance (that would be 'accidental') but not the basic goal or purpose of the restriction," then yes, that's exactly what I'm arguing. Even in the case of the British class system. I've been in groups that incidentally exclude in this way. While the excluded outsiders have a better perception of what the results are, the insiders know what the conscious motivations are.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
(no subject)
Date: 2015-07-01 04:09 pm (UTC)2) As I read your first paragraph, it says "I stand by it" and "it seemed worth saying," and also "this particular argument ... was the same in both cases." Since "this particular argument" is what we're discussing, it's relevant here.
3) If what you meant was "incidental" as I mean incidental, which is "consciously apparent to the perpetrators (and least after being pointed out) and not purely happenstance (that would be 'accidental') but not the basic goal or purpose of the restriction," then yes, that's exactly what I'm arguing. Even in the case of the British class system. I've been in groups that incidentally exclude in this way. While the excluded outsiders have a better perception of what the results are, the insiders know what the conscious motivations are.