[hueving]

>That is completely you bringing your prejudices into the equation

Says the person advocating for special women's-only classes, implying they are not capable of participating in mixed gender environments.

>that's not a bad thing IMHO and there is no harm done.

Except to the kids that were refused from entering the class due to their gender. They were deprived of whatever the teacher and their would-be peers had to offer.

[kohanz]

I don't know where you live, but in my area for each female-specific coding event there are 10s or 100s without restriction that are male dominated. Again, this is like claiming that the existence of women's only gyms infringes on your ability to find a place to work out.

[EdHominem]

> Do gyms have womens-only sections because women are not as good as men at going to the gym?!

"Infringes on your ability" never was the question.

There always were many clubs open to women - only a few here and there were men-only. In fact, by the time we got rid of men's only clubs they were rarely very influential so you can't even really argue that they were special. But, obviously I think, we aren't getting rid of men's only clubs simply to give women the choice of 50 clubs instead of 45, but because we feel it's unfair for people to be excluded.

> Learning to code is not a competitive sport.

Right, so setup an event that is not and it'll be appropriate for all learners, of either gender. This is the sort I prefer to attend, fwiw.

But if you make it competitive (offering prizes, recognition, or mentors for instance) don't be surprised if people treat it that way.

> Any presumptions of ability being brought into the discussion is being injected by your own viewpoints.

Why are there paralympics, if not to give the paralympians a chance against the uninjured?

> I think it's a really ugly comparison, to be honest.

How it makes you feel is seldom related to the truth.

Also, not that your comfort would matter either way, I think you're hearing me say that there's an actual skill difference, which I am not, and I do not see one amongst my work peers. I'm talking about the message inherent in segregated events.

> It's all-girl to encourage female participation and has absolutely nothing to do with ability.

How does making an event "no males" encouraging? That says a lot of things, but "You're just as good" is not one of them. How about just making the event about things that the girls in question care about?

And, even if it had only positive connotations, why is it fine to have all-girls events but not all-boys events?