When I was new in AA in the early 1990s, the phrase 'the men stick to the men; the women stick to the women' was prevalent. It suggested that, whilst a person was in the process of getting well, they should congregate and communicate chiefly with members of their own sex. It was generally frowned-upon for a man and woman to swap numbers if one of them was new, in the recovery process for the first time, fragile, or mad.
Why?
Because almost everyone that comes into AA is highly disordered when it comes to sex and romance, and shenanigans almost invariably derail the recovery of both people. The advice is to stay out of the sexual and romantic arena, maybe for a year, but certainly until the Steps have been completed for the first time.
In terms of twelfth-stepping, biologically male and female drinking patterns do seem a little different, and, having sponsored hundreds of people and talked to thousands about drinking patterns and Step One, I can certainly see some sense in twelfth-stepping within the lines of biological sex, although, of course, any individual can well buck the general trend and find more identification with members of the opposite sex.
The first spanner thrown in the works is homosexuality. As a gay man, men were the chief activator of sexual and romantic interest. I was 'safe' with women, in terms of such interest not being activated, although, to be fair, unless the man in question was gay, I was 'safe' there, too, as it takes two to tango, and unrequited sexual or romantic interest in someone not even potentially in the running is an unattractive proposition. There does, however, need to be some adjustment in the general principle for those whose sexual and romantic interest is in members of their own sex. The advice, then, is to stick with people one is not interested in sexually or romantically.
Gay and lesbian meetings throw a further spanner in these works: they make this last injunction harder to follow; the home group becomes a sexual and romantic minefield, and, until I was brought in line by a sponsor, who told me 'not to shit when you eat, Princess', I did, unfortunately, engage, and this did give rise to trouble. Until I started to give off ice queen vibes in gay meetings, i.e. until I shut down the 'up for grabs' signals and interactions, as I would at work or in some other formal setting, I did get a fair amount of attention, and a lot of men in my early meetings seemed to have no qualms about making a sexual play. For this reason (amongst others), I'm sceptical about meetings that are essentially if not overtly restrictive about the sexual orientation of their members. Young persons meetings and conventions are also demonstrably problematic for the same reason. They, as do gay and lesbian meetings, concentrate in one place people with a higher chance of sexual and romantic interest in each other. It's possibly, unconsciously, that this is one of the chief reasons they exist. Imagine an unacknowledged and unrecovered sex and romance addict: What sort of meeting would you like to attend?
Pit-stop: the gold standard is therefore to go to meetings where anyone can go, where there is no concentration of people in whom one has a sexual interest, steer clear of people you might have a sexual or romantic interest in, and steer clear of people who might have such an interest in you. There'll be plenty of people left to talk to. Once you get well, follow your conscience. Until then, follow this received wisdom.
In line with the above, the system of separating the greeting and newcomer-rep functions along the lines of biological sex made plenty of sense. There has been an invisible shift to splitting these along the lines of gender identity, which might well be at odds with biological sex, sometimes with the further addition of a gender-neutral or queer greeter or newcomer rep. This is all well and good and in line with contemporary mores. However, I've never seen it questioned why we continue to have this split. It does not particularly reduce the odds of sexual and romantic interest arising, firstly because sexual orientation is much more fluid and varied these days, and secondly because the male greeter, for instance, is not necessarily biologically male and the female greeter may well be a biological male who is interested sexually in women. If we're trying to forfend sexual and romantic interest and activity, this scheme is not going to work. The content of conversations with newcomers in such settings has nothing to do with sex, gender, or sexual orientation, in any case, so there's no need to split and channel newcomers into three lines by gender. As 'Old Frank' used to say: 'All this stuff about the men helping the men and women helping the women. How about alcoholics help alcoholics?' As long as the basic principle of steering clear of potential sexual and romantic interest is adhered to, people can gravitate to whoever they feel comfortable with. When I was new, I felt comfortable with women more than men, partly because of sexual orientation, partly because of my own arguably feminine traits, and partly because men are just ... well ... dull. Occasionally one sparkles, but it's rare. So I stuck chiefly to the women. Once the gals knew I was gay, which didn't take long, everyone was fine with it. I was not interested sexually in them, and they weren't interested sexually in me.
A couple of last points about sex. I don't dress at meetings like I'm trying to impress or pull. So: Cover up. No squeezing into outfits that highlight the sexually provocative parts of the body. Nothing hanging out. No picking at garments to show a little more flesh. No languid draping in an alluring way. Legs together. No dolling up. Dressing and handling oneself as if one is at church is not a bad approach.
Finally, greeters and those celebrating sobriety length or welcoming newcomers with newcomers' chips, as part of the role, will sometimes give people lovely, big, lingering full-body hugs. This is all well and good, but, when this is combined with dressing to pull, the encouragement of close, fleshy interaction with newcomers, even people on their first day, is perhaps questionable. What happens at the front of the meeting sets the precedent throughout the meeting. There is something schizophrenic about segregating newcomers by gender but then orchestrating public physical embraces that take no account of sex, gender, or sexual orientation, especially where either the newcomer or the established member might well be woefully underdressed.
Niles, in Frasier: 'As mother would say, a handshake is as good as a hug.'