Then why did you say “at least”. It’s not a good thing

Elon said it so now randos know it’s real

Why would you want this

It follows lemmy spoiler format. Your ui is not compliant

That’s not even what “the exception proves the rule” means, this is on the same level as braindead idiots using “the customer is always right!”

It sounds more like you run NixOS for your wife

That’s supposed to be what the primaries are for

It seems logical to decrement after the wish is granted, imo. Just causes issues in this particular case…

Are gay people not white…?

No fucking way

Beautiful list, nobody makes a better list, they said it can’t be done

“I don’t want to get bad reviews so I’m going to be a massive dick to my users”

I don’t think the older generations will ever realize this

“We need a moderate candidate” soundbite spewers in shambles

🤝

True, I guess immutable wasn’t the right term. It’s mutable, but it’s not really a choice.

I do disagree that banning men is necessarily helpful for the discussion of women’s issues though. Yes, some women’s issues are so far removed from our experience that most male advice wouldn’t be helpful. But I believe there is always value to be found, even-- actually, especially-- from the outgroup. This is the exact rationale for DEI, or at least the one that I find reasonable, which is that having perspectives from people with a wider variety of experiences represented in a space can improve the discussions within it. When done correctly, this improves the experience of the people who the group is “for”. Mixing perspectives with outgroup members like this also improves the mutual understanding between the group’s members and nonmembers, which in this case especially is important. And it allows people to more easily become allies.

What we don’t want is people with a hostile view of the group to be free to participate as much as they want. Maybe banning all men from the community is necessary, or maybe just efficient, to fulfill this purpose. In this case the ban might be worth it, but the loss of external perspectives is a downside and that should be considered here and always.

Like another user replied, there’s a difference between “this isn’t for you” and “you aren’t allowed here”. There aren’t a lot of other public high-quality places to discuss women’s issues, so as a man your options are to:

• Not discuss them, at most trying to understand by watching
• Start your own community for men to discuss women’s issues, which without womens’ perspectives is not likely to go well
• Start a community for all genders to discuss it – maybe I should do this one tbh, although maybe it might be smarter to expand the topic a little. This being the best option may be why I feel compelled to argue for the merits of gender inclusivity in the community we’re discussing

Very well said

[Sigh] Let me lay it out for the hard of thinking.

I’m not even reading your comment, you already lost lmao. Go take a break from the internet.

You know when conservatives ask why supposedly tolerant groups are actually very intolerant? This is that, but like actually legitimate. It baffles me that these groups can operate like this and not realize the harm they’re doing.

Your example doesn’t really match up because you only mentioned one group and the group shares no logical overlap with the called-out demographic (it’s a sexual preference group, while the demographic is a gender+race combo).

I interpreted the original statement as shorthand for white people discriminating against black people and men discriminating against women. Your reading is more grammatically accurate, but less charitable. Given your final paragraph I would encourage you to be more charitable with your interpretations.