hey, I appreciate your comment, but this community is for women only

thank you for your comment, but this is a community for women only

Sorry, I'm not entirely following your statement, who do you consider "women who are men"?

EDIT: I assume you're talking about this post's body text:

Women only… trans women are women, and transphobic or gender critical talk isn’t allowed. Anyone under the trans umbrella (eg non binary) is welcome

Are you just suggesting the edit made to the sidebar be made to this body text as well, i.e. that instead the body text says:

Women only… trans women are women, and transphobic or gender critical talk isn’t allowed. Any woman-identified person under the trans umbrella (e.g. non-binary, bigender, agender) is welcome.

Not all bigender, agender, or non-binary people identify as women, being listed as examples of trans people who might identify as women and are welcome is not necessary for their inclusion, and the language before is actually more inclusive by stating "anyone under the trans umbrella is welcome". I'm not sure what problem is being solved here.

EDIT2: After thinking on it, I guess the idea is that by explicitly listing that non-binary, agender, and bigender people who identify as women can participate might it make some people feel more welcome.

I don't think there is anything necessarily wrong with this, but the rule should be read as general, and we don't want to give the impression that only those kinds of trans people that are listed as examples can participate.

A trans man like Leslie Feinberg would also be welcome despite being much closer to a binary trans man, for example.

The rules are more like guidelines than narrowly applied laws, and I just want to avoid implying any variant that isn't listed is somehow not as welcome, the guideline is meant to work that way (and variants not listed are just as welcome as those that are).

You absolutely didn't get anyone banned, nothing you did was responsible for them being a man and violating the rules by commenting.

While I hear your concern about transparency (and I am sympathetic - I can imagine feeling the same way in your situation), I should point out that transparency is not owed in this context, nor is this the appropriate place or context for litigating my moderation decisions.

The decision I made was based on what I considered sufficient evidence that superkret is not a woman, and my judgement was seconded by @CheeseToastie@lazysoci.al.

While I'm always open to being wrong (I am human after all, I make mistakes!), and I hope you would let me know if you found compelling evidence that I made a mistake, I stand by my decision based on the evidence I have (even if it is not appropriate to disclose and litigate that evidence and my reasoning with you here in public).

Thank you for your insightful comment, but this community is for women only.

Thanks for your comment, but this is a women-only community.

I spent so much time in front of mirrors like that as a teenager, obsessing about every black-head and pimple, etc.

thank you for your comment, but this community is for women only 😊

Thank you for your comment, but this is a women-only community.

hey no worries - just raising awareness ❤️

I get wanting a recipe too (it's a common impulse, I think that's part of how we ended up with a rule like that).

I think it's more about being human and sensitive to the person posting their food pics, and not contributing to a culture of entitlement to someone else's free labor and so on, which I don't think you're doing.

when I said "forced integration on principle", I meant the reason for forced integration is the principle of non-exclusion or inclusion, and when I said "forced exclusion on utility" I meant forced exclusion based on the utility it provides.

Both generate wrongs. And yes, you could flip it and express it the way you said: the forced inclusion on principle is wrong because it sacrifices the good (on utility), and forced exclusion on utility is wrong because it violates inclusiveness (on principle). Sorry for the ambiguous language! 😅

(I also think that “there are no other communities like this one” is not an argument for or against. If one believes that exclusion is wrong on principle, that actually increases the urgency of changing the rule, since it would restore the number of communities with that rule to 0, righting a wrong.)

I disagree, I think this context is relevant to the moral reasoning.

If society had very few integrated spaces and this were just one of many exclusionary spaces, there would be less of a reason for the existence of this community's exclusionary rule in particular, because there are already other spaces where women can go to (they don't rely on this as their only safe space).

As is, because Lemmy is male-dominated and women here have no other safe spaces, the existence of this safe space is more justified in my mind.

(Not to deny your point that the principle is no less violated, but hopefully you can see by now that that principle is not the only morally relevant fact in this situation, we need to be able to see the whole picture to make good moral judgements - laser focusing on just that principle is a mistake and I think leads to immoral conclusions despite how it feels when you are only focused on that principle.)

It is also relevant that the exclusion is motivated by women's experiences of oppression based on their gender, the desire for safety from interactions with men is not an immoral or bigoted basis on which to exclude, it is protective.

And thank you for your politeness, I am glad you appreciated my responses and I hope to see you around. ❤️

I agree, but both utilitarianism and deontology as ethical theories fail in various ways.

We see the ways forced integration on principle is wrong, and also that forced exclusion on utility is wrong.

In the end we're stuck having to make morally imperfect choices to protect the things we care about. In the end I am happy to help carve out a safe space for women, and in this context whatever technical moral problems exist with this policy weigh lighter on my conscience considering the good the policy creates and the fact that 1. there are already plenty of other communities where men can participate and discuss on women's issues, and 2. there are no other communities like this one where only women are allowed.

And yes, I do think there is acceptance of the exceptional guy who is considered safe and a good fit and we feel it's OK to allow to comment, but the community is intended to be for women and the rule is there mostly for all the random men who walk in and start ruining the vibe.

But we also don’t know which users are men or women without them identifying themselves. In contrast, we can actually see whether someone is a feminist based on their actions and comments.

Sure, but a man can claim to be feminist and still challenge and talk over women's perspectives, creating a chilling effect for the women even without violating a boundary on being feminist. Feminist behavior is harder to police than being men. Either way, it's not my rule and I didn't make it. Like you, I think separatism is generally a bad idea and I prefer inclusive communities.

But I also understand that marginalized communities are not always best served by being forced to include people that create a chilling effect, so I am not going to tear down this community's exclusionary rule, esp. as you say since there are already other inclusive communities.

To my perspective, advocating for the right of men to access the only womens space in a male-dominated social site is not in reality as progressive as it might sound in theory.

it's a reference to this meme:

On the Internet, nobody knows you're a dog

We don't know which men are feminist or not, and even feminist men don't always behave in ways that are egalitarian. By having a safe space women can avoid the common interactions they have with men which are often problematic and threatening, or even just annoying.

The suggestion that a single Lemmy community be a safe space for women is not a suggestion that everything should be segregated or that society should be organized this way. This is no different than providing on Lemmy a space like a girl's night, baby shower, other similar social situations where men are not involved.

I probably wouldn't vote to eliminate this community's women's only rule (because I don't want to take that away from other women who value this space, even if I have a different perspective), but I happen to agree with you that being a man isn't the issue and excluding men isn't the best practice.

Perhaps you could lead the charge on a developing an inclusive sister community to this one that is inclusive of men?

Having a space where you aren't harassed by men is precisely the reason for the rule to exclude men ... You shouldn't have to hide who you are to avoid harassment, you should be able to feel safe to be yourself.

Thank you for your comment, but this is a community for women only.

Thank you for your comment, but this is a space for women only to comment and post.

Thank you for your comment, but this is a space for women only. Hope you understand. ❤️

That's a good instinct, and I share that. However, there are clearly times when allowing an oppressed minority to have their own safe spaces can make sense. Think of the reverse: forced integration of an oppressed group is not a good idea either, disallowing them to have their own spaces or to meet is itself a form of oppression.

While I agree it can feel discriminatory and icky, this particular form of exclusion is meant to be protective of women, and I don't see our existence as a women's-only space as a meaningful threat or injustice to the men of Lemmy.