WomensStuff

593 readers

150 users here now

Women only trans inclusive This is an inclusive community for all things women. Whether you're here for make up tips, feminism or just friendly chit chat, we've got you covered.

Rules…

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.
Don’t be a dick. No personal attacks, no aggression, play nice.
Don’t hate on groups, hatefilled talk about groups is not allowed. Ever.
No governmental politics, so no talk of Trump actions etc. We recommend [email protected] for that, but here is an escape from it.

founded 1 month ago

MODERATORS

[email protected]

-11

Why exclude (edit: feminist) men? (lemmy.ml)

submitted 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) by [email protected] to c/[email protected]

61 comments fedilink hide all child comments

This is an inclusive community for all things women. Whether you’re here for make up tips, feminism or just friendly chit chat, we’ve got you covered.

I feel like men can do all of those things, so I don't see why we are excluding them. Just because it's a women-centric community doesn't mean they shouldn't be allowed. I think we should exclude people who are bigoted instead, or even people who just don't "get" women's issues.

Aside: I'm personally irritated that make-up is what's considered a woman-centric topic. That's kind of reductive -- not everyone is femme.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] [email protected] -2 points 1 day ago (1 children)

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

It's the reverse, isn't it? The former is wrong on utility, the latter wrong on principle.

(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.)

Anyway, I appreciate your time and patience, and I won't take up more of it. Thank you for the good conversation.

[–] [email protected] 5 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago)

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. ❤️