zlacker

[return to "Leap: An Online Community for Women"]
1. cbcowa+F4[view] [source] 2018-01-16 17:40:36
>>stable+(OP)
Hi! I'm the creator of Leap. Glad to answer questions here.
◧◩
2. kdelok+ad[view] [source] 2018-01-16 18:26:00
>>cbcowa+F4
(not for me, so I'm not sure how much I could respond to questions)

Is Leap for people who are i) female, ii) identify as a woman, or iii) both?

I ask because I have a few friends who are biologically female, but genderqueer (by which they mean that they don't prescribe to the cultural stuff that is usually attached to gender). Would this be suitable for them?

As a more general note, since this looks to be a community that's about inclusion and addressing discrimination, it might be worth taking care not to conflate "female" and "woman".

◧◩◪
3. cbcowa+Oi[view] [source] 2018-01-16 18:53:35
>>kdelok+ad
Thank you for asking. iii – My goal is to create an inclusive community. I'd say Leap is suitable for your friend. I am also learning as I go, so would love feedback!
◧◩◪◨
4. sieveb+eo[view] [source] 2018-01-16 19:19:18
>>cbcowa+Oi
Again! Your goal is not to create an inclusive community. Your goal is to create an exclusive community.

Look, if want to create a female only website then go for it. But you have to own your actions. You can't exclude half the population then claim you care about inclusion. That is rank hypocrisy bordering on the delusional - you are doing the exact opposite of what you claim.

◧◩◪◨⬒
5. dang+fp[view] [source] 2018-01-16 19:25:27
>>sieveb+eo
I warned you once in this thread already (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16161338), but you've managed to break yet another HN site guideline with this comment, the one that reads as follows:

Please respond to the strongest plausible interpretation of what someone says, not a weaker one that's easier to criticize.

Obviously Cadran was talking about making Leap inclusive within the scope of being a forum for women—that's what the question was about. You don't have to agree with any particular view to see that, it just takes basic respect. If you can't or won't abide by the rules here, please stop commenting until you can.

◧◩◪◨⬒⬓
6. totalZ+Qz[view] [source] 2018-01-16 20:20:25
>>dang+fp
It appears to me that sievebrain's criticism lines up with any plausible interpretation of cbcowans' comment. One cannot claim the benefits of inclusion while also excluding half the population, and arguably more than half of tech professionals.

That's not to say that there's necessarily anything wrong with exclusion -- it is a fact of life in many ways, and can be fruitful. I am a member of some exclusive clubs and I find them to be highly rewarding.

Perhaps "hypocrisy" and "delusion" are inflammatory words, and should not have been chosen. I think a better way to characterize cbcowans' comment is "doublespeak," as the inherent nature of Leap is quite the opposite of her description.

Still, in regard to that particular HN site guideline, sievebrain's point applies to even the strongest possible interpretation of cbcowans' comment. There is necessarily a logical inconsistency between establishing an exclusive organization and then describing it as "an inclusive community."

[go to top]