Those are beliefs vs identity, a particularly tricky subject. The problem is when, I for example, don't see it that way; I see many of those "identities" to be beliefs also, beliefs about self.
As an example, to a Creationist, arguments about evolution are about identity - there are few boundaries to which subjects people involve their own self-worth/identity. A similar argument arises wrt trans people and the various proposed categories that have arisen - simply saying "this is who we are" is not enough, since exactly that is what is debated.
That said, I suspect you mean "you can't welcome both women, and people who hold anti-woman beliefs". But the labeling of any belief is itself a belief. Some of those idea you call "anti-women" can both be considered not anti-woman and be held by women e.g. not all feminist believe sexual content to be harmful to women, or the idea to be productive.
Still, the points I was making ''aren't'' tricky.
- For the dimensions that I listed (and implied with the "etc"), in today's environment, HN is kidding themselves by thinking they can welcome "both sides"
- the feedback they're getting is from people (including me) who see YC and 'dang personally as aligning themselves with the antis by blocking political discussion
> That said, I suspect you mean "you can't welcome both women, and people who hold anti-woman beliefs".
No, I meant very specifically that in today's context HN - and by extension YC - can't simultaneously be welcoming to anti-feminists - and welcoming to women and allies.
> can't simultaneously be welcoming to anti-feminists - and welcoming to women and allies.
ally is a feminist term, but why can't women be anti-feminist? Are you describing this to be the case, or prescribing it?
Yes, women can be anti-feminist. As you said, these are tricky issues.
If you haven't yet understood why many people see the political ban as aligning with this, then either you haven't tried very hard or your belief system is preventing you from understanding. There's plenty of information here and in other discussions, so give it another try.
why won't you say explicitly? Is there some nuance that cannot be stated?
If this is something you really want to understand (whether or not you agree), invest the effort (which may also mean finding a way to get beyond any limits your belief system is leading to).
If you do that, you don't need any further explanation from me.
If you don't do that, nothing I say will help you understand.
> I don't see it as a good use of my time or energy to try to explain it to you
Is pretty arrogant, you have such high esteem for your perspective you don't think it could be wrong, in fact I'm biased for not understanding it;
You're suggesting, instead, that I must have to go on some mysterious journey-of-self, as if you were a wise zen master furnishing me with enlightenment; rather than supporting your own, somewhat basic, claim that "the ban supports the antis"...
Maybe it's my biases, but that seems pretty passive-aggressive.