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".
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.
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.
No space is being taken away. A new space is being created. This space is to give a voice to a population who reports, as a group, being silenced and undermined in other spaces by the dominant group.
This allows voices to be heard that weren't heard before. That's inclusion. Having those voices stay silent is exclusion.
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."
In this case the context is the question. Q: are all who identify as women welcome to join? A: yes, we want to be inclusive of all who identify as women. It's clear what "inclusive" means there, the same way it's clear that "join" doesn't mean sticking things together with carpenter's glue.
It does take a little work to remember that the same word can have two different scopes in the same discussion. Similarly, one might not use the same variable name to mean two different things in the same function. Nevertheless the meaning was reasonably clear and certainly plausible.
The problem is that when a word carries an emotional charge and the topic carries an emotional charge, outer-cortex nuances get flooded by deeper defensive reactions. This happens to all of us. It's one reason why discussions like this need moderation and the moderators need a lot of practice—and a lot of support—in order not to get flooded themselves. I'm dangling by the same thread much of the time, so I have empathy for it, but it's not ok for commenters to let themselves become disrespectful.
But what we don't always realize is that the internet isn't terribly inclusive in the first place. There's a prevailing atmosphere in well-populated tech spaces - Reddit, HN - that tends to shut down women's voices, especially if they're talking about an experience that men on the internet can't relate to.
I'm all for this project, hope it works out.
You may have noble intentions, but refusing nearly half the population simply on the basis of their anatomy is not inclusive.