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…
Hi there, I also have nothing to do with makeup or following beauty standard or fashion ... however I have friends who do, and sometimes they like to talk about it. So ... I just zone out and let them get on with it, it's not hurting me.
Men dominate 99.9999% of online spaces, and even the most supportive of ally men will sometimes talk over women or assume their opinion is more important, so I think that maintaining this as a space just for women is a good thing.
I just zone out and let them get on with it, it’s not hurting me.
This is so key to this debate right here.
People have groups or threads for talking about video games. Video games bore me to tears. They're not for me and by extension neither are the groups or threads. (I bring this up specifically because someone brought up playing a video game together in this very group.)
A mature person sees something that's not for them and … moves on. A certain breed of immature man sees something that's not for them and "just answers a"(n obviously rhetorical)" question" to whine about the injustice of not being invited, not realizing that they're showing in their behaviour EXACTLY why they're not invited.
I guess I should go to that thread about the video game and whine that I think video games are boring as all Hell and we should instead find a place to play 六虎 together. You know. 'Cause that's how my "betters" are teaching me how things work.
what does it mean to talk over someone on lemmy? It's tree-based discussion, so I can't really visualize that being possible.
Picture a well-intentioned man. (I'm not even talking trolls who do this deliberately and strategically.) This well-intentioned man intrudes into a conversation about, say, workplace sexual harrassment experiences. They say something ham-fisted like:
How is it 'creepy' if I put my hand on a woman colleague's shoulder when looking at something on their desk to help? I do the same with my male colleagues.
Again, we're presuming a well-intentioned man here. Not a troll who's deliberately triggering. Just a well-intentioned man who genuinely believes that it's fine to do this.
Now five women, say, have been comparing war stories about sexual harassment at work. They each respond with a further example, or a a plausible progression from "hand on shoulder" to real life experience that ended badly or whatnot. Each of these five women brings up a different point or point of view, so this isn't just repetition.
Now the well-intentioned man responds to each one, asking for more details, or failing to understand and needing explanation, or whatever.
We now have, with only one round of this, a situation where five women in total have spoken: one twice (to report the original story, and then to respond to the man), the rest once each. Six messages from five women in total. And from one man we have six messages.
And this never ends in one round, does it? In no time flat we have a thread that is 80% written by one man and 20% written by five women. One man's voice is drowning out five women's voices.
Now multiply this by the number of men (again, here we're assuming only the well-intentioned!) and the number of threads and you rapidly have a forum for women that is mostly men talking.
That is how you "talk over" a group on Lemmy.
Fair enough. Anyway, I am not advocating that well-intentioned men be permitted into the community -- just ones that fit in.
Apparently I made assumptions about @jsomae@lemmy.ml that were unwarranted. I've done some light editing of this post to correct for this.
I have a question for men who ask this question:
Why must you absolutely be here? There are literally thousands of communities on Lemmy and yet you're offended that one doesn't want your presence.
Think carefully about why that is. Think carefully about why you're choosing to come into the community you're clearly not welcome in (given the very rules of said community) to whine about how you're not welcome in it instead of just shrugging and saying "guess that's not for me".
~~When you realize~~If you ever realize why you just did that, then you'll also quite magically understand why the community rules are the way they are. I'll give you a free clue, though, to help you to your realization: your very insistence on asking is why the rule is the way it is.
I added a sentence and changed a few words in the closing sentence.
Honestly I think a majority of the men commenting don't even notice the community they're posting in, let alone read the rules. It happens a lot when a post reaches /c/all and a flood of outside users suddenly are interacting with the post.
Luckily this means a lot of them are not too impolite about it (even if some of them get defensive).
Between the jumping-spider-reflexes of the mod team and, yeah, the actually pretty level-headed responses of the men I've seen who've stumbled here, this has been pretty good. I was expecting to see a whole lot of manosphere rage in the modlog and … haven't.
This is a nice place!
Well, your response is identical to, for instance, the response given in terf communities I used to peruse. (Relax -- I'm a better person now.) The reason I am asking is that I think exclusivity is a bad thing, rather than the absence of a good thing -- i.e., the world would be better with fewer exclusive places.
I'd counter with this -- why don't you want men in the community? And does the answer you give to that apply to every man, or just a subset? I understand, of course, that the easiest way to exclude that subset is to exclude all men, and I wouldn't want to ask the mod team to do more work for free.
I'm not sure if that reference to a terf group was a subtle dig or just ham-fistedness. I'm going to assume the latter for now and overlook it.
I think the core of why women-only spaces (or any affinity-based spaces) exist is that sometimes, people need a “room” where they don’t have to explain themselves from scratch, justify their feelings, or brace themselves for misunderstandings, no matter how well-intentioned. It’s about having a place where you can relax and be understood without constantly translating your experience or others.
It’s a bit like why people form Chinese-only groups, or native women-only circles, or even expat meetups. It’s not necessarily about thinking outsiders are bad or unwelcome as people; it’s about the relief of not having to explain cultural references (like 关系, say), background pain points, or subtle social cues. Even the most well-meaning outsider, by virtue of their different life experience, can unintentionally disrupt that sense of “home base.” And sometimes, you just want to be with people who get it, so you can drop your guard for a while.
Even when outsiders are respectful and curious, their presence often means the group’s energy shifts from sharing and healing (or even just shooting the shit) to explaining and justifying. It’s not about active hostility; it’s about emotional labour. Imagine a Chinese-only group where a non-Chinese person keeps asking (genuinely!) for explanations of idioms, jokes, or cultural references. It’s not malicious, but it’s exhausting for the group members who just wanted to chat freely.
By way of analogy, imagine a French-language only room that permits monolingual anglophones. How much time would be wasted on translating things people say to a non-francophone? How much energy and effort would be spent on servicing the needs of the anglophone participants at the expense of the people the group is ostensibly for?
Yes. That masculine/feminine divide can sometimes be that vast.
This ties into the “Five Geek Social Fallacies,” especially the first one: “Ostracizers are Evil.” The idea is that some people believe any exclusion is inherently bad, but in reality, boundaries are necessary for healthy communities. (I stressed that because it's an incredibly important point.) Not every space has to be for everyone, and that’s okay. Sometimes, the most supportive thing you can do is recognize when your presence isn’t needed, and respect that boundary.
It’s not that every man, or every outsider, is a problem. It’s just that the group can’t function as intended if it’s always on alert for the possibility of being misunderstood, having to explain basics, or, in the extreme case, having to defend its existence. The easiest, kindest way to preserve that space is to set a clear boundary, even if it means some good people are left outside. It’s not a judgment on those people, it’s a recognition of the group’s needs.
Exclusivity in these contexts isn’t about hostility or superiority. It’s about creating a rare, valuable space where people can be fully themselves, unfiltered and unguarded. Sometimes, that means drawing a line—not because outsiders are bad, but because the group’s needs come first in that particular space.
I hope that helps clarify where I’m coming from.
As a man, I'm only commenting on this here because it was explicitly framed as a question to men.
There are several reasons a man might feel this way.
Firstly, it's blatant sexist discrimination. I won't claim it's unjustified discrimination, but it is unambiguously sexist discrimination, and sexist discrimination feels unjust. I don't see any communities which specifically disallow women, and I'm quite sure such a policy would be immediately challenged. I doubt "your very insistence on asking is why the rule is the way it is" would be considered an acceptable justification.
Secondly, it feels like forced silence. Not only for mundane topics that a man may have thoughtful input for, but more importantly when men in general are targeted for the particular behaviors of individuals. Watching your half of the population be unilaterally lambasted, sometimes unfairly, and being deleted when you try to defend the bulk of your demographic feels oppressive. I'm sure women feel similarly when a group of men generalizes all women to be behaviourally identical to their toxic exes.
Then there's just good old fashioned, gender-neutral human nature. When someone tells you you can't do something, that just makes you want to do it more. Forbidden fruit and all that.
I'd wager the first is probably the most impactful though. It just feels unjust and hypocritical to be barred from a discussion based purely on sexist discrimination, especially when the reverse discrimination is so vigorously opposed. That kind of unilateral isolation is helping to drive a wedge between men and women, and I've watched it push normal young men to misogynist influencers (e.g. Andrew Tate) over time.
That said, I can understand the desire for such a space. I'm just trying to shed light on the mindset. Sure, there are plenty of misogynists that are trying to be disrespectful, but I think most men who would want to participate just feel the exclusion is hypocritical. Spot banning misogynists is obviously totally fine, but blanket deleting every man, regardless of content, feels like a blatant double standard.
I think dandelion nailed it in the other reply though: I don't make a habit of checking the community and its rules when I respond to a post, I'm just scrolling Everything and engaging with content and discussions I find interesting. I've commented here in the past for that exact reason, before noticing the community rules. I'll probably do so again unintentionally in the future if I don't notice the community. So it goes.
I hope mods keep this up since I'm sincerely trying to answer the question specifically directed at men, but I get it if not. shrugs This isn't a community for me, and personally I'm fine with that. Just might be worth at least considering why a non-toxic man might feel inclined to comment.
Firstly, it’s blatant sexist discrimination. I won’t claim it’s unjustified discrimination, but it is unambiguously sexist discrimination, and sexist discrimination feels unjust.
And here we go. The first whiner who absolutely must speak in a group that is explicitly not for him. There are thousands of communities to choose from, but he absolutely had to choose this one. And naturally had to choose the language of oppression, distorting it beyond all reason to soothe his fragile ego.
This is why I'm glad we have a mod team that has jumping-spider reflexes.
You asked...
The rest of Lemmy is free for men to participate in, this is the only community where men are not permitted to post. This helps create a safe space for women to chat without the direct influence and reactions of men.
I also personally agree with you and think men can have valuable contributions, including on women's topics. But I also respect the desire for a women's only space as well, especially in a context of a sexist society where women struggle to gain equal rights under the law and in society generally - and in a male-dominated social space like Lemmy.
I think we should exclude people who are bigoted instead, or even people who just don’t “get” women’s issues.
These are also the rules, bigots are not welcome here.
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.
I get that, but the reality is that lots of women enjoy makeup (including me!) even if some don't.
Listing make-up and hair as examples of what women might be interested in is not meant to be reductive or essentialising, even if it is based on generalizations and what is perceived as a common interest among women.
We're not saying women must be interested in makeup to be women, or the only way to be women is to be high-femme. To the contrary, the founder of this community who wrote that example recently posted a meme critical of makeup as an industry that exploits women's insecurities.
Thank you for your post!! ❤️
Thanks for understanding. Fair enough, it makes sense. But I guess I just don't like to see any online space exist where people are excluded just based on their demographic instead of their ability to contribute.
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.
forced integration of an oppressed group is not a good idea either
This is a brilliant piece of flipping the script here! I will be stealing this and I will not be ashamed of it! 🤣
I guess I don't see how excluding feminist men is protective of women. Let me be real, I have had a lot of bad interaction with men in the real world and online, but I have as best as I can resisted the urge to draw a line and say men as a whole are the problem. I feel bad for some really sweet men who feel ashamed of their gender, and I this kind of philosophy contributes to that shame. (Maybe I'm too much of an individualist.)
Anyway, this doesn't bother me enough to block the community as someone else suggested. I do appreciate a space to talk about women's issues. But if in the future there is a vote as to whether to allow feminists of any gender to participate, I would vote yes.
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?
We don’t know which men are feminist or not
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. (For what it's worth, I invite men to my girl's nights. It's never been a problem, because I only invite friends to my parties. If I wouldn't be okay with him at my girl's nights, I wouldn't want him at any event.)
and even feminist men don’t always behave in ways that are egalitarian.
As you said, there's already rules against that.
sister community
There exist inclusive sister communities to this already. Creating another community would not reduce the amount of exclusivity, and it's the exclusivity which bothers me, not this community. I actually like this community already from what I have seen.
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.
Sure, but a man can claim to be feminist and still challenge and talk over women’s perspectives…
Ask me how I know this, for example.
I've been in women's groups that welcomed men. 80% of the talking was done by the 20% of men in attendance.
Sometimes you just need a place to vent without getting #notallmen-ed. And sometimes you want to hear your own voice and the voices of those like you instead of someone else's.
Yeah, the chilling-effect argument is most compelling to me in favour of the rule. From a utilitarian perspective, I actually do think the no-men rule is effective. Deontologically though, it just seems immoral -- I can't help but picture the one guy who exists who'd be a good fit here and is unjustly not allowed to participate. Perhaps we can tag them as "honorary woman" or something lol.
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.
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.
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. ❤️
Hi and welcome to WomensStuff! Really glad to hear your views on how we do things. Dandelion already said it all better than I would have done so I don't have anything to add, just agreeing with her. 😊
follow up question, why does it matter what you call yourself on the internet?
on the internet, nobody knows you're a cat.