I, as a man, am being excluded, not because I am unskilled or any other bad quality other than my gender?
Your community's design actively fosters hate and exclusion due to something I can not control.
I hope your service, and others like it, crashes and burns, because it is a step backwards after we have come so far.
You, as not a woman, are not being included. This is very different from exclusion. It also does not make any comment about male-ness equating with bad-ness; ironically, you are the one bringing in the idea that membership/non-membership in a category involves a quality judgement.
Correct me as my interpretation may be completely off, but are you using a definition of "exclusion" that takes into account wider social factors?
I'm inclined to see "not being included" as somebody's state until they actually attempt to enter. If they're denied entry (outright denied, or never allowed to enter and kept in limbo), "not included" is just euphemism for "excluded".
Sometimes exclusion is a good policy.
(Two disclaimers: I'm not complaining about the requirements/policies of Leap, and I really hope it becomes a healthy, viable community. I also understand a lot of the annoyance with mansplaining — hate the term, enjoy the concept — but I think this is one case where the desire to make everyone feel included makes it hard to establish closed communities with better policies.)
I don't think I am, since I'm having trouble figuring out what you mean by this, but I'd like to hear more.
> until they actually attempt to enter
Yes, basically. I should rephrase: the difference is not "not included" vs "excluded", but whether other people are deciding if you are part of the group or not.
> Sometimes exclusion is a good policy.
Also definitely! Both philosophically, and practically.
The tech community fosters hate and exclusion of women due to something THEY can't control. This is an attempt to remedy some of that.