I seek to understand the objective standard that allows one type of discrimination while condemning another, perhaps you can provide clarity there?
I don't understand the down votes here, I am merely asking for an explanation of the logic used. I'm autistic so I sometimes have trouble understanding things that are obvious to people who are not. Without more data I will have to assume this is exclusively a emotional justification and thus subjective.
You're conflating "excluded from a web forum" with "excluded from society." The whole point of groups like Leap is BECAUSE those members want everyone working together -- they're not in their clubhouse plotting the deportation of men, they're trying to figure out how to get on even footing in an industry that has been hostile to women for years.
White nationalists tend to have a similar view of how they have been treated. I disagree personally but I don't allow my personal assumptions cloud my judgement when discussing these topics. Can you formulate an objective standard that allows an individual to determine what types of discrimination are moral or immoral?
I disagree that white nationalists have a similar view, though it's interesting that someone linked to a forum where women can feel safe from attack in discussions and we're currently debating their similarities to neo-Nazis.
The white nationalist stance (in general) is that racial hegemony, with their group at the top of the heap, is the preferential state of affairs. The stance of this group, as far as I can tell, is that gender equality is the preferential state. Those seem like very different things.
