Wait, is not that a bit recursive thought? To me it is a bit like: - Why? - Because you asked why.

Edit: - Because you don't know "fundamentally" why

"Because you asked why" => "Because you don't already know" => "Because it's exhausting to have to explain this all the time" / "Because I want somewhere to practice, not just places to teach."

At least part of it is the same reason you might want to hang out with people already skilled in your disciplines: you get to go do the advanced stuff, instead of getting the other people up to speed.

Edit, presuming some things: You know how it's really annoying how all your non-tech relatives think you can solve all their weird tech problems, and you have to spend all this time explaining to them you why that's annoying, or why it's nice to hang out with people that don't do that?

Yeah, but in that case you can get the requirements, right? That's what is not clear to me here. And you did not clarify either. Why is that if you make it seem so simple?

(See branch for clarity)

What I think you're saying is that the requirements don't make sense to you, or that they bother you because you're thinking that they're not requirements you can meet.

IMO, you can at least meet the requirements in spirit.

AFAIK / IMO, most groups that defined themselves as for X or Y group are mostly doing two things: 1) They want to center the conversations around topics not normally in the center 2) They want to avoid issues that people from outside the group commonly have 2b) They want to avoid issues that people from outside the group commonly have when interacting people from inside the group.

#1 is pretty normal and maps well onto any group defined by common experiences. You succeed or fail at this pretty much the way you succeed or fail in any group. Join a ham radio group to talk about not ham radio, and when you don't have any interest in learning more about ham radio? Yeah. Good way to do this on the 'net is to lurk.

#2 is a a lot subtler and harder to hear, particularly when you're likely to have those common issues. Some of them are just communication styles: Ever seen a group of guys excitedly discuss something? Interruptions are the norm. Some are massively problematic even if they're rare, like harassment. Or situation specific, like asking the group to teach you enough for #1. Some groups like to educate newcomers so they can do #1, others just want to do #1 without that.

Resolving #1 takes learning, but resolving #2 takes training, and facing hard things. Both of these are resolvable through dedicated work. Go learn enough about the group that you have something worthwhile to add for #1, go learn enough about yourself and that group so you know what the common issues are, take a hard look at yourself to understand which you have, and then train yourself so you can avoid them.

Most groups (IMO) that define themselves as for A, and/or for excluding B, are doing so to save time, effort and risk. It's a cheap and reliable way to achieve #1 and #2.

"What I think you're saying is that the requirements don't make sense to you, or that they bother you because you're thinking that they're not requirements you can meet."

No, I am for requirements not against them. What are the requirements (or features) of the new platform which does not apply to HN - that is the question.

Welp. My bad. Do you use Telegram? If so, why not go through the sign up process yourself, and explore?

Edit: OP says it's all about moderators: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22129710

Unclear to me if there's any encoded requirements.

"OP says it's all about moderators" - okay, I see, thanks.

I'm sorry, I'm not understanding what you're saying on a grammatical level. Can you rephrase?

Yeah, sorry, edited: I omitted the word "get"

Thanks! Hmm. I tried to answer but I'm still finding it unclear. Can you rephrase with less abstraction and more verbose specifics?

Edit: It might not clear what I'm not finding clear. It's not clear to me who you're referring to in the first sentence, or what "get" means in "get the requirements", or what you're referring to when you say "the requirements". It's not clear to me what the "that" is in "that's what's not clear to me". I don't understand what you thought I should have clarified but didn't. I'm not sure even how to begin approaching your last sentence.

I really do think that a more verbose rephrase would resolve all these.

"At least part of it is the same reason you might want to hang out with people already skilled in your disciplines: you get to go do the advanced stuff, instead of getting the other people up to speed."

In that case you can give "requirements" what is needed to work with you in your tempo, right?

What the discussion is about (at least to me) is not about the right of picking your people to go together with (ofc you can do that) but about the specific, concrete "requirements" which the "new platform" implements but HN does not.

Thanks!

> In that case you can give "requirements" what is needed to work with you in your tempo, right?

This part is clear. Yes. I would give those requirements, although probably not with term - not like it's a job interview or something.

> What the discussion is about (at least to me)

This is clear.

> is not about the right of picking your people to go together with

This is not clear? It's a very convoluted sentence.

> but about the specific, concrete "requirements"

This is mostly clear. What do you see as the requirements being implemented by the new platform?

"What do you see as the requirements being implemented by the new platform?"

Yes, that should be my question for you! :)

To put more concretely, I've observed, especaily among tech circles, the tendency to assume "if the system works for me, it must work for everyone". I'd propose that that kind of mindset is what is what drives a lot of the negative reactions in this thread. It's the kind of mindset that drives thoughts like "we;re not hiring many women it must be [their abilities | the funnel | ~biology~ | etc]" never "maybe our process isn't set up well". There;s value in having a space where you don't have to start every conversation explaining your struggles from first principles (very clearly given the user count the community has a need for this kind of space, so the "why is this needed" question feels spurious).

My thoughts from the uncomfortably unique prospective of a trans woman in tech; I can only speak for why I find these sorts of spaces valuable.

Thanks for this response! I think it might help me understanding.

However, there is a difference between "why" and "why", right? I do not question its "existence" (user count can prove that), but the reasons behind its being used - so I might be aware of things going on (user count itself can't add information about that).

Isn't that the case that people who want "some change" based on their (not too good) experiences - maybe sometimes they can't even recognize/express what they really need so accurately and what concrete things they are looking for - are likely to engage with new groups and norms which might just be a better experience for them - without any "formal requirements" and more like based on sensation? And the words/phrases/memes they "click on" are probably the same as other similar people "click on". And in that context "woman" might be an associative meme to these other memes: helpful, empathy, understanding, caring, respectful, misunderstood, minority. So explicitly using "woman" as a "meme" might be attractive to the people who are looking for or relate this other qualities/memes.

(I say woman as a "meme", because it's not for women only, so actually it seems to me it means more than its original meaning.)

This is just an idea how I can imagine what it MIGHT be about, any comment on that is welcome.

Sure, you could frame it as recursive. Not infinitely, just one level (self-referential). I don’t think that is an argument against the point.

That's definitely the problem - I'm lucky enough to never exist in a minority, so I don't know what it's like. I guess I'd like to understand what some of those challenges are, so that I can avoid causing them myself.

You have never been in an environment where you are a minority?

If I take a walk into main street I will go through several different environments that many has extreme different majorities and minorities. Stores which customers (and sellers) that are 90% women. Others with 90% men. Some places catering to specific nationalities, cultures, religion, language and so on. Restaurants in particular tend to cater to one specific culture, and I am personally not part of that culture for most places I go to, making me a minority there.

There are parts of the city where I will be a minority, others where I will be part of the majority. There are activities where the majority and minority switch place depending on what the current time is, others by which day of the week it is.

Basic challenge: Tech forums thrive on explaining, and providing solutions. We do like doing that even without a full understanding of the situation.

So, if, as a woman, you raise a problem in a space that's mostly male (like pretty much all tech spaces), you'll get a bunch of suggestions of trivial things to try (that you usually already have tried), plus a bunch of questions that amount to "I don't see your problem, so it doesn't exist".

I firmly believe that isn't malevolence - it's lack of knowledge plus some traits that are more pronounced in people in software engineering. (We can have a long debate about why they're pronounced, but for a moment let's just stipulate to their existence)

This means, as a woman (or in general, as part of a minority), you spent the vast amount of time in majority spaces explaining things, over, and over, as opposed to actually diving deeper on your problem.

Again, this is not due to malevolence, or because men are bad - it's an outcome of the situation. Let's say we're all prone to ask questions of other people that seem basic to them if we're sufficiently different - because we just don't know.

Now, if you're in a space where you're the only one in your group (The "yous"), and there are 10 others ("others"), and we all ask on average one such question per day - "yous" get 10 questions/day, "others" get 0.1/day. IOW: You feel you get asked super-basic questions 100 times more often than anybody else. You can see how that wouldn't make feel people very welcome :)

If you want to avoid causing them, there are a couple of fairly easy ways:

* Don't make assumptions about other people. ("You're a man, you should be good at.../bad at...")

* If people talk about their own experiences, just believe them. Don't have them explain every single bit. * Don't offer solutions if you don't fully understand a problem.

* If you want to help, Google at least basic information first. (Let's have an example: If you don't understand why women need a mother's room, head to Google first. Don't just say "I don't understand why there aren't father's rooms, too!". Sounds strange, but literal example I experienced)

* Find common ground, instead of focusing on the differences. (Here, for example: "Yay for launching this. How'd you do X" is much better than "why do you need that space". If you must ask that question, phrase it so it's still on common ground - we're on HN, people care about market fit, so ask "How'd you find out there was a need for it?")

* And if you still need to ask a question, because you truly lack the understanding and can't find the answer, do what you did: Make yourself vulnerable. Admit you really don't know, and you'd like to understand. (But really, Google first :)

I hope that's a somewhat helpful answer?

> So, if, as a woman, you raise a problem in a space that's mostly male (like pretty much all tech spaces), you'll get a bunch of suggestions of trivial things to try (that you usually already have tried)

Can you give like 3 examples of this happening on HN? (Since the original question was about what the difference would be to HN), or for example StackOverflow? I mean the basic interface of those websites does even show the gender of the account, dies it? Why would the answers then be different dependent on the gender?

I’m not sure if this is meant to be a joke. But with your username, replying to a comment about “{GROUP} feels that they are unreasonably asked to prove themselves” with your reply of “can you prove to me that {GROUP} is allowed to feel that way?” is more than a little ironic.

You comment is structured so as to imply an identity or equivalence that doesn't exist. A claim was made without evidence. The respondant made a valid argument for the improbability of the claim being true, given that gender is normally not evident, and simply asked for evidence to justify the claim. There is no irony here, simply an attempt at objectivity.

We should ask for evidence to justify claims like this.

The problem is that the claim is most likely subjective so it doesn’t need evidence. And the act of always being asked for evidence in various situations, and not being respected for knowing what is going on was one of the subjective claims being made.

Someone doesn’t have to justify their feelings or opinions or observations of how they are being treated. If someone says they are always experiencing something, then we should listen instead of asking them to prove to us that they are allowed to feel that way.

I have another comment on this same line, which I'll add separately rather than editing my prior comment:

> If someone says they are always experiencing something, then we should listen instead of asking them to prove to us that they are allowed to feel that way.

I think it is important to be precise, to reason correctly on this issue. What is it, exactly, that they are always experiencing? The simple fact that they were treated a particular way, or the experience of a disparity of treatment? Those are two completely different types of experiences to discuss, and should be treated differently.

Consider this from the big picture perspective, in which a community of people wants to care for its members but wants to do so on the basis of reality, not just indulging whoever, for example, tells the best story. If I have the strategy of jumping between subjective and objective types of claims, and then refusing to give evidence when an objective claim is questioned by invoking my right to have my emotional experience validated - at what point will you learn the difference between what is objectively true, and what is simply my unsubstantiated belief?

By insisting that everyone's lived experiences are always fully validated, while simultaneously suggesting that a factual investigation is invalidating of that experience, then we have made it impossible, as a group, to discover the truth.

There is a major problem of ambiguity at every level of this conversation. At least one person (reasonably) interpreted the claim to be that women are more likely to experience a particular kind of response in a particular forum. This is not a subjective claim. It may be hard to test, but it is either true or not true.

If it is not true, but the person believes that it is true, they may even be harmed by their false belief.

In general, we should take great care not to confuse our subjective impressions or our emotional experiences with objective reality.

> If someone says they are always experiencing something, then we should listen instead of asking them to prove to us that they are allowed to feel that way.

Listening to a person (or even caring deeply for another's experience) is not mutual exclusive to taking steps to determine if their emotional responses are rooted in actual reality, or just their perception of reality. Both can happen together, by the same person, in the same conversation.

Presenting this as a choice of mutually exclusive options does everyone a disservice.

In my opinion, there are situations where you should prioritize a person's emotional experience, and situations in which you should prioritize the facts.

Sure, you can prioritize the facts. But OP asked for the challenges experienced, and how they could help. I gave them that answer. If you then want additional facts, that's your problem, not mine or OPs.

I would agree with you that you are under no obligation to reply to any of the questions, if that is what you are saying. Emphatically.

In my opinion, everyone should be encouraged to question the evidentiary basis of any of your beliefs and claims which deal with objective reality, not be discouraged from doing so, and not have this conflated with invalidating your experience.

I apologize if my prior statement, made as a direct response to your prior-prior statement, implied that you specifically were conflating an investigation with invalidating your experience. I was just trying to briefly sketch out my position and motive in the overall conversation, which has involved many people and an array of views. I respect your choice to opt out.

I did my most basic research: I went to the websites and saw the interface and concluded that the interface does not distinguish between the gender of the members. That sounds like quite an evidence against your claim.

Allowing any specific benefits to a single group, based solely on their own reports of their unreasonable experience, without any proof or any other information would indeed be quite stupid, don't you think? Should the society just give in to any group with any claim about their group identity, without any checking?

Also what does my name has to do with this conversation?

No, I can't, but you're welcome to do it yourself.

I'm not here to do your homework. That was the whole point of the above.

Not do homework but to give any basis for a claim that is actually quite preposterous - that women have in many instances have to deal with different things or preferential treatment or harassment on a platform where you can't even see the gender of the participants on that platform. What is the implication? That people who harrass stalk every single participant and somehow hack their accounts or otherwise analyze their speach or something, to first determine their gender, to then go ahead to harrass them? This is on a website where 99% of converstaion is about technical issues? Yes you would need to provide some evidence if your claim is this much out there, people are not just going believe it just because you happen to be part of a group.

So you claim you know the answer but you don't share with us. That is wtf. You had really good points up there but its not clear at all what is the conclusion for the original question. If you are asked to fill in the blanks you say you won't. Shall we google for your thoughts? (Googling is a main bullet point up there.)

Thank you for being so patient, and for engaging in good faith. If your use of 'wtf' suggests a growing frustration, please know at least one person both sympathizes with you and hopes that you won't let any frustration damage the quality of your discourse.

Thanks a lot, you read me and it helps a lot. :) (Such neat support never happened to me yet. :) )

I'm confused. Why does being a women give a different set of challenges when troubleshooting a problem? The fact that it's a majority male doesn't explain why people would treat women completely differently.

Where are you getting these assumptions? Why would the same advice not be given to a male? If a male and a female ask the same question, they are given the same answer in my experience. Maybe it's that they are not having the same problems or asking the same questions?

Of course people would respond differently to different questions. It sounds like maybe not knowing the right questions to ask or where to look for those answers, or an inability to communicate about concepts in clear terms. And that's not a knock against women, there are plenty who can do this well. That seems much more straightforward and plausibe than saying that HN gives you trivial answers and gives you the run around because you have female experiences.

That's just different answers being given to different questions.

I'm confused; didn't the entire post you're responding to just explain why all of your questions are unproductive?

Unproductive for who?

For both parties, because one party may be unheard and the other unanswered.

I just realized I'm not even sure what you were referring to and if you were kidding! :D

Let it as is! :D

Woah, I'm even more confused now. You said you were confused but you don't appear confused at all when I asked what you were doing. Could you please clarify?

It was confusing because the person explicitly stated when someone says they experience something, believe them, and if you don’t understand then google it yourself. You responded by asking more questions, even though the post was explicit about how questions are exhausting and part of why a person may feel pushed away. This is why I said I’m confused, because it seems odd to respond to a post that expresses how questions are unwelcoming with more questions.

Yeah, but if someone is not ready to being asked on a forum I don't know what he/she is hoping for after posting to a forum.

It’s not that they’re not ready, it’s that they are explaining how asking questions is making an environment unwelcoming.