KombatWombat

I think that's fairly common but not legally required, at least on a federal level.

more like wokémon

We live in a society

Well I was trying to say something like "slightly a victim" but it didn't sound right. So I thought saying they suffered a small injustice was close enough

You can also get carrots and potatoes from zombie drops.

Ban the people obfuscating. Don't assume guilt based on gender.

Being discriminated from a community based on gender is a small injustice, but it is an injustice nonetheless. At the very least, it's a policy choice worthy of discussion.

The analogy doesn't really fit though. Houses and parties are presumed to be invite-only by default. That's not true for lemmy communities that federate with the general user base. It's more like being told you can't buy anything from a store after seeing others being able to do so.

Saying "you are not allowed here" is a step up from saying "this isn't meant for you"

Maybe we are missing some context. Did a target demographics' contributions get drowned out by others in this or a similar community? Or are you only worried it could happen based on the demographics of the platform?

I expect in most online communities if you made a post like "As a windows user, I am looking into linux and have heard that some common apps don't run well. Is that an issue you all run into much?" or "As a console gamer, I find myself envying some of the mods I see through Steam/Nexus and am thinking about switching platforms. Is it hard to get controllers working well in most games?" or something similar, you would be welcomed by the people there. You just need to be respectful and on-topic.

I imagine that community probably has frustrating behaviors that men do as a common topic. Having men reply about why they would do a particular behavior or the sorts of strategies that could get other men to stop it would be not only acceptable, but valuable. Silencing their voices without cause then does a disservice to not only those users, but to the community as a whole. By not letting men reply, you'd be criticizing a large group of people while also preventing any member of the group from having a chance to defend themselves.

You can try to justify discriminating a place, but it is a high bar to clear, especially on a core part of someone's identity like gender. It's akin to preemptively banning someone based on that characteristic. There's a difference between "this is not for you" and "you are not allowed here". I can only really think of that much restriction being necessary in a very private community where content can reasonably identify someone or the members are very vulnerable.

IIRC, r/BlackPeopleTwitter had country club threads where only users the mods had verified were black could participate in. So there's probably a compromise to have restrictions on a post-by-post basis. As it stands, if they're primarily banning the users that include "as a guy..." in their replies then they are really just selecting against the ones that are being upfront about it. I really don't want to see another r/FemaleDatingStrategy develop and a big contributor for that toxicity was silencing diverse opinions.

I like spending time with my friends when I am in the mood to socialize. I want to be able to opt in to hanging out. Needing to improv a conversation outside my "office hours" is frustrating.

From the Wikipedia page, emphasis mine:

In the United States, a red flag law (named after the idiom red flag meaning “warning sign“; also known as a risk-based gun removal law,[1]) is a gun law that permits a state court to order the temporary seizure of firearms (and other items regarded as dangerous weapons, in some states) from a person who they believe may present a danger. A judge makes the determination to issue the order based on statements and actions made by the gun owner in question.[2] Refusal to comply with the order is punishable as a criminal offense.[3][4] After a set time, the guns are returned to the person from whom they were seized unless another court hearing extends the period of confiscation.[5][6][7]

Intuitively, it makes sense the police would not be able to search someone's home for guns without a judge's permission. It would be hard to say that there was a compelling emergency just from going through things that someone had said or things that had been said about them.

I didn't see a federal supreme court case that ruled on red flag laws specifically, but it sounded like there were some state supreme court rulings that found them unconstitutional. So it is at least contentious whether they meet the strict scrutiny standard or not.