Women and men are different -> This justifies different outcomes in certain areas such as tech but promotes diversity due to the fact that they think different and could provide a much needed alternative viewpoint in a homogeneous environment. (this is mostly my perspective)
Women and men are the same -> Then there is a problem with the outcomes being different but the diversity argument goes away because men and women view and interact the same. If this is true we have to forcefully equalize all professions to 50-50. This also doesn't make sense in the context of leap - if men and women are the same why do we need environments that are for one gender or the other?
As far as bootstrapping less masculine communities I'm all for that but the execution of it might turn a bit bizarre when you start letting men in.
I disagree. A group of women is saying they feel marginalized and want to develop a community of support. Men, particularly ones in this awful comment section are saying "NO FAIR!!!" Those seem like groups, and they clearly want things.
This is tangential to your point, but I'm pretty sure what you're referring to isn't being "triggered." It's, I don't know, disagreeing? It has a specific and important definition, and it seems to be getting thrown around in other scenarios, to the detriment of those with PTSD.
[1] http://www.dictionary.com/browse/triggered
[2] https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Triggered
>to initiate or precipitate (a chain of events, scientific reaction, psychological process, etc.)
"Psychological process," in this case, is what I was talking about, and what I think the original commenter was referring to. "Trigger warnings" aren't warning you that you might feel "anything that will cause a reaction," they're to help people suffering with PTSD avoid having a panic attack.
I agree that the colloquial definition is trending the way you describe, and I think it's irresponsible to just sit and watch it happen without speaking up in favor of the more specific psychological definition.
This segregation stuff does not make sense to me, it almost feels like prison rules - keep genders/races away from each other because if they interact it will probably be violent.
I wondered what would happen if I created a community where the core culture was set by women, and the software and product decisions were also made by women
-> This also seems strange to me and counterproductive. If we build a society where any interaction happens without confrontations against the people that may be causing the issues, in this case "men", then how are we to make progress? Do men and women think differently about the merits of different software technologies or not?
Even when members have opposing views, they’ve given each other the benefit of the doubt and continue to talk productively.
-> Are you implying that men are incapable of this? Or that an environment where men and women interact is incapable of achieving this? Seems regressive...