[sgslo]

I don't understand the purpose of your comments here.

The author is creating a platform for one group of people to discuss their common issues. In this case, that the common feature between people in this group is gender.

Other platforms exist for discussion between people with common attributes. An example is cancer survivors. Discussion in a cancer survivor group should probably be limited to cancer survivors. Do you think that people who have not experienced cancer first or second hand would have a good reason to post their problems in that group? I can imagine the posts now - "I haven't had cancer or experienced it in any form but here's how you should deal with chemotherapy." That's probably not appropriate.

[blueadept111]

How about a "no African Americans allowed" forum, for fostering "intimacy" for people who need a place to freely talk about issues limited to those who aren't African American?

I'd say that kind of group is latently hostile because it seeks exclusion rather than to encourage a broader perspective, and discussion topics probably center around the excluded group (ingroup/outgroup). Seems like a good litmus test.

[sgslo]

I know what you're trying to get at here, that forming a 'women-only' group is selecting against men by allowing them to join, and that selection isn't fair.

Cmon, be real. There are discussion groups that select against other parties. Some of these groups are socially acceptable (cancer survivors, people in debt, women's issues). Other's might not be socially acceptable (excluding people based on their skin color).

In this case, a group to discuss women's issues is socially acceptable to a majority of people. If you're unhappy with this standard then go campaign against it somewhere else, don't try to poo-poo the OP's app.

[kazinator]

Here is a bigger, shinier target for you: women's fitness clubs and spas. Or women's shelters.

Note that we accept those, but not "whites only" ones.