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.