I wasn’t referring to technical communities and it’s strange you would assume that.

I didn’t assume it. I made an example using those. You said “I have no relevant knowledge or experience”, and technical communities are a perfect example of communities in which someone might not have “relevant knowledge or experience”.

There’s a difference between not participating and being told not to participate. One requires self-moderation, and not everyone is great at it.

Yes, that is my whole point. However you answered to someone that said:

Being set to public is for a community that everyone in the public can participate in, while being set to private is for a community that only some people can participate in.

with (paraphrasing) “there are plenty of communities I can see that I don’t participate in”, which confuses me now in light of your acknowledgement that it’s completely different choosing not to engage and being told not to engage (via rules).

The existence of exclusive, toxic groups doesn’t make exclusivity toxic.

Which is also not what I said. I said that “harsh form of gatekeeping” is considered toxic.

Weird you’re comparing a women’s only instance to communities who are cruel to outsiders/beginners.

I am not. I made you examples of toxic forms of harsh gatekeeping since you said:

Do we? And is that form of gatekeeping harsh, or do you think anything that excludes you is “toxic?”

The rest of your comment is completely off topic, since this whole comment chain was holding on the whole idea of “make the thing private instead”. I don’t have any problem, in fact I perfectly agree and support, with the creation of private, exclusive spaces. I have no problem with a women shelter not allowing me in, but if a hotel does that, I probably won’t take it as well.

P.s. Maybe hold off on the assumptions, because you made a lot of them in your comment about my positions.