On 21.02.2022 17:01, Christine Lemmer-Webber wrote: > [...] Hi, thanks for your input and for responding in a kind manner.
I didn't want to be that guy who instigates a political debate on a fringe topic and annoys people on the ML, hence the panicked backpedaling... But you've said a few things that indicate to me that there's a misunderstanding, so now the urge to reply is big. :-) I'll do it like this: If anyone's annoyed by this thread, please tell, and let us move it off-list. Until that request is made, I'll respond here to things which I feel the need to respond to. There's a TL;DR at the bottom for those skimming... I'm simply terrible at being brief, sorry. > My first thought when looking at the top of this thread was, "well I > would be okay with adding a word if it isn't an *entry point* for > debating trans experiences on list" but it looks like it's likely to be > so: > > > https://github.com/EthicalSource/contributor_covenant/pull/548#issuecomment-399692924 > > So I share Liliana's concerns. I think it looks like the conversation > on-list is already going in that direction. It looks like it did on the > referenced pull request already too. I want to point out that in both cases (the linked GitHub issue and this thread), I did not mention transgender identities or gender identity, it's been others who felt that adding 'sex' to the list would be wrong somehow, probably in accordance with their worldview. Not to hide anything: personally, I ascribe to views (broadly, radical feminism) which contradict some key aspects of the transgender movement. However, that's irrelevant in this context. It's irrelevant because the focus of this community is to improve a piece of software. There may be people who have contradicting worldviews on unrelated topics, and that's perfectly fine. (I'm sure we agree on this.) Given the other things recognized in the CoC, I think sex should simply be recognized as well, since a lot of women feel strongly about this and might not trust the project's maintainers if they refuse to recognize discrimination or harassment based on sex. I had listed examples of sex-based oppression here back then, to clarify how it's distinct from issues related to gender identity: https://github.com/EthicalSource/contributor_covenant/issues/443#issuecomment-399192924 The things listed there are generally done to people based on their anatomy observed at birth, not based on how they identify. <tangent> What I also just noticed from that discussion: The CoC's author Coraline, who is a transwoman, said "gender and sex don't mean the same thing." (June 2018.) I find it interesting that Liliana said this is a transphobic talking point. (I haven't yet read Liliana's response to my mail in which I've opposed that notion though, please bear with me as I process responses one-by-one, it takes me a lot of time. I don't want to be dismissive towards Liliana.) Interesting also is that the originator of that PR (older than my PR with the same suggestion) was apparently posted by a trans person. Of course that's just one person and I haven't surveyed the transgender population, but I'm inclined to believe that the denial of sex discrimination isn't necessarily all that popular even among transgender people. </tangent> > I'm a transwoman with intersex characteristics. I've certainly read a > ton about sexual and gender therory, have read plenty of books on it and > I can say without a doubt that I really just don't feel comfortable > debating these topics on a technical mailing list. Same! :-) (On having read a lot about it and not wanting to debate it here.) > I don't want to put any assertions of intention in here either, but just > state that it looks like this is already opening that kind of experience > here, the concerns that this could be an "entry point" for that kind of > back and forth already seems to be playing out, and I that makes this > not a "minor patch" to me. I can assure you that I'm 100% fine with the CoC mentioning gender identity and, for example, if someone were to make inflammatory remarks towards the worldview of transgender people in this community, I wouldn't hesitate opposing that. Here's an analogy: I'm an atheist, and feel moderately strongly about it, especially when it comes to being allowed to express my opposition to supernatural belief systems. However, not needlessly offending religious people is also very important to me. If you're an atheist yourself, feel free to just switch the positions in the analogy, i.e. you're the atheist and I'm the religious person, and it still works just as well. (Which is to say, the point of the analogy is *not* to claim a parallel between gender identity and religion, merely to compare this to a different situation where I would want both positions to be respected, even if I have a personal conviction towards one of them.) If I were to stick to that analogy, it's like the CoC says you can't discriminate against someone based on them being religious, but doesn't say anything about being an atheist. Or vice versa. > At any rate, the CoC already says "gender identity and expression" and > "sexual identity and orientation". Seems that already covers a broad > ground to me. Well, "gender identity and expression" doesn't cover sex if we are to respect the perspective that (not (eqv? sex gender)). And "sexual identity" apparently refers to something akin to orientation: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sexual_identity So plain 'sex' is definitely not covered at all right now. === TL;DR === I sincerely have no issue with the CoC protecting people based on gender identity or other transgender status, and am equally disinterested as others in having debates about that topic. In my opinion, 'sex' should be elevated to *equal* status in the CoC, since many women would otherwise be skeptical towards the maintainers' fitness to protecting them from sex discrimination or sex-based harassment, without the victim being forced into a lecture about how it was not actually her sex that was the basis of her being harassed or discriminated against. It's about respecting more worldviews, not fewer. What do you think? -- Taylan
