Re: Update CoC adapted from upstream 2.1 (instead of 1.4)

> This is very twisted and unfair to Taylan. Is it though? Arguably all of this blew up because of how twisted and unfair Taylan is  about this issue generally, given the wiki they run and the fact that they’ve been banned from at least one site for this fixation. Everyone who has commented for

Re: Update CoC adapted from upstream 2.1 (instead of 1.4)

On Sat, 26 Feb 2022 01:48:22 +0100 Liliana Marie Prikler wrote: > As a nice side-effect, adding it would give us > two reasons to ban Taylan; first for discriminating against trans > people based on their sex characteristics and second based on their > gender identity or expression. This is very

Re: Update CoC adapted from upstream 2.1 (instead of 1.4)

Lily, On 2022-02-26 1:48, Liliana Marie Prikler wrote: As a nice side-effect, adding it would give us two reasons to ban Taylan; first for discriminating against trans people based on their sex characteristics and second based on their gender identity or expression. This is a new low. we all

Re: Update CoC adapted from upstream 2.1 (instead of 1.4)

Hi simon, I know I'm late to the party, but given how vocal I was in that other CoC thread and the positive feedback I received from other contributors for speaking out, I do think I have a valuable opinion here. Am Freitag, dem 25.02.2022 um 01:05 +0100 schrieb zimoun: > Hi, > > The current Gui

Re: Update CoC adapted from upstream 2.1 (instead of 1.4)

Taylan Kammer writes: > The inclusion of 'sex' in the CoC would be to recognize the issues > faced by female-born people. As far as I'm aware, no female-born > person has taken part in the discussion at all, because none seem > to exist in the community. (What a coincidence.) Actually there a

Re: Update CoC adapted from upstream 2.1 (instead of 1.4)

On 25.02.2022 21:38, Philip McGrath wrote: > > It seems to me that one of the reasons to have a CoC is to communicate that > the identities and experiences of people who face discrimination are not up > for debate. Yet here it seems they are, in fact, being called into question, > [...] > The

Re: Update CoC adapted from upstream 2.1 (instead of 1.4)

On 2/25/22 11:59, Taylan Kammer wrote:> Transwomen have many challenges they have to face, and some of them may be similar or equivalent to some challenges women have to face, but to claim I'm concerned that framing "transwomen" and "women" as though they were two contrasting groups is itself

Re: Update CoC adapted from upstream 2.1 (instead of 1.4)

: February 25, 2022 9:29:29 AM PST To: Blake Shaw , zimoun Cc: Guix Devel Subject: Re: Update CoC adapted from upstream 2.1 (instead of 1.4) On 25.02.2022 16:18, Blake Shaw wrote: > zimoun writes: > > My position remains unchanged: our codes of conduct should do everything > possi

Re: Update CoC adapted from upstream 2.1 (instead of 1.4)

On 25.02.2022 16:18, Blake Shaw wrote: > zimoun writes: > > My position remains unchanged: our codes of conduct should do everything > possible to be as inclusive as and open to peoples of marginalized > groups that are discriminated against. White cis men shouldn't be in > charge of deciding wha

Re: Update CoC adapted from upstream 2.1 (instead of 1.4)

On 25.02.2022 01:05, zimoun wrote: > > Any opposition? > Not from me for sure. The wording "sex characteristics" was added by the author of the CoC as a response to my and others' suggestion to add "sex," and while I think it's a bad euphemism for just 'sex' (trying very hard to shoehorn the is

Re: Update CoC adapted from upstream 2.1 (instead of 1.4)

zimoun writes: My position remains unchanged: our codes of conduct should do everything possible to be as inclusive as and open to peoples of marginalized groups that are discriminated against. White cis men shouldn't be in charge of deciding whats best for these people. As far as I can see, no

Re: Update CoC adapted from upstream 2.1 (instead of 1.4)

On Fri, 25 Feb 2022 08:47:11 +0100 Tissevert wrote: > And, how exactly can "sex characteristics" be involved in the kind of > interactions we're having in this community ? For the most part, with the notable exception of conferences, one could wonder the same about age, body size, visible or inv

Re: Update CoC adapted from upstream 2.1 (instead of 1.4)

February 25, 2022 8:48 AM, "Tissevert" wrote: > Are dickpics going to be necessary to sign commits from now on ? Well, we cant be mandating binary commits now can we?!? This is Guix FFS. Cmon, if I wanted to be perusing dicks and commits Id be on other mailing lists. Lets move on. Please. Jo

Re: Update CoC adapted from upstream 2.1 (instead of 1.4)

Hi, On Fri, 25 Feb 2022 at 08:47, Tissevert wrote: > Also, why isn't this message part of the other thread[1] ? Why it would be the same thread since this proposal is radically different: it is an update based on upstream version of [1]. 1: >

Re: Update CoC adapted from upstream 2.1 (instead of 1.4)

Hi, And, how exactly can "sex characteristics" be involved in the kind of interactions we're having in this community ? In particular, as this has already been explained patiently enough, how are "sex characteristics" any different from "gender identity" from its perspective ? If someone here is a

Re: Update CoC adapted from upstream 2.1 (instead of 1.4)

Hi, On 2022-02-25 1:05, zimoun wrote: So, since we are at it, let give a look at the most recent version v2.1 [3]. :-) I propose to adopt their extended list: regardless of age, body size, visible or invisible disability, ethnicity, sex characteristics, gender identity and expre