On 29 Jan 2025, at 07:01, JC Brand <[email protected]> wrote: > > On 2025/01/28 23:05, Arc Riley wrote: >> On Fri, Apr 26, 2024 at 4:01 AM JC Brand <[email protected] >> <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: >>> FWIW, I don't think coming up with ever more fine-grained categorization of >>> what constitutes marginalized persons and putting that in the CoC is the >>> right way to go. >>> >>> One can always come up with more categories of marginalized people, and >>> trying to enumerate all of them in a CoC is IMO impractical, while >>> mentioning only some of them can create the impression that some categories >>> of people are "more equal" than others. >>> >> >> It isn't always about practical enforcement, it is a statement of values. >> >> As a member who belongs to at least three of the typically listed groups, >> including LGBT, and I have been assaulted for this, I rarely read the lists >> but it makes me feel safer in new groups. > > Our CoC already deals with "behaviour that poses a clear and present threat > of physical harm", not to mention that assault is also illegal, regardless of > the reason it happens. > I'm sure if someone was assaulted at an XSF event, the perpetrator would be > removed and ideally criminally charged with an offense. > > Also, it's not only LGBT people who get assaulted. I've been assaulted, more > than once. So why should we delve ever more deeply into ever expanding > categories of marginalization instead of just saying we won't tolerate > behaviour X (e.g. "physical harm”)el? > > > Reluctant as I am to put words in Arc’s mouth, I don’t believe Arc was suggesting that only LGBT people get assaulted.
I may be over-simplifying this, but if people from these groups are saying that they feel safer, because of experiences elsewhere (or, worse, here), if we have a simple statement that we want them to be safe here, such a statement seems like a small price to pay and it’s not clear to me what benefit we would gain from not making it. /K
