On Wed, 29 Jan 2025 at 08:50, Kevin Smith <[email protected]> wrote:
> 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]> 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 think JC was concerned with ensuring that physical violence is against the CoC, rather than worrying over the precise definition of the victims. I think this is absolutely right, > 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. > As I said, I'm personally very reticent of using the term "LGBT", because there are multiple variants which include (or exclude) various groups and sub-groups. I avoided this by explicitly stating about "sexual identity or orientation", which I hoped would cover this without having to list every variation by assigning them a letter. I am generally against any attempt to make an exhaustive list of people who are welcome, because of the risk of leaving some group out implicitly, but I tried to encompass all of L, G, B, T, and other letters in that section. That said, that is my opinion, and if people with more experience than I will ever have want a list, then their opinion outweighs my concerns. But to reiterate a point I feel I've made several times, this is rather a moot point if we haven't made any moves to enforce it, by appointing a Conduct Team, making reference to the CoC at official events and in official channels, and so on. Dave
