[minor patch] Amend CoC

[minor patch] Amend CoC

[Taylan Kammer]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 508 bytes --]

This is a really tiny thing.  A recent thread on the ML prompted me to
look at our CoC and I noticed it doesn't include 'sex' in the list of
things based on which one might be discriminated against, so attached
is a patch that adds that one word.

Note: The upstream Contributor Covenant wouldn't want to include it
because the author seems to have a peculiar world-view where they don't
acknowledge that humans actually have a sex.  I hope the Guix maintainers
are more reasonable than that. :-)

-- 
Taylan

[-- Attachment #2: 0001-CODE-OF-CONDUCT-Add-sex-to-protected-characteristics.patch --]
[-- Type: text/plain, Size: 995 bytes --]

From 3e7577ab3265ae61df7bb152d1bb843e375fa35b Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Taylan Kammer <taylan.kammer@gmail.com>
Date: Sun, 20 Feb 2022 13:28:30 +0100
Subject: [PATCH] CODE-OF-CONDUCT: Add 'sex' to protected characteristics.

---
 CODE-OF-CONDUCT | 2 +-
 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)

diff --git a/CODE-OF-CONDUCT b/CODE-OF-CONDUCT
index ef90330cda..c1dcf3d144 100644
--- a/CODE-OF-CONDUCT
+++ b/CODE-OF-CONDUCT
@@ -9,7 +9,7 @@ In the interest of fostering an open and welcoming environment, we as
 contributors and maintainers pledge to making participation in our project and
 our community a harassment-free experience for everyone, regardless of age, body
 size, disability, ethnicity, gender identity and expression, level of experience,
-education, socio-economic status, nationality, personal appearance, race,
+education, socio-economic status, nationality, personal appearance, race, sex,
 religion, or sexual identity and orientation.
 
 Our Standards
-- 
2.30.2

Re: [minor patch] Amend CoC

[Julien Lepiller]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 739 bytes --]

Sounds good, but isn't that included in "sexual identity" already? For reference, where does the author say that?

On February 20, 2022 2:02:07 PM GMT+01:00, Taylan Kammer <taylan.kammer@gmail.com> wrote:
>This is a really tiny thing.  A recent thread on the ML prompted me to
>look at our CoC and I noticed it doesn't include 'sex' in the list of
>things based on which one might be discriminated against, so attached
>is a patch that adds that one word.
>
>Note: The upstream Contributor Covenant wouldn't want to include it
>because the author seems to have a peculiar world-view where they don't
>acknowledge that humans actually have a sex.  I hope the Guix maintainers
>are more reasonable than that. :-)
>
>-- 
>Taylan

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 1044 bytes --]

Re: [minor patch] Amend CoC

[Ekaitz Zarraga]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1435 bytes --]

I have a weird question about this that might be a little bit offtopic.

Why should we specify reasons? It's like we are saying some reasons are more important than others.

Is it not ok with...

> our project and our community a harassment-free experience for everyone.

?

That should cover everything.
I don't think anyone is reading all the list and saying: "oh they are missing race so it's ok for a racist like me to join and harass people"

It's just a feeling. It would also remove the discussion about including sex or not.

WDYT?
------- Original Message -------
On Sunday, February 20th, 2022 at 2:10 PM, Julien Lepiller <julien@lepiller.eu> wrote:

> Sounds good, but isn't that included in "sexual identity" already? For reference, where does the author say that?
>
> On February 20, 2022 2:02:07 PM GMT+01:00, Taylan Kammer <taylan.kammer@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> This is a really tiny thing.  A recent thread on the ML prompted me to
>>
>> look at our CoC and I noticed it doesn't include 'sex' in the list of
>>
>> things based on which one might be discriminated against, so attached
>>
>> is a patch that adds that one word.
>>
>> Note: The upstream Contributor Covenant wouldn't want to include it
>>
>> because the author seems to have a peculiar world-view where they don't
>>
>> acknowledge that humans actually have a sex.  I hope the Guix maintainers
>>
>> are more reasonable than that. :-)
>>
>> --
>>
>> Taylan

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 2679 bytes --]

Re: [minor patch] Amend CoC

[Taylan Kammer]

On 20.02.2022 14:16, Ekaitz Zarraga wrote:
> I have a weird question about this that might be a little bit offtopic.
> 
> Why should we specify reasons? It's like we are saying some reasons are more important than others.
> 
> Is it not ok with...
> 
>> our project and our community a harassment-free experience for *everyone*.
> 
> ?
> 
> That should cover everything.
> I don't think anyone is reading all the list and saying: "oh they are missing race so it's ok for a racist like me to join and harass people"
> 
> It's just a feeling. It would also remove the discussion about including sex or not.
> 
> WDYT?
> 

I wouldn't have an issue with that personally, but I think it's meant to
make it clear that the maintainers are aware of various specific ways in
which people are commonly discriminated against in practice, to make it
clear that the commitment to anti-harassment is not just theoretical.

Not sure how to best describe what I mean, but one could use the following
analogy: why are there activists who see themselves as feminists, instead
of as humanists / human rights activists in general?  I'll just use a quote
from someone who's more eloquent than me:

  "Some people ask: “Why the word feminist? Why not just say you are a believer
  in human rights, or something like that?” Because that would be dishonest.
  Feminism is, of course, part of human rights in general—but to choose to use
  the vague expression human rights is to deny the specific and particular
  problem of gender. It would be a way of pretending that it was not women who
  have, for centuries, been excluded. It would be a way of denying that the
  problem of gender targets women."  -- Chimamanda Ngozi Adichie


-- 
Taylan

Re: [minor patch] Amend CoC

[Ekaitz Zarraga]

Thinking about it from the perspective of people that want to join the project and are not potential harassers makes more sense.
They will feel their problems are understood.

Thanks for elaborating with that beautiful quote. It makes total sense.

Ekaitz

Re: [minor patch] Amend CoC

[Taylan Kammer]

On 20.02.2022 14:10, Julien Lepiller wrote:
> Sounds good, but isn't that included in "sexual identity" already? For reference, where does the author say that?

Apparently "sexual identity" is more like sexual orientation:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sexual_identity

-- 
Taylan

Re: [minor patch] Amend CoC

[Liliana Marie Prikler]

> Note: The upstream Contributor Covenant wouldn't want to include it
> because the author seems to have a peculiar world-view where they
> don't acknowledge that humans actually have a sex.  I hope the Guix
> maintainers are more reasonable than that. :-)
Sorry, but tracking down the issue you submitted towards the
contributor covenant, it appears to me that you are the misguided one.
The CoC already prohibits discrimination based on gender identity,
sexual identity and sexual orientation.  If you identify your gender as
your sex, whatever that might be, you are thereby already protected.

The wording you chose (intentionally or otherwise) tries to invalidate
other people's gender identity and thus violates the CoC.

Cheers

Re: [minor patch] Amend CoC

[Maxime Devos]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1286 bytes --]

Liliana Marie Prikler schreef op zo 20-02-2022 om 19:05 [+0100]:
> > Note: The upstream Contributor Covenant wouldn't want to include it
> > because the author seems to have a peculiar world-view where they
> > don't acknowledge that humans actually have a sex.  I hope the Guix
> > maintainers are more reasonable than that. :-)
> Sorry, but tracking down the issue you submitted towards the
> contributor covenant, it appears to me that you are the misguided
> one.
> The CoC already prohibits discrimination based on gender identity,
> sexual identity and sexual orientation.  If you identify your gender
> as
> your sex, whatever that might be, you are thereby already protected.
> 
> The wording you chose (intentionally or otherwise) tries to
> invalidate
> other people's gender identity and thus violates the CoC.

Ignoring upstream's context and whether Taylan Kammer is misguided or
not, listing sex among the list could be useful if a potential harasser
H who understands the difference between sex and gender and knows that
V has sex A not corresponding to gender B under current social
convention, and H would harass V over their sex (but H is fine with V's
gender).

To me, this seems a rather contrived scenario though ...

Greetings,
Maxime.

[-- Attachment #2: This is a digitally signed message part --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 260 bytes --]

Re: [minor patch] Amend CoC

[Liliana Marie Prikler]

Hi Maxime,

Am Sonntag, dem 20.02.2022 um 19:45 +0100 schrieb Maxime Devos:
> Liliana Marie Prikler schreef op zo 20-02-2022 om 19:05 [+0100]:
> > > Note: The upstream Contributor Covenant wouldn't want to include
> > > it because the author seems to have a peculiar world-view where
> > > they don't acknowledge that humans actually have a sex.  I hope
> > > the Guix maintainers are more reasonable than that. :-)
> > Sorry, but tracking down the issue you submitted towards the
> > contributor covenant, it appears to me that you are the misguided
> > one.
> > The CoC already prohibits discrimination based on gender identity,
> > sexual identity and sexual orientation.  If you identify your
> > gender as your sex, whatever that might be, you are thereby already
> > protected.
> > 
> > The wording you chose (intentionally or otherwise) tries to
> > invalidate other people's gender identity and thus violates the
> > CoC.
> 
> Ignoring upstream's context and whether Taylan Kammer is misguided or
> not, listing sex among the list could be useful if a potential
> harasser H who understands the difference between sex and gender and
> knows that V has sex A not corresponding to gender B under current
> social convention, and H would harass V over their sex (but H is fine
> with V's gender).
> 
> To me, this seems a rather contrived scenario though ...
In this "contrived" scenario Harold would still (intentionally or
otherwise) be discriminating Victor·ia over their gender by publicly
pointing out the disconnect between the two.  In the daily experience
of trans people, such remarks typically serve to invalidate their
identities.

Re: [minor patch] Amend CoC

[Jonathan McHugh]

Hi Liliana,


February 20, 2022 8:37 PM, "Liliana Marie Prikler" <liliana.prikler@gmail.com> wrote:
> Am Sonntag, dem 20.02.2022 um 19:45 +0100 schrieb Maxime Devos:

>> 
>> To me, this seems a rather contrived scenario though ...
> 
> In this "contrived" scenario Harold would still (intentionally or
> otherwise) be discriminating Victor·ia over their gender by publicly
> pointing out the disconnect between the two. In the daily experience
> of trans people, such remarks typically serve to invalidate their
> identities.

I notice the use of an an interpunct with your typing for Victor·ia.

Ive never noticed such a puncuation previously. 

Is it a common typographic device for such instances of identification?
It seems a beautiful technique for providing subtle signalling for what can (unfortunately) be a sensitive area for communication.

====================
Jonathan McHugh
indieterminacy@libre.brussels

Re: [minor patch] Amend CoC

[Liliana Marie Prikler]

Salut Jonathan,

Am Sonntag, dem 20.02.2022 um 20:56 +0000 schrieb Jonathan McHugh:
> Hi Liliana,
> 
> February 20, 2022 8:37 PM, "Liliana Marie Prikler"
> <liliana.prikler@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Am Sonntag, dem 20.02.2022 um 19:45 +0100 schrieb Maxime Devos:
> 
> > > 
> > > To me, this seems a rather contrived scenario though ...
> > 
> > In this "contrived" scenario Harold would still (intentionally or
> > otherwise) be discriminating Victor·ia over their gender by
> > publicly pointing out the disconnect between the two. In the daily
> > experience of trans people, such remarks typically serve to
> > invalidate their identities.
> 
> I notice the use of an an interpunct with your typing for Victor·ia.
> 
> Ive never noticed such a puncuation previously. 
> 
> Is it a common typographic device for such instances of
> identification?
> It seems a beautiful technique for providing subtle signalling for
> what can (unfortunately) be a sensitive area for communication.
Wikipedia has the following to say: "In modern French, the interpunct
is sometimes used for gender-neutral writing, as in « les salarié·e·s »
for « les salariés et les salariées » [1]."  I personally picked it up
after someone mentioned it in the IRC.

More generally speaking, there are few conventions that are really
widely agreed upon.  In my own country, there's at least three
competing standards, so obviously borrowing from the French and
introducing a fourth is the only right solution.

Bisous

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interpunct#French

Re: [minor patch] Amend CoC

[Jonathan McHugh]

Hi Liliana,

[dropping ML CC for this reply as its offtopic re Guix]

Thanks for the clarification.

Living in Belgium, this advert for bars/cafes always wrankles me:
```
cherche serveuse
```

It may be that Im missing some linguistic touches but I dont know why such gender inference is legal.

The francophone language doesnt fit in my head very well - my brain cant handle all these gender registers for every (effing) noun:
* Pencil - probably a male?
* Coffee - definately a male?
* large coffee - probably the same as a regular coffee?
* Tablecloth - male?
* Spacestation - ...female?

Its farcical, and weird that we tollerate gender specific nouns to be codified writ large across society.

Personally, Im getting better at using gender neutral nouns in English given this growing frustration. It takes time to undo such legacy habits but I consider that people should actively control language and alter it with greater autonomy.

Also, Im happy that Belgian laws allow for giving children both parents' surnames (which I did for mine), as well as establishing that wives should not have to lose their surname (almost wrote maidenname, grrrr).

Dont get me started on weeklong knights and princesses themes at my childrens' school. My son picked up a lot of chauvanism very quickly from the 'institution'.

Thanks all for an interesting thread, I appreciate your perspectives re trying to make people feel more confident in their own skin.


Jonathan


February 20, 2022 10:12 PM, "Liliana Marie Prikler" <liliana.prikler@gmail.com> wrote:

> Salut Jonathan,
> 
> Am Sonntag, dem 20.02.2022 um 20:56 +0000 schrieb Jonathan McHugh:
> 
>> Hi Liliana,
>> 
>> February 20, 2022 8:37 PM, "Liliana Marie Prikler"
>> <liliana.prikler@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Am Sonntag, dem 20.02.2022 um 19:45 +0100 schrieb Maxime Devos:
>> 
>>> 
>>> To me, this seems a rather contrived scenario though ...
>> 
>> In this "contrived" scenario Harold would still (intentionally or
>> otherwise) be discriminating Victor·ia over their gender by
>> publicly pointing out the disconnect between the two. In the daily
>> experience of trans people, such remarks typically serve to
>> invalidate their identities.
>> 
>> I notice the use of an an interpunct with your typing for Victor·ia.
>> 
>> Ive never noticed such a puncuation previously.
>> 
>> Is it a common typographic device for such instances of
>> identification?
>> It seems a beautiful technique for providing subtle signalling for
>> what can (unfortunately) be a sensitive area for communication.
> 
> Wikipedia has the following to say: "In modern French, the interpunct
> is sometimes used for gender-neutral writing, as in « les salarié·e·s »
> for « les salariés et les salariées » [1]." I personally picked it up
> after someone mentioned it in the IRC.
> 
> More generally speaking, there are few conventions that are really
> widely agreed upon. In my own country, there's at least three
> competing standards, so obviously borrowing from the French and
> introducing a fourth is the only right solution.
> 
> Bisous
> 
> [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interpunct#French

Re: [minor patch] Amend CoC

[Taylan Kammer]

On 20.02.2022 19:05, Liliana Marie Prikler wrote:
>> Note: The upstream Contributor Covenant wouldn't want to include it
>> because the author seems to have a peculiar world-view where they
>> don't acknowledge that humans actually have a sex.  I hope the Guix
>> maintainers are more reasonable than that. :-)
> Sorry, but tracking down the issue you submitted towards the
> contributor covenant, it appears to me that you are the misguided one.
> The CoC already prohibits discrimination based on gender identity,
> sexual identity and sexual orientation.  If you identify your gender as
> your sex, whatever that might be, you are thereby already protected.
> 
> The wording you chose (intentionally or otherwise) tries to invalidate
> other people's gender identity and thus violates the CoC.
> 
> Cheers

I had really hoped this would be an uncontroversial suggestion...

It might be useful to provide a link in case others want to take a look at
the debate as well:

https://github.com/EthicalSource/contributor_covenant/pull/548

I've said everything there I'd say now if I were to argue back, and I really
don't want to argue about this on a Guix ML anyway, so I'll leave it to the
maintainers to decide what to do.  Just one remark for them: most women I
know would think twice before spending time trying to get into a community
whose rules intentionally don't acknowledge sex-based discrimination.

-- 
Taylan

Re: [minor patch] Amend CoC

[Thiago Jung Bauermann]

Taylan Kammer <taylan.kammer@gmail.com> writes:

> Just one remark for them: most women I know would think twice before
> spending time trying to get into a community whose rules intentionally
> don't acknowledge sex-based discrimination.

Honest question, because (IIUC) this is the whole point of having a CoC:

Do those women believe that “… harassment-free experience for everyone,
regardless of … gender identity and expression, … or sexual identity and
orientation.” would not cover any potential harassment that they could
be subjected to while participating in Guix’s community?

-- 
Thanks
Thiago

Re: [minor patch] Amend CoC

[Taylan Kammer]

On 20.02.2022 22:37, Thiago Jung Bauermann wrote:
> 
> Taylan Kammer <taylan.kammer@gmail.com> writes:
> 
>> Just one remark for them: most women I know would think twice before
>> spending time trying to get into a community whose rules intentionally
>> don't acknowledge sex-based discrimination.
> 
> Honest question, because (IIUC) this is the whole point of having a CoC:
> 
> Do those women believe that “… harassment-free experience for everyone,
> regardless of … gender identity and expression, … or sexual identity and
> orientation.” would not cover any potential harassment that they could
> be subjected to while participating in Guix’s community?

If no characteristics were listed at all, it wouldn't matter, but if there's
a long list yet 'sex' is explicitly excluded, that seems rather hostile,
even if it doesn't mean that Guix maintainers would actually ignore
harassment that happened on the grounds of someone's sex.

Happy to talk more about this off-list.  As it stands I'm rather embarrassed
that this thread immediately blew up and wish I hadn't posted it at all now.

-- 
Taylan

Re: [minor patch] Amend CoC

[Christine Lemmer-Webber]

Taylan Kammer <taylan.kammer@gmail.com> writes:

> On 20.02.2022 22:37, Thiago Jung Bauermann wrote:
>> 
>> Taylan Kammer <taylan.kammer@gmail.com> writes:
>> 
>>> Just one remark for them: most women I know would think twice before
>>> spending time trying to get into a community whose rules intentionally
>>> don't acknowledge sex-based discrimination.
>> 
>> Honest question, because (IIUC) this is the whole point of having a CoC:
>> 
>> Do those women believe that “… harassment-free experience for everyone,
>> regardless of … gender identity and expression, … or sexual identity and
>> orientation.” would not cover any potential harassment that they could
>> be subjected to while participating in Guix’s community?
>
> If no characteristics were listed at all, it wouldn't matter, but if there's
> a long list yet 'sex' is explicitly excluded, that seems rather hostile,
> even if it doesn't mean that Guix maintainers would actually ignore
> harassment that happened on the grounds of someone's sex.
>
> Happy to talk more about this off-list.  As it stands I'm rather embarrassed
> that this thread immediately blew up and wish I hadn't posted it at all now.

Ah okay, hadn't seen this post before I replied.

It seems the issue is closed then.  Look forward to everyone getting
back to hacking. :)

Re: [minor patch] Amend CoC

[Christine Lemmer-Webber]

Taylan Kammer <taylan.kammer@gmail.com> writes:

> On 20.02.2022 19:05, Liliana Marie Prikler wrote:
>>> Note: The upstream Contributor Covenant wouldn't want to include it
>>> because the author seems to have a peculiar world-view where they
>>> don't acknowledge that humans actually have a sex.  I hope the Guix
>>> maintainers are more reasonable than that. :-)
>> Sorry, but tracking down the issue you submitted towards the
>> contributor covenant, it appears to me that you are the misguided one.
>> The CoC already prohibits discrimination based on gender identity,
>> sexual identity and sexual orientation.  If you identify your gender as
>> your sex, whatever that might be, you are thereby already protected.
>> 
>> The wording you chose (intentionally or otherwise) tries to invalidate
>> other people's gender identity and thus violates the CoC.
>> 
>> Cheers
>
> I had really hoped this would be an uncontroversial suggestion...
>
> It might be useful to provide a link in case others want to take a look at
> the debate as well:
>
> https://github.com/EthicalSource/contributor_covenant/pull/548
>
> I've said everything there I'd say now if I were to argue back, and I really
> don't want to argue about this on a Guix ML anyway, so I'll leave it to the
> maintainers to decide what to do.  Just one remark for them: most women I
> know would think twice before spending time trying to get into a community
> whose rules intentionally don't acknowledge sex-based discrimination.

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'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.

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.

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.

 - Christine

Re: [minor patch] Amend CoC

[Taylan Kammer]

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

Re: [minor patch] Amend CoC

[Andy Wingo]

On Tue 22 Feb 2022 18:16, Taylan Kammer <taylan.kammer@gmail.com> writes:

> If anyone's annoyed by this thread, please tell, and let us move it off-list.

I am annoyed by it I think it should be off-list :)

Andy

Re: [minor patch] Amend CoC

[Oliver Propst]

On 2022-02-23 10:48, Andy Wingo wrote:
> On Tue 22 Feb 2022 18:16, Taylan Kammer <taylan.kammer@gmail.com> 
> writes:
> 
>> If anyone's annoyed by this thread, please tell, and let us move it 
>> off-list.
> 
> I am annoyed by it I think it should be off-list :)
Me to :)
-- 
Kinds regards Oliver Propst
https://twitter.com/Opropst

Re: [minor patch] Amend CoC

[Mark H Weaver]

Hi Liliana,

Liliana Marie Prikler <liliana.prikler@gmail.com> writes:

>> Note: The upstream Contributor Covenant wouldn't want to include it
>> because the author seems to have a peculiar world-view where they
>> don't acknowledge that humans actually have a sex.  I hope the Guix
>> maintainers are more reasonable than that. :-)
> Sorry, but tracking down the issue you submitted towards the
> contributor covenant, it appears to me that you are the misguided one.
> The CoC already prohibits discrimination based on gender identity,
> sexual identity and sexual orientation.  If you identify your gender as
> your sex, whatever that might be, you are thereby already protected.
>
> The wording you chose (intentionally or otherwise) tries to invalidate
> other people's gender identity and thus violates the CoC.

Can you please point out which of Taylan's words "tries to invalidate
other people's gender identity", and explain how you reached that
conclusion from the words you cite?

      Thanks,
        Mark

-- 
Disinformation flourishes because many people care deeply about injustice
but very few check the facts.  Ask me about <https://stallmansupport.org>.

Re: [minor patch] Amend CoC

[Liliana Marie Prikler]

Hi Mark,

Am Sonntag, dem 20.02.2022 um 14:47 -0500 schrieb Mark H Weaver:
> Hi Liliana,
> 
> Liliana Marie Prikler <liliana.prikler@gmail.com> writes:
> 
> > > Note: The upstream Contributor Covenant wouldn't want to include
> > > it because the author seems to have a peculiar world-view where
> > > they don't acknowledge that humans actually have a sex.  I hope
> > > the Guix maintainers are more reasonable than that. :-)
> > Sorry, but tracking down the issue you submitted towards the
> > contributor covenant, it appears to me that you are the misguided
> > one.
> > The CoC already prohibits discrimination based on gender identity,
> > sexual identity and sexual orientation.  If you identify your
> > gender as your sex, whatever that might be, you are thereby already
> > protected.
> > 
> > The wording you chose (intentionally or otherwise) tries to
> > invalidate other people's gender identity and thus violates the
> > CoC.
> 
> Can you please point out which of Taylan's words "tries to invalidate
> other people's gender identity", and explain how you reached that
> conclusion from the words you cite?
"Sex is distinct from gender" is a common transphobic talking point. 
Biologically speaking, there are already multiple ways of looking at
sex (chromosomes, particular features, hormones, ...), none of which
really map to the colloquial use of the word.

For example, you might point to some dictionary definition of "man" as
"an adult human male" and while we have a more or less clear
understanding of what a human is, neither "adult" nor "male" mean the
same things across different communities or more broadly speaking
cultures.  While we in Guix would very much accept a trans man as both
being a man and male, the bio-essentialist will point to this
definition and say "aha! you're not a man because you don't have a
penis" or in some cases even "because you don't have XY chromosomes",
completely ignoring how others interpret either term.

For this reason, I find it not very helpful to welcome such debate in
Guix' spaces and would like to avoid it if possible.  Taylan linked the
upstream issue and in my personal opinion, upstream has a good reason
to reject the proposal.

Cheers

Re: [minor patch] Amend CoC

[Taylan Kammer]

On 20.02.2022 22:02, Liliana Marie Prikler wrote:
> 
> "Sex is distinct from gender" is a common transphobic talking point. 
> 

Like I said I don't actually want to argue, but I really feel the need
to point out that what you seem to consider a transphobic talking point
is seen as a fundamental principle of feminism by many others, and that
long predates the contemporary transgender movement.

  "One is not born, but rather becomes, woman. No biological, psychic,
  or economic destiny defines the figure that the human female takes on
  in society; it is civilization as a whole that elaborates this
  intermediary product between the male and the eunuch that is called
  feminine."
    -- Simone de Beauvoir, The Second Sex (1949), 2010 translation

This is one of the most iconic passages from the book (especially the
first sentence on its own), and the book is considered to be pretty
much one of the most important works in feminist history.

Given that, I find it somewhat baffling that distinguishing between sex
and gender is now apparently considered transphobic.  (This isn't the
first time I'm hearing that claim, but I was under the impression that
it's a very fringe position.)

Actually, I could swear that only about 5 years ago, "sex and gender are
*not* the same" was a very common thing transgender activists would say.
I might actually have learned that principle from trans activists before
reading up on feminist literature.

Anyhow, all that is only tangential to the topic at hand.  In context
of this topic, I want to mainly highlight one thing, which is that
regardless of what one thinks about gender as a social construct,
gender identity and expression, transgender identities, and so on,
there is undeniably a number of ways in which people born with female
anatomy have been and continue to be mistreated throughout history
and around the planet.  To acknowledge that has very little to do with
transgender identities, and at no point did I or will I argue that the
CoC should for instance exclude "gender identity" from the list.

Is it possible that we would meet in the middle on this topic and
acknowledge both perspectives?

-- 
Taylan

Re: [minor patch] Amend CoC

[Tissevert]

Hi,

Can't help but chiming in because this conversation is great and I'm really
glad we're having it as a community. Taylan, please don't be embarrassed you
started it, the number of replies is witness to the interest it sparked. It
didn't blow up, it bloomed : )

I find it all the more interesting to read in the same message you quoting de
Beauvoir and summon "female anatomy". Though de Beauvoir's feminism is very
much first wave, she wrote important things that still have an echo in today's
understanding of sex and gender, because she early understood that her female
condition had little to do with the shape of her organs, as also appears in the
first part of her biography, "Mémoires d'une jeune fille rangée".

I totally understand your confusion about being called transphobic for trying
to separate gender and sex, and really I think this is not about distributing
awards for feminism or punishment for transphobia. I'm pretty sure at some
point transgender activism had to argue in the direction you remember, I'd have
said longer ago but the specifics aren't that important: the reasons I see for
that is that of course our common understanding of concepts evolves as time
passes, but also that in term of communication some messages are more or less
easy to get out into the wider social awareness depending on the era. I do
remember, too, reading about "gender" as a form of "soft, rewritable sex",
something additional that goes on top of sex, which would be a sort of "natural
built-in" but I no longer think this is accurate or useful.

If you read other authors from the third wave such as Judith Butler, one of the
major result they've discovered is that if gender is a social construct, it's
not something artificial that would go above a physical reality that would be
sex: on the contrary, sex too is a social construct, built to erase the natural
diversity which would contradict the social construct that gender is. Which is
why though transgender people have always faced so much friction to get control
of their bodies, intersex people are forced surgeries much too early to even be
able to form an opinion, let alone give any consent, or why cisgender teenagers
are almost stuffed with hormones each time their body slightly deviates from
what is considered the "natural" characteristics of their "sex" (each time a
girl gets her mensies too late, or too much hair, or if a boy has breast
developing during his adolescence), while people actively organize to make sure
transgender teens never get access to something that might relieve their
dysphoria.

Gender does indeed differ from sex. But it's not something additional, it is a
generalization of sex, it's the framework used by society to justify sex as a
natural evidence, and it's striking I think to see how consistent with de
Beauvoir's writing that result is, almost half a century afterwards. Now gender
identity is already covered in the CoC, so it would be redundant to add "sex" in
my opinion.

You seem to claim that some "natural true woman" (again, this is a caricature
but it's not an attack against you, it's merely to get the cat out of the bag)
would still be excluded by mentioning only gender and not sex in the CoC.
Beyond the fact that we see again at play the asymetry that plagues this
discussion (why do trans woman attract so much interest ? why not worry that
poor cisgender males are going to feel unprotected by this CoC, if only trans
men are protected by this "fake gender" thing ? can I harass a man within this
community as soon as I'm sure he's cisgender ?), we see again the dichotomy
between inclusion and personal liberty, which has been invoked in some other
replies to this thread. I happen to be a lesbian. An acronym to refer to all
gay people has been in the past "LGBT". What if something says that it welcomes
not only "us gays" but also generally queer people, intersex and others by
means of the "LGBTQI+" acronym ?  If I, as a lesbian, decided that by welcoming
"those people" who aren't like me, I'm being excluded because I'm "not like
them", and because I, as a lesbian, suffer a specific oppression that other
queer people don't face, that'd be my problem (and also queer- or
intersexphobic, but that's not the point). Now if a code of conduct was
modified to accomodate my hatred, and recognized that, okay, we like them, but
they're not you know "really" gay like I am (again, I'm sorry for writing so
many bigoted things, I hope I'm not hurting anyone's feeling because I don't
believe a single word of it, this is just for the sake of the argument), now
that would be a very hurtful and violent CoC. Likewise I know some cisgender
people don't understand or like the "cisgender" adjective, but you can't remove
it without implying "you, know, truly of the gender they claim, not like those
transgender people". And that I think is not acceptable in our community.

I hope to have clarified why the current formulation is already as inclusive as
can be and to have reassured you that there is no middle between two
incompatible sides where to meet.

Kind regards,

Tissevert


Le Sun, 20 Feb 2022 23:45:04 +0100,
Taylan Kammer <taylan.kammer@gmail.com> a écrit :

> On 20.02.2022 22:02, Liliana Marie Prikler wrote:
> > 
> > "Sex is distinct from gender" is a common transphobic talking
> > point. 
> 
> Like I said I don't actually want to argue, but I really feel the need
> to point out that what you seem to consider a transphobic talking
> point is seen as a fundamental principle of feminism by many others,
> and that long predates the contemporary transgender movement.
> 
>   "One is not born, but rather becomes, woman. No biological, psychic,
>   or economic destiny defines the figure that the human female takes
> on in society; it is civilization as a whole that elaborates this
>   intermediary product between the male and the eunuch that is called
>   feminine."
>     -- Simone de Beauvoir, The Second Sex (1949), 2010 translation
> 
> This is one of the most iconic passages from the book (especially the
> first sentence on its own), and the book is considered to be pretty
> much one of the most important works in feminist history.
> 
> Given that, I find it somewhat baffling that distinguishing between
> sex and gender is now apparently considered transphobic.  (This isn't
> the first time I'm hearing that claim, but I was under the impression
> that it's a very fringe position.)
> 
> Actually, I could swear that only about 5 years ago, "sex and gender
> are *not* the same" was a very common thing transgender activists
> would say. I might actually have learned that principle from trans
> activists before reading up on feminist literature.
> 
> Anyhow, all that is only tangential to the topic at hand.  In context
> of this topic, I want to mainly highlight one thing, which is that
> regardless of what one thinks about gender as a social construct,
> gender identity and expression, transgender identities, and so on,
> there is undeniably a number of ways in which people born with female
> anatomy have been and continue to be mistreated throughout history
> and around the planet.  To acknowledge that has very little to do with
> transgender identities, and at no point did I or will I argue that the
> CoC should for instance exclude "gender identity" from the list.
> 
> Is it possible that we would meet in the middle on this topic and
> acknowledge both perspectives?
> 

Re: [minor patch] Amend CoC

[Liliana Marie Prikler]

Hi,

Am Sonntag, dem 20.02.2022 um 23:45 +0100 schrieb Taylan Kammer:
> On 20.02.2022 22:02, Liliana Marie Prikler wrote:
> > 
> > "Sex is distinct from gender" is a common transphobic talking point. 
> > 
> 
> Like I said I don't actually want to argue, but I really feel the need
> to point out that what you seem to consider a transphobic talking point
> is seen as a fundamental principle of feminism by many others, and that
> long predates the contemporary transgender movement.
Note that the existence of transgender people predates 20th century
feminism by millennia.  Your appeal to tradition is weaker than you
might think it is.

>   "One is not born, but rather becomes, woman. No biological,
>   psychic, or economic destiny defines the figure that the human
>   female takes on in society; it is civilization as a whole that
>   elaborates this intermediary product between the male and the
>   eunuch that is called feminine."
>     -- Simone de Beauvoir, The Second Sex (1949), 2010 translation
> 
> This is one of the most iconic passages from the book (especially the
> first sentence on its own), and the book is considered to be pretty
> much one of the most important works in feminist history.
You would have to take 70 year old books within the context of their
time, but even then de Beauvoir clearly states that there is no
biological essence of womanhood, that it is (as we understand today) a
social construct.  I'd also like to point out how (ironically) de
Beauvoir mocks women as being somehow lesser or inferior to men within
this paragraph, which itself serves to depict how women are treated in
a patriarchal world.

> Given that, I find it somewhat baffling that distinguishing between
> sex and gender is now apparently considered transphobic.  (This isn't
> the first time I'm hearing that claim, but I was under the impression
> that it's a very fringe position.)
> 
> Actually, I could swear that only about 5 years ago, "sex and gender
> are *not* the same" was a very common thing transgender activists
> would say.
> I might actually have learned that principle from trans activists
> before reading up on feminist literature.
I think you are making some simplifications here that are not useful
for understanding.  What transgender activists have been claiming for
years is that their gender can not be defined by whatever markers
biologists use to ("correctly" or otherwise) assign sex to humans or
animals, be it chromosomes, gonads, hormones, hair length, voice, or
whatever.  However, science has progressed since five years ago and we
are now at a level of understanding that even sex itself is not as
easily defined as some would like it to be.

As a society, we have already progressed (in most parts of Europe and
the US at least) to a point where men can wear long hair and women can
wear short hair without needing to question their own gender identity
too much.  This might sound completely revolutionary if you were born
50 or 100 years ago, but several peoples from 2000 years ago (or
sometimes a little more than 200 years ago) would be laughing at us for
having achieved less than nothing – consider for example the way heels
are now gendered and men's shoes try really well to hide them so as to
not threaten the wearer's masculinity.  With that much out of the way,
let's look at some other ways of defining sex, shall we?

First of all, hormones: Let's say female athletes would in order to
gain a competitive edge in the olympics be taking testosterone en
masse.  Regardless of the efficacy of such a doping method, would these
athletes now be male or should they be forced to compete in the men's
olympics regardless?  If so, what about male athletes taking estrogen
in order to bend their legs better?  Should they be forced to compete
against women?  Are the olympics even separated by sex or by gender and
which matters in sports?

Next, gonads.  Monkey brain can easily match penis = male and
boobs/vagina = female, but what if penis and boobs or even penis and
vagina or just vagina but no boobs.  Monkey brain confused.

Finally, chromosomes.  The last straw that transphobes can hold onto
because we haven't yet found a way of transferring our brains into the
bodies we want to have and are also still uncertain about what the
ethics of doing so would be.  Still, using them as an arbiter would
still not hold against the simplest of thought experiments.  Let's say
I was a mad scientist and I changed half/all of your sex chromosomes to
be XX instead of XY or vice versa (for the purpose of simplicity I'm
ignoring other combinations at the moment) without this change
affecting anything else about your body.  Would you now have a
different sex?  Would there even be a point in determining that?  Could
anyone discriminate against you based on that fact if they had barely
any method of observing that there indeed has been a change?

As you will hopefully be able to see after honestly entertaining the
questions raised above, sex itself is a social construct vaguely based
in biological factoids, most of which are irrelevant most of the time.
In particular, when considering trans people in a medical context –
where a distinction between sex and gender makes the most sense – you
have to treat them differently from people who you would through a
naïve view box into the same category otherwise, or if you really want
to use the term as though they had their own sex.  
However, for most parts of our daily lives, in particular participation
within an online community in which thanks to a global pandemic chances
are exceedingly rare that you will ever meet another person, this
distinction matters not and claiming it does in order to support a
change of the CoC behind the author's back is at the very least bad
optics.

> Anyhow, all that is only tangential to the topic at hand.  In context
> of this topic, I want to mainly highlight one thing, which is that
> regardless of what one thinks about gender as a social construct,
> gender identity and expression, transgender identities, and so on,
> there is undeniably a number of ways in which people born with female
> anatomy have been and continue to be mistreated throughout history
> and around the planet.  To acknowledge that has very little to do with
> transgender identities, and at no point did I or will I argue that the
> CoC should for instance exclude "gender identity" from the list.
> 
> Is it possible that we would meet in the middle on this topic and
> acknowledge both perspectives?
Note that you've dug your own grave here by accusing the authors of the
CoC of being devoid of reason and holding "a peculiar world-view where
they don't acknowledge that humans actually have a sex".  A general tip
in this regard would be – when you find yourself twisting the words of
others to fit your own narrative – whether you might be the one holding
reactionary views here.

In short, sex is not an innate quality of human people, it is an act
that none of us are performing while arguing on the mailing list.

Re: [minor patch] Amend CoC

[Tobias Geerinckx-Rice]

On 2022-02-21 22:03, Liliana Marie Prikler wrote:
> let's look at some other ways of defining sex, shall we?

Let's not!

This is guix-devel, not trans-discuss.  Any relevance to Guix or its CoC 
is long lost.

(Regarding that: flawed as it indubitably is, I don't think the current 
CoC should be expanded with ever more examples of bad behaviour.)

Kind regards,

T G-R

Sent from a Web browser.  Excuse or enjoy my brevity.

Re: [minor patch] Amend CoC

[Blake Shaw]

Liliana Marie Prikler <liliana.prikler@gmail.com> writes:

>> To me, this seems a rather contrived scenario though ...
> In this "contrived" scenario Harold would still (intentionally or
> otherwise) be discriminating Victor·ia over their gender by publicly
> pointing out the disconnect between the two.  In the daily experience
> of trans people, such remarks typically serve to invalidate their
> identities.
>

I agree, and given that so-called "men's rights activist" types have
time and time again used this type of argumentation to veil attacks on
trans women under the guise of feminism, it should be rejected. people's
sexual identities are already addressed as protected, and this is meant to
protect all women, not only some of them.

also I think when a man suggests making a changing to conduct regarding
women, and a woman says "hold up thats not protecting me", and no other
women come forward to defend the proposal, it should be obvious that
the "debate" need not move forward. 

-- 
“In girum imus nocte et consumimur igni”

Re: [minor patch] Amend CoC

[Blake Shaw]

Oliver Propst <oliver.propst@fripost.org> writes:

> On 2022-02-23 10:48, Andy Wingo wrote:
>> On Tue 22 Feb 2022 18:16, Taylan Kammer <taylan.kammer@gmail.com>
>> writes:
>> 
>>> If anyone's annoyed by this thread, please tell, and let us move it
>>> off-list.
>> I am annoyed by it I think it should be off-list :)
> Me to :)

Me as well, and I would add that at this point, now that two women who
are active in this community have come forward with reasonable requests
to not accept the patch and politely asked us to "get back to hacking",
yet the committer has persisted, the following two CoC seem to be in breech:

  * Trolling, insulting/derogatory comments, and personal or political attacks
  * Public or private harassment

If you're part of a discriminated minority and express unease with the
way folks from the dominant group are discussing your identity, yet they
persist, I think that qualifies as harassment.

With that being said, let's keep the following guideline in mind:

 * Showing empathy towards other community members

and get back to hacking :)

-- 
“In girum imus nocte et consumimur igni”