On Wed, 29 Jan 2025 at 08:50, Kevin Smith <kevin.smith@isode.com> wrote:
On 29 Jan 2025, at 07:01, JC Brand <lists@opkode.com> wrote:

On 2025/01/28 23:05, Arc Riley wrote:
On Fri, Apr 26, 2024 at 4:01 AM JC Brand <lists@opkode.com> 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