Disappointed to see the #FSF recommending projects to adopt a "code of conduct" and linking to the "Geek Feminism" website (hosted on the proprietary Fandom platform no less) whose "sample policy" is a highly politically biased document.
https://www.fsf.org/campaigns/priority-projects/contribute
The "sample policy" that is indirectly being endorsed:
https://geekfeminism.fandom.com/wiki/Community_anti-harassment/Policy
Here are some problems with it:
1. Potential for tolerating sexism
The first sentence of the anti-harassment policy text is:
> COMMUNITY NAME is dedicated to providing a harassment-free experience for everyone, regardless of gender, gender identity and expression, sexual orientation, disability, physical appearance, body size, age, race, or religion.
Although it's commendable that this sentence at least lists "gender" as a separate item from "gender identity," it would be better to use the term "sex" to make it clear that harassment on the basis of sex (i.e. sexism) is not tolerated. For example, saying something like "you must be on your period" is clearly based on someone's sex (biology) and not some nebulous concept of gender.
2. Curtailing freedom of expression
The long version of the text includes the rule:
> Deliberate misgendering or use of ‘dead’ or rejected names.
The act of "misgendering" is analogous to acts of "blasphemy," like for example saying "god damn it" or "jesus christ" in moments of frustration.
Although a devote Christian project member could politely ask for other members not to use such language --which those members would ideally agree to for the sake of being kind-- the Christian member should understand that this is merely an agreement made out of politeness.
It doesn't mean that the members who agreed not to use blasphemy have converted and really believe in blasphemy. They may continue to use such "blasphemy" expressions in various contexts, especially when the Christian member isn't around and thus won't be offended. So long as they aren't doing it intentionally to upset the Christian member of the project, it's fine.
The same principle applies to misgendering. It's OK to politely ask for others not to use misgendering expressions, and ideally they would agree out of kindness. But it has to be clear that this is mere politeness, not agreement to a belief system, and therefore misgendering expressions may continue to occur in various contexts.
I'm a scientifically-minded atheist, and see gender identity in a similar light to religion. Transwomen are a type of male human being, i.e. men (using the simple dictionary definition "adult human male"), and I don't appreciate facing hostility for "admitting" that I have this simple scientific perspective. There is no hatred involved when I refer to a transwoman as "he" and although I can gladly agree to avoiding this grammar, it has to be clear that this agreement is out of politeness and doesn't mean that I've changed my mind.
3. Political bias / Tolerance for specific types of bigotry
The text follows the principle:
> COMMUNITY NAME prioritizes marginalized people’s safety over privileged people’s comfort. RESPONSE TEAM reserves the right not to act on complaints regarding:
> ‘Reverse’ -isms, including ‘reverse racism,’ ‘reverse sexism,’ and ‘cisphobia’
Although I personally agree that "reverse racism," "reverse sexism," etc. aren't in practice as big of an issue as the regular versions, the encoding of this idea into a community rule opens up a huge can of worms, and could even be interpreted as blatant tolerance for bigotry against people decreed to be "privileged."
Who decides who's privileged over whom, in what context? Does a black man's sexism suddenly become acceptable if he makes sure to say "white women" instead of "women"? Can transwomen freely talk about how disgusting they find female bodies, and it won't be taken seriously because it will be considered 'cisphobia' instead of misogyny?
4. Meta-issue: The uselessness of trying to encourage good behavior through bureaucracy
Don't ask me for citations, but I believe there is some sociological evidence that good behavior is best fostered by leading through example. Not by talking about how bad all the bad behaviors are, nor by creating an oppressive atmosphere in which people fear punishment for their transgressions, least of all punishment that is handed down by a seemingly cold and uncaring caste of bureaucrats.
Codes of conduct are, in all likelihood, useless at best. A simple rule such as "treat each other well" can't hurt, but beyond that, the only path to fostering good communities is leading through example.
Rules and guidelines may begin to become useful at the scale of large organizations. I wouldn't endorse a country to drop its legislative and judicial systems, for example. But at the scale of free software communities, I think this kind of bureaucracy creates more problems than it solves, if it even solves any problems at all.
https://www.fsf.org/campaigns/priority-projects/contribute
The "sample policy" that is indirectly being endorsed:
https://geekfeminism.fandom.com/wiki/Community_anti-harassment/Policy
Here are some problems with it:
1. Potential for tolerating sexism
The first sentence of the anti-harassment policy text is:
> COMMUNITY NAME is dedicated to providing a harassment-free experience for everyone, regardless of gender, gender identity and expression, sexual orientation, disability, physical appearance, body size, age, race, or religion.
Although it's commendable that this sentence at least lists "gender" as a separate item from "gender identity," it would be better to use the term "sex" to make it clear that harassment on the basis of sex (i.e. sexism) is not tolerated. For example, saying something like "you must be on your period" is clearly based on someone's sex (biology) and not some nebulous concept of gender.
2. Curtailing freedom of expression
The long version of the text includes the rule:
> Deliberate misgendering or use of ‘dead’ or rejected names.
The act of "misgendering" is analogous to acts of "blasphemy," like for example saying "god damn it" or "jesus christ" in moments of frustration.
Although a devote Christian project member could politely ask for other members not to use such language --which those members would ideally agree to for the sake of being kind-- the Christian member should understand that this is merely an agreement made out of politeness.
It doesn't mean that the members who agreed not to use blasphemy have converted and really believe in blasphemy. They may continue to use such "blasphemy" expressions in various contexts, especially when the Christian member isn't around and thus won't be offended. So long as they aren't doing it intentionally to upset the Christian member of the project, it's fine.
The same principle applies to misgendering. It's OK to politely ask for others not to use misgendering expressions, and ideally they would agree out of kindness. But it has to be clear that this is mere politeness, not agreement to a belief system, and therefore misgendering expressions may continue to occur in various contexts.
I'm a scientifically-minded atheist, and see gender identity in a similar light to religion. Transwomen are a type of male human being, i.e. men (using the simple dictionary definition "adult human male"), and I don't appreciate facing hostility for "admitting" that I have this simple scientific perspective. There is no hatred involved when I refer to a transwoman as "he" and although I can gladly agree to avoiding this grammar, it has to be clear that this agreement is out of politeness and doesn't mean that I've changed my mind.
3. Political bias / Tolerance for specific types of bigotry
The text follows the principle:
> COMMUNITY NAME prioritizes marginalized people’s safety over privileged people’s comfort. RESPONSE TEAM reserves the right not to act on complaints regarding:
> ‘Reverse’ -isms, including ‘reverse racism,’ ‘reverse sexism,’ and ‘cisphobia’
Although I personally agree that "reverse racism," "reverse sexism," etc. aren't in practice as big of an issue as the regular versions, the encoding of this idea into a community rule opens up a huge can of worms, and could even be interpreted as blatant tolerance for bigotry against people decreed to be "privileged."
Who decides who's privileged over whom, in what context? Does a black man's sexism suddenly become acceptable if he makes sure to say "white women" instead of "women"? Can transwomen freely talk about how disgusting they find female bodies, and it won't be taken seriously because it will be considered 'cisphobia' instead of misogyny?
4. Meta-issue: The uselessness of trying to encourage good behavior through bureaucracy
Don't ask me for citations, but I believe there is some sociological evidence that good behavior is best fostered by leading through example. Not by talking about how bad all the bad behaviors are, nor by creating an oppressive atmosphere in which people fear punishment for their transgressions, least of all punishment that is handed down by a seemingly cold and uncaring caste of bureaucrats.
Codes of conduct are, in all likelihood, useless at best. A simple rule such as "treat each other well" can't hurt, but beyond that, the only path to fostering good communities is leading through example.
Rules and guidelines may begin to become useful at the scale of large organizations. I wouldn't endorse a country to drop its legislative and judicial systems, for example. But at the scale of free software communities, I think this kind of bureaucracy creates more problems than it solves, if it even solves any problems at all.