Hi Richard.

I appreciate you've put a lot of thought into this, and I'd like to thank you for your considered reply.

I hope to provide you with an equally considered response in the near future.

On 7 Jul 2017 14:28, "Richard Ipsum" <richardipsum@fastmail.co.uk> wrote:
On Fri, Jul 07, 2017 at 01:05:22PM +0100, Daniel Silverstone wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 07, 2017 at 12:27:10 +0100, Richard Ipsum wrote:
> > Though I am personally of the opinion that we are so delightful towards
> > each other that a code of conduct is not strictly necessary
> The covenant is more there to ensure that others coming to the community
> understand the standards to which we will require them to adhere :-)  I do
> indeed hope we're all lovely people, but it's useful to have a statement to
> that effect.
> Thank you for engaging with the covenant enough to decide it warrants an edit,
> that implies you at least have bothered to read it through which pleases me
> greatly.
> > I have chosen to make a more moderate amendment here.
> This change removes the section in which we say that we will not act on
> compliants which we consider essentially spurious.  Without this in the
> covenant, it would be reasonable to expect we'd have to spend time reviewing
> and investigating situations where person A complains that person B asked
> person A to leave them alone.  This hardly seems a worthwhile use of out
> time.
> The Covenant was derived from
> http://geekfeminism.wikia.com/wiki/Community_anti-harassment/Policy and for the
> most part I believe I trust the geek feminism community to have added that
> content for a good reason.
> Could you please explain your reasoning behind suggesting we remove that
> part of the covenant?  Could you give a hypothetical situation in which you
> feel it would be detrimental to have that present?

The problem is here,

    The Gitano Community prioritises marginalised people's safety over privileged people's comfort. Gitano Community Managers will not act on complaints regarding:

How would we choose to define privilege ?

The statement is followed by the point,

    'Reverse' -isms, including 'reverse racism,' 'reverse sexism,' and 'cisphobia'

I was not in fact familiar with these "reverse" terms until I encountered
this document.

Wikipedia defines reverse sexism,

    Reverse sexism in a broader sense refers to sexism directed towards the dominant sex and in a narrower sense to sexism against men.

I myself cannot assume a definition for the term dominant sex I am afraid,
which makes the term reverse sexism equally dubious, since surely sexism
is an act that can be committed against members of either sex. To admit
a reverse sexism is to admit the existence of a dominant sex in the first
place, which seems mistaken in my view.

Wikipedia defines reverse racism,

    Reverse racism is a term used to describe acts of discrimination and prejudice perpetrated by racial minorities or historically oppressed ethnic groups against individuals belonging to the racial majority or historically dominant ethnic groups.

Here we might argue the definition of a dominant race may be clearer
since we might refer to population statistics, yet even here
the distribution of race within a nation obviously varies between
nations and it is not clearly defined in the covenant which nation
the terms are based upon. Indeed since we accept patches from all
over the world we might find we need to look to world population statistics
to find the most populous race and assign that race the term dominant...
it's all getting quite complicated now.

It is my opinion then that the introduction of these "reverseisms" is
logically flawed since they logically necessitate the existence of a
dominant something or other, which is undefined.

I'm certain those who seek to introduce such terms have only the best
intentions, but if my analysis here is not flawed, then the introduction
of such terms in fact undermines the ends sought.

Let us simply treat all people equally.

Hope this helps,

gitano-dev mailing list