And yes, treating other people with basic decency is actually a tricky thing that needs to be spelled out for some people. A lot of people actually - you gave some great examples, whether you meant to or not.
Any selection of relative values is ideological; and every project is, inherently, based on an agreement to pursue some set of values. And the choice for those values to not include social inclusiveness is as much an ideological choice as the decision that the values should include inclusiveness (or that they should include exclusiveness, which is a third possible ideological choice.)
e.g.
> ... an ideological choice as the decision that the values should include inclusiveness
I explained why this is not just unnecessary, but also why it's wrong on a much more fundamental level.
When I get patches from people, I don't care what's under their clothes. I don't care what their political opinions are. I don't care what religion (or not) they belong to. I evaluate the patch based on it's engineering merits. I give them a review of the engineering work that they did, without reference to any of the above mentioned issues.
It's absolutely inclusive, in a way that perhaps you don't understand. It doesn't pervert the project by demanding that members adhere to a particular ideology.
I find naive attempts at "inclusiveness" to be repugnant. They are a back-door way of leveraging such "niceties" into taking over the group, and establishing an ideology-driven totalitarian dictatorship with Orwellian overtones.
And no, I'm not exaggerating here. Look at any number of groups which started out as goal oriented, and devolved into fights over ideological correctness. Very soon, the arguments over ideology overwhelm the group, and everyone who gets things done... leaves. What's left is the ideology-driven politicians, who then find out that they're in their an echo chamber. They turn on each other, and the group dies a flaming death.
See Atheism+ for a good example of this in recent years.
If only it were that easy.
I've seen codes of conduct for technical projects where they said things like "MUST be inclusive of trans, gay, etc.", along with political / ideological statements. And the kicker was a phrase saying "these ideologies are not open for discussion".
Why a software project needs an ideological statement, I have no idea. But it hits all of my red flags that the purpose of the code of conduct is not to treat each other with basic decency, but instead to push a particular ideology.
> you'll be ejected from the pub if you harass the other clients.
What about simple questions?
Q: Hi, I noticed you're a Democrat / Republican / whatever. I think I may disagree with your opinion.
A: THE SIGN SAYS NO QUESTIONING IDEOLOGICAL PURITY. GET OUT.
Uh... no. That way lies totalitarianism.