They don't want professionalism, they want a tool to attack people with. Linux, internet, etc has been around for decades and working fine. All of a sudden a bunch of extremists are trying to destroy it just for their own political agenda.
Maybe Vulkan or OpenGL. Oh wait; they're putting a basic CoC over those projects too. Perhaps there are local State Surveillance projects you'd be happy to contribute to?
B: But the behavior of some most active CoC proponents is not exactly welcoming and professional, are you sure that's what you are about?
A: GTFO, maybe there are some spy agencies that agree to take a deplorable like you. We certainly don't want your kind here.
B: Sigh.
A: Arguing that a CoC should be welcoming to the behavioral abuses it is trying to protect is sophistry no one should feel the need to engage with honestly. It's as absurd as those, "To be tolerant you must be tolerant of intolerance" arguments that people raise as if they're credible or novel. We also laugh at those.
B: Sigh.
Nobody argues that. What is being argued that a) proponents of the CoC seem to be prone themselves to behavioral abuses, yet let themselves off the hook because they are on the Light Side, so it's ok for them; and b) people (often the very same people) use CoC to argue that disagreement on any political topic represents "behavioral abuse", since they feel very bad if somebody disagrees with them, so it's virtually the same as physical violence. Since there's no objective definition of "behavioral abuse", and the people in question are holding the reins, other people who might disagree with them, eventually, feel like they are getting the bad end of the deal here.
B: <unsubstatiated allegation>
A: <reasonable dismissal>
B: <cries of oppression>