I would also argue that it prevents important technical conversations and accounting. If you have a m/s architecture, and you're concerned about redudancy/cost/etc.. well that conversation has been delayed and potentially prevented over the constant correction of saying manager/worker instead. It's a mental/cognitive/communication tax on the contributors.

Agree. You'll never get a count of all the people who may have been interested in contributing to a project but decided against it because of a COC or language police.

Yep. I keep noticing that places which tell everyone how "inclusive" and "welcoming" and "safe" they are have a strong correlation with being hostile, unsafe spaces where you're walking on eggshells with the implicit threat of dogpiling and vicious character attacks. Nothing says "friendly" like a big list of rules on the front door, and being told "you can feel safe here because we support hunting those unsafe witches!". This applies well beyond just FOSS projects

It's sort of like the stock horror media trope where a community that projects a facade of being a happy utopia is maintained by unspoken but vicious enforcement of conformity

exactly, those who scream loudest about these things tends to be the biggest offenders themselves. There is an old saying: "thief thinks every man steals". This is of course not a 100% rule, but odds are generally good :)

I guess I should put it another way. Sure it’s a valid theory, but I think asserting it as borderline self evident/a big enough deal that it primarily explains the profanity in repos is another matter entirely. I could also assert 5 other valid theories I’m sure. Doesn’t mean they’re all accurate or worth weighing.

So yeah, I’m just curious how those of you who responded to me are quantifying this.

If I find someone with 20 years experience that disagrees with your take, what then? I’m just wondering how y’all are quantifying this, as I explained in another comment.