I think the issue with CoC is that they have been used in the past by politically motivated (notably on the left) activists to take control of a project and ensure a political line. You may agree with such a political line like anti-fascism, inclusion and what not. But the issue is that you have opened the door to politics inside what ought to be a technical area, and historically, politics change, the ideas you agree on today will be pushed to more extremes (some you might disagree with) you will not be comfortable with and eventually you will be alienated from them completely. But when that happens, you will have no recourse and will eventually be purged (like those before you, being called the trendy workd of the moment, fascist or woke) too because you accepted the opening of the door to such behaviours, your only solution will be silence.

As for examples of that happening, NixOS comes to mind, the Rust debacle too.

Also another issue you might not see, you are ironically also enforcing a dominant idea (your american culture) onto the rest of the world thus creating a hierarchy where your ideas are right and the other cultural operating systems are wrong.

> the issue is that you have opened the door to politics inside what ought to be a technical area

Unless you're willing and able to enforce a BDFL stance, I don't think there is actually any alternative.

As soon as people start disagreeing with any choices you make, and it's not well-understood that "what I say goes", you're going to have people who want to try to change how you run things, and that is the definition of politics.

Either you force your own politics on people, or you open yourself up to accepting changes from other people... which is still politics.

I actually agree, which is why I have high hopes for Ladybird and such. The best type of government is not a democracy but an benevolent dictatorship (also historically called the philosopher-king). You force the politics of neutrality on people, but doing so leads to people on the extremes attacking you and labelling you with unacceptable names like what is happening with DHH and the Omarchy thing

I am not American, and I don't think that "trans people have a right to participate in society" is a political take. The real issue is with people thinking that "trans people shouldn't exist" is a valid opinion to hold, and I don't feel particularly bad for them being "silenced".

If this view falls in the American left's umbrella, then I'm sorry to say: they're objectively right and fuck the guys who hold anti-human views.

The actual divisive issue is whether people who say they are the opposite sex to what they really are should be granted access to spaces that are designated for the sole use of the opposite sex.

This gets relabelled by activists for the trans ideological cause with phrases like "the right to participate in society" and even "the right to exist", but these are so far from what is actually being demanded that it's essentially just misinformation and false appeal to emotion.

> The actual divisive issue is whether people who say they are the opposite sex to what they really are should be granted access to spaces that are designated for the sole use of the opposite sex.

And of course that shouldn't matter for an online virtual space.

But that's unfortunately not it. There are many many people who believe that being trans isn't real, and that anyone who claims to be trans has a mental illness. In addition to denying trans people access to gendered spaces, they also want to deny them medical care, and do things like aggressively (sometimes even gleefully) call them by a name and pronouns that are painful to hear. (Which would still be reprehensible even if being trans was a mental illness!)

And that latter bit is something I have seen happen in online spaces. It's a form of harassment. If the simple "don't be a dick to others"-type CoC is one we can agree on, that's definitely a violation. It's not a "political stance" to say that people should call others by their preferred name and pronouns. It's just basic human decency to do that, and if there's someone who can't even do that basic human thing in a community I manage, then they are not welcome there, regardless of what informs them (often misguided religious beliefs) that they should be hateful like that.

> > The actual divisive issue is whether people who say they are the opposite sex to what they really are should be granted access to spaces that are designated for the sole use of the opposite sex.

> And of course that shouldn't matter for an online virtual space.

Depends on the space. It will matter sometimes. For instance: pregnancy forums, prostate cancer support groups.

But I agree this shouldn't be relevant for online spaces used to organise work on software development projects. These, almost always, are not intended as single-sex spaces, nor as venues for discussing people's differing views on this topic.

> It's not a "political stance" to say that people should call others by their preferred name and pronouns. It's just basic human decency to do that

I think that's more a philosophical stance. Appealing to "basic human decency" seems too subjective, both culturally and personally. There are many perspectives on what this might mean in practice.

Unfortunately the pronouns issue is difficult to avoid when communicating in English, because we have separate words to refer to female and male, and for most English speakers it's natural to use these to describe a person's sex. Overriding it because someone prefers (or demands) an opposite sex pronoun, or even some esoteric pronoun outside of the usual closed set, can be difficult even if that's something you've chosen to accede to. It's like a variation of the Stroop test but in everyday speech.

There are some reasonable arguments to be made for choosing otherwise too, though I expect you probably would not agree.

> It's not a "political stance" to say that people should

I think trying to tell people what they should or shouldn't do is kindof the definition of politics.

Full quote:

> It's not a "political stance" to say that people should call others by their preferred name and pronouns. It's just basic human decency to do that,

You're fighting for the right to be a dick to people for no other reasons than because you are prejudiced against them. Frankly, that sounds rather pathetic, maybe do a little introspection?

Spaces such as online open-source communities? This is nonsensical, listen to yourself. Your anti-human bias shows and it's actually disturbing. What spaces are you even talking about and why do you think people that look, act, talk and think exactly like their members should be barred from them?

> trans ideological cause

Got it, demanding human rights apply to trans people is now an "ideological stance". The American Overton window is so far right, it's crazy people can hold such views and think they're being reasonable.

No, typically this issue is focused around spaces like female-only refuges and safe spaces, locker rooms and changing rooms, prisons, sports competitions, and so on. The divisive point being whether males who say they are female should be refused or granted access.

That you have chosen to characterise this with wording like "anti-human bias" and "demanding human rights apply" further illustrates my point.

No, that's not the typical focus of the issue, and repeating that over and over won't make it so.

What do you see it as?

In the UK, where I am from, the counter to the trans ideological position tends to be from a feminist-influenced perspective, emphasising women's sex-based rights.

Notice how all these so-called TERFs ally themselves with the most anti-feminist crowd, and finally realize it has absolutely nothing to do with feminism.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gender-critical_feminism#Polit...

Most historical feminists would be labelled TERFs today, just like the most liberal 19th century politicians would be seen as conservative. TERFS are still feminists. Communists also allied themselves with fascists during the inter-war period yet you can still consider them as separate.

> Most historical feminists would be labelled TERFs today, just like the most liberal 19th century politicians would be seen as conservative.

Who cares?

> TERFS are still feminists.

You can't be a feminist and side with the people standing against legal abortions, lesbian marriage, gender equality, equal opportunity, equal pay, equal access to education, etc. Simple as that.

The conservative idea of a woman is one of a servile housewife who never leaves the house. No matter how you frame it, these people are anti-feminist, and so are the TERFs that consistently side with them.

> Communists also allied themselves with fascists during the inter-war period yet you can still consider them as separate.

What the hell are you going on about? I would consider the Soviets fascists, but how is that relevant in any way to TERFs not being feminists?

Hitler was a vegetarian. This does not imply that vegetarians in general are siding with Nazis. To assert that would be an error of logic.

You're making a similarly incorrect fallacy of association between TERFs and anti-feminist conservatives.

If vegetarians did side with Hitler, then yeah, I would have an issue with them as a group. But that's completely different, can't you see? TERFs are consistently found to be supporting right-wing candidates, a lot of whom hold anti-feminist views. That's the issue.

Again, and please read it this time: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gender-critical_feminism#Polit...

You speak of "all these so-called TERFs", but the article you linked, in the very first sentence, qualifies this with "some":

"Some trans-exclusionary radical feminists have allied with conservative or far-right groups and politicians who oppose legislation that would expand transgender rights in the United States."

As for "TERFs are consistently found to be supporting right-wing candidates", which you claim, the two articles in the citations for the Wikipedia quote above talk about how right-wing groups in the US are listening to feminists on this specific issue. So really it's the opposite way around to what you're saying.

Wow, you really got me with that "some". Are you seriously now claiming that TERFs aren't mostly found on the right? Ever heard of a left-wing TERF? I won't waste anymore time arguing with someone who refuses basic facts. The truth is, that TERFs have done nothing to further the feminist cause. At best they give ammos to the right, who in this day and age, is acting openly anti-feminist, and amping up rhetoric against an already stigmatized minority who is 4 times as likely to be on the receiving end of violent crimes.

> Are you seriously now claiming that TERFs aren't mostly found on the right? Ever heard of a left-wing TERF?

Yes of course, and I know several personally. It's a fairly common set of views in the UK.

Over here it's not like it is the US where there's such a strong party political divide over this issue and as a consequence feminist groups (like WoLF, mentioned in the Wikipedia citations of the section you linked) decided to appeal to politicians on the right because the left has been so captured by trans ideological beliefs. Though not all on the left. If you're interested, look up Kara Dansky, radical feminist and lifelong Democrat, who has been trying to convince her party for years of the case for women's sex-based rights.

That's not true. JK Rowling is a good counterexample to your claim, as are the women who brought the FWS case to the UK's Supreme Court (and won), and as are so many other women whose feminist advocacy involves this topic.

JK Rowling accused Nigel Farage of being too "woke", which suggests multiple interesting facts about her political views:

* She thinks "woke" is a bad word, which would put her on the right.

* She thinks Reform UK is woke, which puts her on the far right.

* She's a very confused person, which I would expect from someone claiming to be a feminist while making her prejudice against an already persecuted minority her whole personality.

> JK Rowling accused Nigel Farage of being too "woke"

No she didn't.

What she actually said, in response to someone expressing surprise that Farage supports incarcerating males in the female prison estate, was this:

"Genuinely surprised anyone's shocked by this. Just because huge swathes of the left have revealed themselves to be dripping in misogyny doesn't mean a massive chunk of the right doesn't remain exactly as indifferent to women's rights and issues as it's always been."

She also wrote:

"All those people who tell me support for women's single sex spaces means I must support Reform (which I don't) appear to share exactly the same opinion on women's single-sex spaces as Reform."

Sorry but you've mischaracterised and misquoted her words, and used this to reach a false conclusion.

You are most certainly Western, or if not part of the educated and Western brought elites of the Global South. But I most certainly assure you that in the other grand civilizations, the idea you expounded is the standard and just as you feel this idea is the objectively right one, in the other societies with other codes and ethics (Confucian, Vedic/Buddhist, Islamic or non Western Christian), the people living in them have as strong attachment to those ideas as you do. For you the 2 most important values are equality and freedom (deeply liberal values) which are not the same elsewhere.

You also have to understand that just as you are imposing your ideas as "objectively right", in the other societies the other side is doing the same. Thus you are making a political take because it is a value judgement on how societies should operate. You might not like it or not but not only is it a value judgement incompatible with most people in the world, but it is also part of a faction inside your own arena (left wing coded Western politics)

I am indeed "Western" as you put it, and generally adhere to the description you gave of me. I do recognize my statement is political, although I did not use the word "objectively" lightly and feel like I can justify my position quite solidly. So, while the other side may claim their ideas as "objectively right" too, I am yet to see any reasoning that would give credance to such claims. Here is a succint overview of the reasoning I used to arrive at my current position on trans-identity:

Facts (that you should be able to verify easily through e.g. a quick Google Scholar session):

1. Gender dysphoria is real and touches a significant part of the population. It makes those affected by it suffer mentally.

2. Transition is the only known way to cure gender dysphoria, and it does indeed work.

3. People very rarely regret transitioning (<1% of them, less than the rate of people regretting having their children, and most of these "detransitions" come from religious or social pressures).

4. Trans people are no more susceptible to committing crime (sexual or else) than the average person, if not slightly less so (they are, on the other hand, ~4 times as likely to be victims of violent crimes, because of the prejudice and rhetoric targeted at them).

Axioms (that I hope we both agree on):

1. Helping people feel better, or at least not hindering them while they try to, is good.

2. Ostracizing people because of something they can't change is bad.

Conlusions (that you have to agree with if you accept my axioms and my reasoning):

1. Facts 1, 2 and 3 + Axiom 1 => We should let trans people transition, and whenever possible, even help them to.

2. Fact 4 + Axiom 2 + Conclusion 1 => We should let trans people participate in society as no one gets hurt in doing so, and trans people have to transition for their own good, so it would be unfair to attack them on that basis.

I agree with you in general with your automatic skepticism with something DHH might say on this topic, but:

> Normal people shouldn't take issue with the mere existence of a markdown document that basically says "don't be a dick to people because of who they are".

But that's not what it says. Maybe you can in some squinty way reduce it to that, but that's not all these sorts of documents say, and that's the problem. Most CoCs are fairly specific and strict in what they say people should and shouldn't do, and some of them (like the Contributor Covenant) even includes a process for submitting complaints, and addressing those complaints.

A CoC that just says -- explicitly, without a huge amount of other language -- "don't be a dick" is more or less what ESR and DHH are advocating for. The article goes into detail as to why the author believes that a long, detailed CoC is harmful, and why even if it does essentially just say "don't be a dick", that can cause lots of problems for projects.

this whole article and the resulting hn thread is a nerd snipe. of course esr and DHH are against codes of conduct. they act like bigoted assholes and then throw a fit when people treat them as such.