| What was discriminatory in the "We will not act on complaints regarding" section? * ‘Reverse’ -isms, including ‘reverse racism,’ ‘reverse sexism,’ and ‘cisphobia’ These aren't real things though - they're usually brought up in the context of methods to try and address underlying biases due to historical ("reverse" -racism, -sexism), or that I have never even heard of anyone claiming 'cisphobia' so I am unaware of when/how that would be claimed. * Reasonable communication of boundaries... Seems like there's nothing to discuss here at all - once a person says "stop talking to me" you can move on * Refusal to explain or debate social justice concepts No one owes anyone their time, this is all stuff that has been covered extensively, and is easily googleable. * Communicating in a ‘tone’ you don’t find congenial If anything this seems lax compared to many current CoCs that expect/require professional communication. This is "person X came across as angry/belittling/dismissive and it makes me upset" isn't something that they'll act on. * Criticizing racist, sexist, cissexist, or otherwise oppressive behavior or assumptions e.g the CoC won't act on someone complaining that someone else criticized racist, sexist, cissexist, etc behaviour. Again, I fail to see the "exclusionary/discriminatory" rules. I see the bigger issue with this section is that it makes an explicit list of things that don't matter and will be ignored. This is tricky as it means they ignore things that I would say should not be ignored, and vice versa. It also kind of means any kind of assholery that comes up in future isn't explicitly covered, so what rule applies?, etc |