Add "gender (sex)" to the list of protected characteristics. #548
Conversation
| size, disability, ethnicity, gender identity and expression, level of experience, | ||
| education, socio-economic status, nationality, personal appearance, race, | ||
| religion, or sexual identity and orientation. | ||
| size, disability, ethnicity, gender (sex), gender identity and expression, level |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
If you changed it to "ethnicity, sex, gender, …" I would be happy and we could merge.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Oh, I just noticed that you listed gender alone additionally in your example above ("ethnicity, sex, gender, ..."). Was that a typo, or do you think gender should also be on the list separately from both sex and gender identity? (To be honest I don't know what it would refer to in that case.)
|
Updated. Thanks for the swift response! |
|
After giving this some more thought, I think the term "sex characteristics" is best. It doesn't have the same "cis or trans" connotation that separating sex and gender does (to me at least) and is more precise. |
|
Hmm, that sounds rather euphemistic to me. It's like we're avoiding to talk about sex categories, in deference to particular characteristics. I don't think we should be erasing sex categories from the language, since it's that wholesale categorization on which female people's mistreatment is often based. Since there are ideological differences on topics of sex, gender, etc. among various groups who all oppose sexism, but approach the topic from different perspectives, I don't see why we should be privileging one such perspective over another by including "gender identity" in the list but trying to put a curtain on "sex." We should make sure that people from all such groups feel welcome, and when their perspectives clash with each other, the only inclusive solution is to agree on a compromise. What do you think? |
|
on which female people's
I’m female but I don’t ovulate or menstruate. See? Those are sex characteristics that I don't have.
|
|
I assume you mean legally female. That is of course not the same thing as being biologically female. See my comment here, in which I've listed some examples of what biologically female people have to suffer (or historically had to suffer) in various societies around the world for being born biologically female: This is not something we can just push aside in good conscience because it doesn't fit into our own worldview. That would be no different from, for instance, denying that transwomen comprise a meaningful class of people just because one personally doesn't believe in the notion of innate gender identity. I find it strange that this has to be discussed at all. |
|
Julia Serano has a great essay on the distinction between sex characteristics and gender, and how sex-centric language is weaponized against transgender people: https://medium.com/@juliaserano/transgender-people-and-biological-sex-myths-c2a9bcdb4f4a |
|
In reference to your comment, which I quote:
While horrifying, not relevant in the context of a code of conduct for open source projects. And the determination of the sex of these fetuses and babies is imperfect and based on the appearance of sex characteristics.
Some trans women (myself included) have genitals that are commonly identified as female sex characteristics. So do some transgender men and non-binary people.
This is gender-based violence. The gender of these victims is determined by the presence (or absence) of sex characteristics.
Not all women assigned female at birth menstruate. Some transgender men and non-binary people menstruate.
Gender-based crimes. The genitals I had at birth do not preclude me from being sexually assaulted. There is no physical difference in a transgender woman with a vagina being sexually assaulted, a transgender man or non-binary person with a vagina being sexually assaulted, and a cisgender woman with a vagina being sexually assaulted.
Does not apply to people assigned female at birth who are incapable of bearing children.
Does not apply to people assigned female at birth who are incapable of bearing children.
Does not apply to people assigned female at birth who are incapable of bearing children.
Gender-based.
Gender-based. |
|
I've spent the several last years reading arguments from all sides of this debate, and had exchanges with literally hundreds of women from all ages, ethnicities, nationalities, sexual orientations, political affiliations, and economic status about it. I'm disinterested in having an involved discussion on it in this comment section, as that is extremely unlikely to lead anywhere. It would be one thing if the exclusion of sex from the list were a simple oversight. But it seems that "gender" was present in older versions and intentionally removed, and now there's an open opposition to adding "sex" to the list. That, by a maintainer who is not biologically female and seems unwilling to understand the sex-based oppression of female-born people. This is no different from white women denying the racism faced by black women, upper-class women denying the classism faced by working class women, straight women denying the lesbophobia faced by lesbian women, or for that matter, women (female) denying the transphobia faced by transwomen. Software is a male dominated field. Yet transwomen seem over-represented relative to their numbers in the general population. Why is that? Probably, it relates to male privilege. And currently, you are exerting some of the power this has accorded to you to intentionally erase the sex-based discrimination women face in all wakes of life and in the software community in particular, because it doesn't fit perfectly into your own worldview. Unless this project decides to acknowledge sex-based oppression, which is one of the biggest issues of social justice in general throughout the world, and seems to significantly affect the software community in particular, I will not be endorsing this CoC. In fact, I will be warning people of the misogyny which it reinforces and endorsing them to use a modified version if possible. I hope you reconsider your take on this and agree that being inclusive towards all anti-sexist perspectives is the right way to go, rather than putting your own opinions as a male-born person over the opinions of many female-born people on this topic. |
|
I'm very disappointed that this discussion was not fruitful for you. I hope you take the time to examine your words from a place of understanding and understand how exclusionary and hurtful they are. |
|
If mention of the female sex class and the unique discrimination and oppression they face seems "exclusionary and hurtful" to you, Coraline, I think it's you who should be taking some time to examine your world view. Anyway, thanks for at least adding "sex characteristics" as it's (much) better than nothing. |
|
The choice of sex (or) gender is a discrimination in itself, there are still many people who do not agree yet the top, I think the goal is not to discriminate people. I would say that both must be mentioned. |
No description provided.