safety v comfort

[TzviyaSiegman]

revise safety v comfort, fixes #263

---

Preview | Diff

[cwilso]

This still reads a little weird to me - notably, the previous bullets are all situations (as the list is introduced), but the last bullet is structured as an independent statement.

In keeping with @jspellman's original report - might it make sense to combine this into the previous bullet, since it's not really a major standalone point? (It's still reading somewhat like "cis white men need protection from these reverse-isms.")

E.g. the last bullet could read:

• Criticisms of racist, sexist, cissexist , or otherwise oppressive behavior or assumptions. Likewise, we will not tolerate "Reverse" -isms, including "reverse racism," "reverse sexism ," and "cisphobia".

[TzviyaSiegman]

@cwilso that would work for me. We have been trying to get this right for years.

[dbooth-boston]

Likewise, I don't think this bullet resolves the issue:

We will not tolerate "Reverse" -isms, including "reverse racism," "reverse sexism" and "cisphobia".

It isn't clear at all how not tolerating reverse-isms relates to prioritizing safety over comfort.

Regarding this proposed wording:

Criticisms of racist, sexist, cissexist , or otherwise oppressive behavior or assumptions. Likewise, we will not tolerate "Reverse" -isms, including "reverse racism," "reverse sexism ," and "cisphobia".

I like the direction of the "Criticisms of racist, sexist, cissexist , or otherwise oppressive behavior or assumptions" part, though I think it still needs slightly more explanation. In #233 the following wording was suggested, though apparently it went unnoticed:

Efforts to prevent or correct oppressive behavior, such as criticizing racist, sexist or cissexist behavior, are permissible even if they make other participants uncomfortable.

But the part about not tolerating reverse-isms still does not make sense to me. For example, presumably "reverse racism" would mean prejudice against whites. So "we will not tolerate reverse racism" would mean "we will not tolerate prejudice against whites". It isn't at all clear how that is intended to relate to the concept of prioritizing safety over comfort.

As previously suggested in #233 another potential wording might be:

The Ombud might decide not to act on claims of "reverse"-isms, including "reverse racism," "reverse sexism," and "cisphobia", that arise out of efforts to prevent or correct a larger injustice.

[dbooth-boston]

See also discussion of this issue in our last teleconference .

1. In this previously proposed bullet:

Criticisms of racist, sexist, cissexist , or otherwise oppressive behavior or assumptions.

This bullet is supposed to be an example of a safety-versus-comfort issue. But as a new reader, it is not at all clear what safety issue is involved in criticism of oppressive behavior, nor is it clear what comfort issue is involved. @tzviya previously provided some context for this section in general, which I thought was very helpful, but it has not (yet) been incorporated into the document.

I propose changing the above bullet to something like this, to make clear what safety and comfort issues are involved:

Although criticism of racist, sexist, cissexist, or otherwise oppressive behavior may make participants uncomfortable, prevention of oppressive behavior must take priority.

2. Regarding this suggested bullet:

We will not tolerate claims of "Reverse" -isms, including "reverse racism," "reverse sexism ," and "cisphobia".

• Again, it is not clear what safety issue is involved in a claim of reverse-ism, nor is it clear what comfort issue is involved. For example, if a white music fan is denied stage-front seats at a Snoop Dogg concert because of skin color, and accuses the organizer of reverse racism, it is not clear what safety or comfort issues are involved. The bullet needs contextual explanation.

• "We will not tolerate" has an angry tone. That language is not used anywhere else in the document, and I don't think it is needed or helpful here. I think it would be better to use a neutral tone.

Here is one possible re-wording I propose:

If a claim of "reverse"-ism, such as "reverse racism", "reverse sexism" or "cisphobia", arises out of a participant's discomfort with efforts to correct or prevent oppressive behavior, those efforts must take priority.

3. In the opening paragraph of 3.3 Safety versus Comfort I propose changing "We will prioritize safety" to "Safety must be prioritized", to make clear that this section is not merely informing the reader of the authors' or the W3C's priorities, it is telling readers that they should prioritize safety over comfort.

[TzviyaSiegman]

chang bullet to "Criticisms of racist, sexist, cissexist, or otherwise oppressive behavior or assumptions. Similarly, we will not accept claims of "Reverse" -isms, including "reverse racism," "reverse sexism," and "cisphobia".