Re: Being excellent to one another

[Alex Sassmannshausen]

Hello,

I'm trying to draw this thread to a close as I genuinely believe that
neither side intends malice:
- John genuinely does not see how his statements can very easily be
interpreted as highly disrespectful and even mocking
- myself and others genuinely do not want to bear down on individuals by
virtue of simple miscommunication.

John, I would suggest to you that when at least three independent
individuals read your paragraph in which you (as you confirmed to me) in
good faith tried to create an extreme example to confirm that you would
respect (though fallibly) other people's rights to define their own
identity, then that paragraph was perhaps unfortunately formulated.

An apology and clarification would resolve that matter.

By way of clarification from my side, the paragraph reads like you're
creating a ("humourous") hyperbolic example that is only tangentially
related to the real discussion at hand to begrudgingly admit that you
would be willing to respect other people's identities.

Perhaps in that light you can see how that statement might have
trivialised other people's experiences and have come across as
insulting?

It simply wasn't necessary to employ that rhetorical device — just
acknowledging that you might slip up at times, would have been
sufficient.  The rhetorical device turned your genuine sentiment into a
statement in which you seemed to accede and simultaniously implicitly
ridiculed those whom you were acceding to.

I also believe it is within this context that Ludo considered that you
were in breach of the code of conduct. Specifically the example related
to "Trolling or insulting/derogatory comments".

As I say, I do not believe you intended to troll.  I hope we can move on
from this thread now by way of agreeing concrete steps for the future.

I would request the following moving forward:
- That we respect people's self-identification (which includes
respecting their pronouns)
- That we accept the "Singular They" as a valid form of non-gendered
language in formal and informal communication (this does not mean *you*
have to use it if you don't want to, but at least don't derail other
people's advice that it is a valid form)

Could we leave it at this for now?

It would be cool if we could get explicit or at least silent agreement
(by no longer responding to the thread) on this thread from those
primarily involved.

Best wishes,

Alex

PS: As Ricardo points out in his email to this thread, the issues of
gender/sex, and more widely, identity are enormously complex & I agree
that we cannot resolve them here.  But we can come to a situation where
we treat each other in a way that is non-exclusionary.  Part of this
means that we will have conversations like these at irregular intervals
— precisely because these issues are not resolved in society at large,
they will bubble up here.

In the meantime I would encourage people who care about these subjects
to read up on feminist theory, trans politics & intersectional
politics.  These are big, complex topics — and no-one agrees with all
that is written, but I believe that we as a community would support most
of the issues raised in those contexts.

John Darrington writes:

> On Mon, Mar 20, 2017 at 04:49:13PM +0100, Ludovic Court??s wrote:
>
>      John, people have explained things at length already; you can re-read
>      the project???s code of conduct if in doubt.  This isn???t up for debate.
>      Please stop playing this game right now.
>
> Ludo,
>
> * I am not playing a game - I think this is very serious.
> * I have not breached the code of conduct (at your request I have just read
>   it again).
> * I am trying my *utmost* to act with restraint and consideration in the face
>   of persistent provocation.
> * I have said on several occasions that we should all agree to live with
>   our differences and let this thread stop.
>
> John