|
Top-level
8) Support for the Darlington Statement is mutually exclusive from the GF wiki policies, the #ContributorCovenant and ALL policies and CoCs derived from them. 16/24 8 comments
12) To reiterate the previous point; I believe that intersex people are deserving of human rights and should not be used as experiments for the benefit of others. 18/24 Every project and organisation, whether commercial or not, which adopts any version of these policies in any capacity has the interphobia baked in. No ifs, buts, or maybes. As a consequence they are all interphobic. Google is particularly egregious with this; having hired both Chevalier and #AdaInitiave co-founder, Mary Gardiner. They've made interphobia part of their culture. 19/24 That said, certain other projects have added worse things. #Drupal added a carefully crafted "Diversity Statement" to complement the CC which makes it impossible to have any contact with the project at all without agreeing to inherently interphobic policies. Thus insulating the project from anyone automatically excluded by the CC. This has also been adopted by the #PythonSoftwareFoundation. 20/24 It's not like no one at the #PSF knew this either. I raised it with @nedbat on IRC a few years ago. He even raised it as an issue in the CC issue tracker on #GitHub at that time. Coraline Ehmke closed the ticket citing, IIRC, "biological essentialism" as the reason for doing so. Still, that didn't stop the PSF adopting the CC with the #Drupal Diversity Statement mod, so they're just as complicit. 22/24 Finally, before circling back, this last part is not directed at anyone explicitly tagged anywhere in this thread, but to people who come across it later (which is likely with all the hashtags used and the thread should be seen and boosted): I have a hard line, zero tolerance for interphobia. I will block and report interphobes and I will refute interphobic bullshit (at least sometimes). Though if you read this far, that should be obvious. 23/24 So, to get back to your interpretation of these policies; no, it is not and never was a tool for furthering human rights. It is, and always has been, a means of enforcing a very narrow and specific view of human diversity which enables protections for some while explicitly targeting others for discrimination. It is objectively harmful and readily weaponised because it was always intended to be weaponised. 24/24 |
Gregory's Server
@dalias @nemobis @davidgerard
10) I believe that opposing the rights of #intersex people to #BodilyAutonomy is inherently #interphobic.
11) I believe that even if current medical interventions on intersex people do provide medical practitioners the means of honing the skills and knowledge to practice gender affirming care; that is not justification to use intersex people for that purpose.
17/24