> Because it is. Why would I even care about "queerness" (whatever it actually means) in an open-source project for a sound recorder or video player or game or what have you?
Part of what "queerness" means here is "Could our conference invite a technical speaker who happened to be gay safely? Or would the speaker be in legal danger?"
Many organizations are committed to non-discrimination of various sorts. People's race, religion, or orientation shouldn't prevent them from participating in a conference. And this is often a written organizational policy in the US and Europe.
And if such an organization decides to host a conference in a country where (like Tanzania) being gay might subject some of their members to life imprisonment, some of those people are going to ask, "Hey, don't we have a written, official policy against doing that?"
Now, the complicating factor here is that large parts of Africa criminalize being gay, and obviously the Python community would like to hold some conferences in Africa. But at the same time, they presumably don't want to risk any of their members being subject to life in prison.
If you consider the promotion of human rights and boycott of countries violating them an ideology, then this is an ideology I can get behind. Sure, you might not care about discrimination against queer people because you're not one of them, just like you might not care about racism against people of color because you're white - but just because it doesn't concern you directly doesn't mean discrimination isn't an issue.
The writing in that blog post also posits some questions in a manner that doesn’t seem all that good:
> What counts as “safety”? Which places in the world are truly safe for LGBTQIA+ community? How much of a city, or state, or country needs to be LGBTQIA+ hostile for the whole of it to be declared unworthy of PSF support?
> Homosexuality in Tanzania is a socially taboo topic, and same-sex sexual acts (even in private and consensual) are criminal offences, punishable with life imprisonment.
While I have no idea what counts as “truly safe”, that’s definitely not it! I wouldn’t want any of my friends who happen to be queer to go to a place where they might face life imprisonment for the crime of… existing?
As far as exclusion goes, that’s a pretty clear case of that, a different venue would be better. Some people might say that if a change of venue isn’t possible (for some reason?) then that means that everyone would miss out on the event if it couldn’t happen, at which point people will probably have different opinions about whether taking a stance on inclusion is worth it or not, depending on their views.
Calling it an “ideology” might be unconventional, but maybe not entirely wrong as far as the semantics go (beliefs shared by a group of people) - the same way my “ideology” would be that women also deserve to vote, don’t need to cover their faces with garments if they don’t feel like it etc. The ideology of human rights, I guess.
>> "Not engaging at all" allows the engaging group to completely take over and expunge their opposition.
I agree with this point, though. Except that in any conflict you should choose yourself on which side you are on, sometimes the engaging group might be right.
Can’t comment more on this particular case, just on the linked article and what I read.
This is motte and bailey. Currently you go into your motte and talk about human rights and racism (apparently queer is a race), and people get removed from projects (or jobs) because they didn't get the pronoun of the unicorn right. Oh, and the hundreds of workshops that explain you how to check your privilege. It has usually not much to do with human rights in the western world.
The case with the convention is slightly different, but again one has to ask why they actually defunded it. Because the country they live in is bad? They were not asked to fund Tanzania.
PS.:
> might not care about racism against people of color because you're white
You may of course assume whatever you want, but why do you get so specific instead of just mentioning racism. That does indeed sound racist to me.
> As I said why would I even care about those in this context?
See "South Africa, Apartheid, Boycott" for an idea of why organizations might choose to withhold sponsorship for activities in a country that restricts the rights and liberties of certain subgroups.
The Python people are not going to be the ones to precipitate change in Tanzania. No one organization is going to be the one.
But it's not outside the realm of possibility that a coordinated effort of many organizations might, and you have to start somewhere.
The early SA boycotters were right in their actions, and eventually helped accomplish worthy and historic change. Contrasting their actions with your own choices or inactions can be a lot of pressure on people who want to do the right thing.
Taking the "why would I even care about those in this context?" approach can be pragmatic and reasonable, or it can be enabling and cruel. It depends on your priorities and perspective. Yours may differ from theirs.
I'm responding only to the posts in this thread, I know nothing more broadly about Tanzania or DjangoCon.
ekidd|1 year ago
Part of what "queerness" means here is "Could our conference invite a technical speaker who happened to be gay safely? Or would the speaker be in legal danger?"
Many organizations are committed to non-discrimination of various sorts. People's race, religion, or orientation shouldn't prevent them from participating in a conference. And this is often a written organizational policy in the US and Europe.
And if such an organization decides to host a conference in a country where (like Tanzania) being gay might subject some of their members to life imprisonment, some of those people are going to ask, "Hey, don't we have a written, official policy against doing that?"
Now, the complicating factor here is that large parts of Africa criminalize being gay, and obviously the Python community would like to hold some conferences in Africa. But at the same time, they presumably don't want to risk any of their members being subject to life in prison.
OKRainbowKid|1 year ago
KronisLV|1 year ago
> What counts as “safety”? Which places in the world are truly safe for LGBTQIA+ community? How much of a city, or state, or country needs to be LGBTQIA+ hostile for the whole of it to be declared unworthy of PSF support?
Meanwhile: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/LGBT_rights_in_Tanzania
> Homosexuality in Tanzania is a socially taboo topic, and same-sex sexual acts (even in private and consensual) are criminal offences, punishable with life imprisonment.
While I have no idea what counts as “truly safe”, that’s definitely not it! I wouldn’t want any of my friends who happen to be queer to go to a place where they might face life imprisonment for the crime of… existing?
As far as exclusion goes, that’s a pretty clear case of that, a different venue would be better. Some people might say that if a change of venue isn’t possible (for some reason?) then that means that everyone would miss out on the event if it couldn’t happen, at which point people will probably have different opinions about whether taking a stance on inclusion is worth it or not, depending on their views.
Calling it an “ideology” might be unconventional, but maybe not entirely wrong as far as the semantics go (beliefs shared by a group of people) - the same way my “ideology” would be that women also deserve to vote, don’t need to cover their faces with garments if they don’t feel like it etc. The ideology of human rights, I guess.
>> "Not engaging at all" allows the engaging group to completely take over and expunge their opposition.
I agree with this point, though. Except that in any conflict you should choose yourself on which side you are on, sometimes the engaging group might be right.
Can’t comment more on this particular case, just on the linked article and what I read.
ImJamal|1 year ago
> a manner or the content of thinking characteristic of an individual, group, or culture
> the integrated assertions, theories and aims that constitute a sociopolitical program
> a systematic body of concepts especially about human life or culture
I am not sure how it could not be an ideology. Being against racism is an ideological idea as well.
zarathustreal|1 year ago
AnonCoward42|1 year ago
The case with the convention is slightly different, but again one has to ask why they actually defunded it. Because the country they live in is bad? They were not asked to fund Tanzania.
PS.:
> might not care about racism against people of color because you're white
You may of course assume whatever you want, but why do you get so specific instead of just mentioning racism. That does indeed sound racist to me.
quesera|1 year ago
See "South Africa, Apartheid, Boycott" for an idea of why organizations might choose to withhold sponsorship for activities in a country that restricts the rights and liberties of certain subgroups.
The Python people are not going to be the ones to precipitate change in Tanzania. No one organization is going to be the one.
But it's not outside the realm of possibility that a coordinated effort of many organizations might, and you have to start somewhere.
The early SA boycotters were right in their actions, and eventually helped accomplish worthy and historic change. Contrasting their actions with your own choices or inactions can be a lot of pressure on people who want to do the right thing.
Taking the "why would I even care about those in this context?" approach can be pragmatic and reasonable, or it can be enabling and cruel. It depends on your priorities and perspective. Yours may differ from theirs.
I'm responding only to the posts in this thread, I know nothing more broadly about Tanzania or DjangoCon.
llm_trw|1 year ago
[deleted]
unknown|1 year ago
[deleted]
unknown|1 year ago
[deleted]