mwweinberg
commented
3 years ago Thanks @sonatagreen! This was actually something we discussed on the last call. It seems to me that there are (at least) two ways to try and address this concern. I would love to hear any thoughts you have about them.
The first is to try and expand the list as much as possible. The benefit of this path is that it increases the likelihood that someone will see themselves in the list. It also may provide increased precision in the definition. The cost of this path is that a list is unlikely to ever be complete, so groups that are not included may feel that they are not on the list as a result of an intentional exclusion instead of for more mundane reasons.
The second is to describe the category as broadly as possible (in this case, maybe just stop at "We prioritize survivors."). The benefit of this path is that it can be interpreted broadly and no one feels like the failure to explicitly include them is intended to exclude them from the category. The cost of this path is that it fails to specifically identify representative groups that the CoC understands as being included as "survivors."
Do you have thoughts on how to weigh those competing concerns? If you are inclined towards the more inclusive approach, are there criteria you would advocate using to decide what groups make it onto the list?
Thank you again for engaging with this process!
The first major principle under "Enforcement Guidelines" currently reads:
This contrasts uncomfortably with the much more inclusive lists of protected categories elsewhere. While "We prioritize survivors" certainly points in the right direction, as does the phrase "proximity to privilege", the list of "especially"s – the most explicit and concrete part of the paragraph – could naively be taken to suggest prioritizing (for example) an upper-class white cis woman who works for ICE over a homeless black trans man: the former is included on the list, while the latter is not.