> No one has a right to funding, just a right to fair consideration. It sounds like they got consideration, problems of timing aside. I do wish the PSF had bee

> No one has a right to funding, just a right to fair consideration. It sounds like they got consideration, problems of timing aside. I do wish the PSF had been clearer and faster in their response and I agree they deserve criticism for not handling the situation as well as they could, but they did consider funding. They gave the organizers consideration and it doesn't seem to me that the consideration was unfair. > Suppose Tommy Tuberville turns down your funding request because he doesn't like that an organizer is LGBT, and "no one has a fundamental right to funding" -- how does that make you feel? Is that what happened here? Were they turned down for an identity, or were they turned down because the physical location they selected, independent of anyone's political beliefs, had logistical problems that made it unsuitable for an internationally sponsored community event? Because those are two different things. > Should we treat a kink differently We're going to get to this "kink" brush you're painting the LGBTQ community with in a second, but also in the interest of speaking up for kink I'll ask: do you want a truly apolitical, pluralistic conference, or do you want one that makes you feel comfortable? It's okay for you to say that you want some political boundaries on a conference, I would probably feel uncomfortable at a conference with kink as well. Just don't say that you want it to be apolitical or pluralistic then. You can not be simultaneously arguing for pluralism and for people to be invisible. Invisibility is not pluralism. > just because it happens to be disproportionately common among the LGBT population? That being said, I would be remiss if I didn't mention that wearing drag is not inherently sexual. And before you get too caught up on drag, we should also acknowledge that of course a trans person not wearing drag but merely wearing appropriate clothing for their gender is obviously not sexual or kink. And to be clear, when you ask attendees to keep their identity under the radar, you are asking for transgender people to misgender themselves, you are denying them agency to wear clothing that would be perfectly acceptable for other people to wear at a conference, and you are denying them that agency based entirely on a political designation of their identity. Funding was not denied for this conference because they weren't going to allow kink. Funding was denied because the government has threatened to imprison LGBTQ people, and in the defense of "pluralism" you are asking LGBTQ attendees to refrain from behaviors and actions that would not raise a single eyebrow from anyone if performed by someone of another gender. You are asking for invisibility and pretending that it's pluralism. > Sorry this seems like a total non sequiter to me, you'll have to explain better. It is not a reasonable cultural compromise to throw someone into prison, and laws that explicitly rule that people can be thrown into prison are the reason why funding was originally denied. I'm not sure... how to say that more clearly. It doesn't strictly relate to drag in except that drag is yet another thing you could be thrown into prison for. But if you're under the assumption that funding was denied over drag, it wasn't. It was denied over tangible laws and government policy. Accommodation of that policy is not "give and take" and it is completely unreasonable to ask LGBTQ people to tolerate that situation. > I'm glad you also believe in give and take. Can you give a specific example of a "give" that the LGBT community should be willing to make? See my statement from earlier "Seems like you want LGBT people to do all of the taking and none of the giving." I'm happy to be corrected! Sure. Suppose we held a conference where people were allowed to attend that were gay, and also people were allowed to attend that were anti-gay. A conference organizer might decide, "yes, we have a position on this, but we're going to tolerate someone who is known to be anti-gay attending, provided no one is making anyone else feel unsafe." That would be an example of give and take; two communities of people with disagreements temporarily deciding not to be at each others throats or temporarily deciding to tolerate someone's involvement even though they find them detestable. It doesn't require an anti-gay person to stop denying the existence of LGBTQ identity, and it doesn't require LGBTQ people to believe that the anti-gay person is any less of a bigot. But... we live in a pluralistic society and in the interest of keeping that society running we have collectively all agreed that we are going to do our absolute best not to kill each other. In contrast, suppose we held a conference where people were allowed to attend that were gay, and then some other people said, "what the heck, no, I'd better not even be aware that there are gay people here, if I catch them they are going to be in physical danger." That is an example of one side doing "all the taking." The Tanzania government's position is not compromise. It gives nothing, it is a physical threat. > Maybe there's a misunderstanding here. I agree that the Tanzanian government are being jerks. What I'm saying is I don't think it's fair to take that out on the Tanzanian people. I disagree that this is being taken out on the Tanzanian people. The Python Software Foundation did not write the laws. I don't understand why you are looking a situation where a government has forced a tech conference to grapple with political issues to the harm of both the Tanzanian people and the general Python community, and your response is to blame the Python community. This can stink for the Tanzanian people and that doesn't mean it's the Python Software Foundation's fault that the government makes it impossible to hold a pluralistic or inclusive conference in the country. > Has there even been an anonymous complaint? Let someone make an anonymous complaint, a trusted community member can verify their identity, then maybe we can think about a venue change. As things are, I think it is reasonable to weigh the cost of a venue change, vs a few gay Africans having to live under homophobic laws that they're most likely quite used to if they travel around Africa. If this complaint was about a specifically local event or about an exclusion from the community rather than a denial of funding as an official event, I would agree. But it wasn't a local event and it's not an exclusion from the community. I just don't think your characterization here is accurate, this was planned to be an international event, the linked open letter describes it that way. I'm not saying there can't be Python conferences in Tanzania, I'm saying they should not be funded by the Python Software Foundation as officially endorsed, international events -- or at the very least it is not unreasonable for the PSF to be extremely careful about funding those events and to carefully consider them. > Again, it's not fair to take out frustration with Tanzania's laws out on the people of Africa. Deciding after consideration not to proactively sponsor an event is not the same thing as taking out frustration on the people of Africa. It is not blaming the people of Africa, it's not punative, it's just acknowledging that unfortunately the Python Software Foundation is not in a position to change the reality on the ground about where it is and isn't safe to hold an international conference.