Nest 2019 Code of Conduct

So, whether this document exists or not, the event would reserve the right to evict people from the event, as any event or venue would typically do. So what this document attempts to do, is to provide transparency on that and what type of situations may arise in action to be taken, of some form or another.

Just to be clear, this is the last resort - and we would go to every possible effort to try and resolve a situation with all parties involved without that happening. Unlike many venues or events, which would evict someone on first sign of any trouble without even having a conversation with them first! That is NOT what we want, we want a process where everyone is heard, where people know what to expect, where people are treated with fairness and consistency whatever day of the event it is and whoever is on duty. This document is a way to provide the framework to both participants and those in lead / decision making roles to do this.

But whether we had it or not, the same would still happen. Just with less transparency.

"Show respect and consideration for the diversity of fellow participants by using appropriate language, including asking someone their pronouns rather than assuming."

This line, as expressed, doesn't represent standard practice of human communication whatsoever. As in, it is TOTALLY OUTLIER to always ask someone for their pronouns rather than assuming. Its totally impractical too. I've never had anyone, ever in MY WHOLE LIFE qualify my preferred pronouns.

I haven't seen ANYONE DO THIS on the Nest Facebook group, for example, nor in person at the nest meetup I attended. I have seen people say "its written on Facebook" overlooking that, since whatever time their FB profile has been established, this may have changed.

Not only this, but how far do you take this principle?

Real question: For example, at a seminar with Robert Anton Wilson,. I was ordained as a "Discordian Pope".

Now, I could adopt a preference and embody it deeply that everyone refer to me only using the language / semantic structures that would apply to the Catholic Pope as applied by his educated clergy and staff. I could choose to take offense if no-one realised. But seriously, should I expect people to refer to me like this, or have to check if they should? Do we not trust people to make reasonable assumptions, that can be corrected in the spirit of good will, if they are off?

This part is not inclusive FYI - its grossly exclusive of natural patterns of language built up over time - including those applied with kindness.

Its also ... a bit biased - because - there are 100 other kinds of enquiry that could be made about how people prefer to be referred to or what assumptions people prefer.

It's much better to say - be open minded and if someone shines a light on your assumptions or blindspots, do your best to listen and learn. Please note, some people may prefer different pronouns to those you assume, and in the event you mismatch somehow, do your best to align with their preferences.

That is more practical.

On the other hand, I very rarely have social interactions where new introductions are not accompanied with exchanging pronouns. They do not hinder social interactions, and make many of them much more respectful and inclusive. Language changes. Being able to use our pronouns and have them respected is how it has changed recently.

These are not rules. They are framed as encouraged behaviour. You do not have to do them, but we'd like it if you do (we meaning generic other Nestlings.) To me the CoC is a list of how not to be a dick.

We do not "prefer" out pronouns. We have our pronouns. When talking about assumptions, would you rather assume wrong and get corrected (embarrassing for some) or ask first so never making the mistake. This applies for everything, including putting your foot in it about gender, sexuality, relationship status, whether someone has kids.

This is me trying to shine a light on your blindspot

Case, as an Irish guy who went to school in England, then spent his summer holidays in Ireland with an English accent, and later, who's accent shifted where it is regularly assumed I'm from somewhere different than I am, I've spent my whole life observing people making incorrect assumptions with no ill will intended.

Not only this, but humans, by nature are bad estimators... and literally, have to make assumptions about 100s of factors. Most peoples assumptions about everything are wildly inaccurate - we all live in our own reality bubbles - literally - we all live in completely different universes of experience with some commonality.

Unless someone is trained as a forensic profiler, or has spent a huge amount of time training and calibrating their empathy, where they are highly intuitive to start with, you can basically say that humans make guestimations about each other and reality all the time and often get things wrong.

There is vast literature covering biases and blindspots and just as importantly, how they are all manipulated regularly. I've studied these areas a lot and would rate myself as quite competent. This means, if I pay attention, I can figure things out, which is not to say, I don't get things completely wrong.

So to your question:

"When talking about assumptions, would you rather assume wrong and get corrected (embarrassing for some) or ask first so never making the mistake."

A cursory glance at statistics from reliable-ish sources seems to put trans population (which I assume, but may be wrong about, includes other gender definitions) as between 0.2% to 0.6%. That is one in 200 to one in 500. I'll guess equivalent percentages at nest might be much higher than this.

This means, suggesting "always and never assume" versus "use your best judgement", is a bit far, IMO.

I suggest it is simply more practical, rather than suggesting not always starting with qualifying pronouns is an act of disrespect (I disagree, mistakes in assumption are an act of disrespect), to give guidance for more inclusive language / scripts to better handle such situations.

Can you link me to conversational scripts for handling such situations? Do any such resources exist? I'm open to learning to converse better - but - always starting with gender pronoun qualification seems officous - where I can't lead with a joke or observation.

Also, if some people feel very triggered by inaccurate assumptions, in a way that causes distress / upset / emotional issues, I'm happy to share a few methods of reseting faster and getting to center faster @ Nest. I used to train stand up comedians how to handle heckling - and many other areas of similar ground in terms of response risk - where heckles are often targeted and malicious versus unaware.

IMO, its more practical, rather than suggesting "gender pronoun qualification always", that more people just learn conversation frameworks for more inclusivity and how to handle different situations, plus, those who are triggered by misunderstandings / mis-gendering / wrong assumptions, learn how to feel less triggered, recover faster, and can exist in the World without almost needing everyone else to use the right pronouns or adjectives or descriptors.

Note - this is actually a good discussion of distribution - where in younger populations, those within label of "gender diverse" may be as high as 4%. This is a great example of data informing assumptions - where - I personally didn't imagine stats as high as 1 in 25 people.

http://womanmeanssomething.com/size-of-the-transgender-population-and-why-it-matters/

I suspect you'll find it even higher at Nest. The numbers are generally massively under-representative of trans and intersex people. (interestingly 4% is approximately the proportion of the UK population who is Muslim and 10 times the Jewish population, source Wikipedia. And just over 1% of the UK is vegan, but think of how many vegans there are at burns. People congregate)

I'm not trying to suggest there is ill will in not asking pronouns. Most people in the default world don't - it hasn't made it fully mainstream yet. There is ill will in suggesting it's a stupid thing to do. It's one of the death of a thousand cuts things - each event is minor, but repeatedly they wear you down. Help make Nest a less stressful place, try to remember to ask (it's all any of us can do), and don't make a joke when someone asks.

Language to use: Hi, I'm Case, my pronouns are he/him, nice to meet you. Thomas, this is Alex, they use they/them. Could I check your pronouns please? mine are he/him.
Alternatively don't ask, but when corrected, thank the person, correct yourself and move on. If you catch yourself "she blah, sorry he blah".

Language not to use: "preferred" pronouns. Making a joke if someone asks you your pronouns, for example "what do you think", "what do I look like", "do you really have to ask". Making a huge fuss if someone corrects you, for example "I never normally get it wrong", "I'm trying so hard", "there's just so much to remember".

This particular point is under 'Encouraged Behaviour'. If you do not meet these suggestions (and they are just suggestions) then there will be no action, it is a way to encourage behaviour that members of our community would like to see from each other.

And even if this is something that is not familiar to you, or not something which matters to you - it does not cost you anything to try and to listen to those who it does matter to.

I hope you are able to be, as you said - open minded. And to consider trying some of these encouraged behaviour and by doing this respecting those around you. Even if it is a minority of people it effects, if it costs you nothing then why not give it a go?

A huge part of this - also - is the kinds of behaviour that most humans bring to the mix - is based on the assumptions you make about them and the space you hold for them, whether or not you realise it.

If you try to enforce rules / are behaviourally prescriptive, you are overlooking this power and the culture it creates.

Some people may attempt to follow them, but on the inside, they may be more stressed - i.e. it is stressful to adhere to microgranular rules - or to act unnaturally. This is the opposite it just relaxing, proceeding with kindness and paying attention. I.e. if you want to stress someone out, give them a bunch of prescise things they must do to overload their working memory, and leave them less present or attentive to the moment.

Meanwhile, behaviour is basically wired in to peoples brain's, so its a big stretch to imagine you can regulate it without training people. Those with different pathologies will behave in different ways anyway.

The pre-amble helps a lot - guiding interpretation of what comes after. As it is, this is a kindof officious document.

Is there anything specific in the unacceptable behaviour that you feel you may have trouble to adhere to - or to remember?

I would hope that they are all things which most of us would not do anyway, whether due to legal reasons or IMHO more importantly moral reasons.

And of course we would prefer we didn't have to say these things and we could all exist in peaceful harmony, however from the reality of both the world and specifically Burns that is not the case.

And having dealt with several incidents at burns and the fallout from them, I am acutely aware of how much these things do need to be said, sadly.

Lexy, I get that incidents occur throughout culture, but, "trying to rule them out" doesn't eliminate them. E.g. Making rules to regulate 5% of anti-social rude people - may also change the atmosphere / social dynamics for 95% of people and not neccessarily for the aggregate better.

So its not that I can't adhere to them - simply - that is a different state of mind to the kind of atmosphere cultivated at the burn.

For example, my way of thinking when it comes to language in say a professional workspace would be different to what I might say at Burning Man.

E.g. Commenting on someones appearance or flirting are not appropriate in the vast majority of professional situations.

Apart from that, I think that banning advocating for anything, is just a weird way of thinking, even if I totally disagree with whatever it is. E.g. To understand something, a worthy thought experiment is based on "thesis : anti-thesis"

Most of the people I interacted with at burns absolutely co-existed in peaceful harmony or at least, civility.