Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Remove "prostitute" as a considerate form of "call-girl" #129

Open
wants to merge 2 commits into
base: main
Choose a base branch
from

Conversation

punkfairie
Copy link

Prostitute is not considered a polite term by sex workers. Sex workers may refer to themselves as prostitutes and there are certainly sex workers who don't care if others call them that but it shouldn't be used as a blanket term by non-sex workers.

Not sure if justification or sources are needed, I used to be a sex worker myself but I recognize that's impossible to prove without connecting identities I would rather stay separate, and one person isn't indicative of a community anyway. So I dug up some other opinions:

Initial checklist

  • I read the support docs
  • I read the contributing guide
  • I agree to follow the code of conduct
  • I searched issues and discussions and couldn’t find anything or linked relevant results below
  • I made sure the docs are up to date
  • I included tests (or that’s not needed)

Description of changes

Remove "prostitute" from "considerate" list of "call-girl", and update rules.md accordingly.

Prostitute is not considered a polite term by sex workers. Sex workers
may refer to themselves as prostitutes and there are certainly sex
workers who don't care if others call them that but it shouldn't be used
as a blanket term by non-sex workers.
@github-actions github-actions bot added 👋 phase/new Post is being triaged automatically 🤞 phase/open Post is being triaged manually and removed 👋 phase/new Post is being triaged automatically labels Mar 17, 2025
@punkfairie punkfairie marked this pull request as draft March 17, 2025 01:26
@punkfairie punkfairie marked this pull request as ready for review March 17, 2025 01:26
Copy link

codecov bot commented Mar 17, 2025

Codecov Report

All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests ✅

Project coverage is 100.00%. Comparing base (2a925cd) to head (ef41d49).
Report is 21 commits behind head on main.

Additional details and impacted files
@@             Coverage Diff             @@
##              main      #129     +/-   ##
===========================================
  Coverage   100.00%   100.00%             
===========================================
  Files            3         1      -2     
  Lines         6025       315   -5710     
===========================================
- Hits          6025       315   -5710     

☔ View full report in Codecov by Sentry.
📢 Have feedback on the report? Share it here.

🚀 New features to boost your workflow:
  • Test Analytics: Detect flaky tests, report on failures, and find test suite problems.
  • 📦 JS Bundle Analysis: Save yourself from yourself by tracking and limiting bundle sizes in JS merges.

@wooorm
Copy link
Member

wooorm commented Mar 17, 2025

Hi Marley! Thanks for contributing! And thanks for the sources!

The problem with many things here is that they are very context and culture dependent.
And, author dependent: and author could be mean, this project works under the assumption that the author is unaware and that there is no ill intent.
Authors could be, I dunno, some boring governmental organization or researchers of a scientific paper, which likely should use sex worker, but authors could also be sex workers themselves.

Some of what you say can be seen as suggesting that prostitute should also be warned about. That’s what your second source seems to corroborate. While another sentence indicates that some sex workers use the term.

So, I’m 👍 to this PR as is.
But, I’m wondering whether you think there should be a pattern checking for prostitute?

@punkfairie
Copy link
Author

I didn't even think to add in a rule for that but yes there should, which of course then can be turned off by those who would want to use it.

Definitely everything you are saying makes sense, I see it as you would still want a rule for f*g, even though many many gay people use the word for themselves.

I'll add in a rule!

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
🤞 phase/open Post is being triaged manually
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

2 participants