Where the Glasgow Embedded code of conduct avoids this is by being broad strokes, and pretty clear about who the project is run by. It's much more constitutional in nature, and by being vague about the specific problems but specific in who will care and act on them, it's much easier to build a coherent group around, and the specific issues they care about are much more likely to have a unified response. It's much harder to weaponize because there's a who embedded with the what: it's not up to argument whether something "counts" or not. The core group of people who made the project are going to decide and they’re not going to put up with any anti-trans rhetoric in this case. They're gonna be okay on racism, if not perfect. You can see how it'll land if there's conflict, and the conflict is largely going to be technical _or_ social , but not both. This is way easier to deal with.