CoCs are about politics to the extent that politics affects one's ability to be empathetic. If you believe that genetics cause women to perform worse in technical roles, that will be reflected in your social behavior.

To use an extreme example for the sake of discussion, would you similarly feel that excluding a skinhead with Swastika face tattoos from a scientific conference constitutes an unacceptable example of political oppression? If not, is it because they cause minoritized people to feel unsafe and unwelcome? Where do you believe the line should be drawn?

> If you believe that genetics cause women to perform worse in technical roles, that will be reflected in your social behavior.

Can you expand on this, explain the connection? In particular, why the former (belief) would influence the latter (behavior)?

I firmly believe, based on overwhelming evidence, that genetics makes most people perform terribly in technical roles. Fortunately, there are a few bright, above-average exceptions that perform amazingly. If someone proves they're competent, I'll treat them competently, but at the same time it doesn't make sense to assume that the average person could be anywhere near competent.

Edit: answer to your second question: I try to be inclusive, I don't believe in drawing lines, at least not when it comes to belief (only behavior).

> Can you expand on this, explain the connection? In particular, why the former (belief) would influence the latter (behavior)?

It's not universally the case, to be sure. If you voice your belief that women are intellectually inferior, you will likely make them feel excluded. In general, there is a relationship between a person's beliefs and behaviors which I regard as self-evident.

> Edit: answer to your second question: I try to be inclusive, I don't believe in drawing lines, at least not when it comes to belief (only behavior).

People tend to act in accordance with their beliefs. I don't think I track your perspective. Do you really believe that, say, a person with white supremecist beliefs, again, as an extreme example, will generally act welcoming toward minorities? You seem to believe, well, as long as they don't explicitly disrespect someone, it's fine. But social behavior is a lot more subtle. People can tell if you hate them.

> People tend to act in accordance with their beliefs.

Professionals tend to act professionally. Just because most people are horny & sexual doesn't mean that they need to hump each other at work or at conferences. I expect professional behavior regardless of your personal beliefs. Now, personally I'd prefer people to also look professional (fully clothed, no religious symbols, ...) so I wouldn't necessarily disagree with such rules, but they're usually (as evidenced by this very OP) applied inconsistently, politically.

I think we're talking past each other. Would you be able to answer any of the questions I posed earlier?

> but they're usually (as evidenced by this very OP) applied inconsistently, politically

Do you have the impression OP was a political disagreement?

> Professionals tend to act professionally.

Yes, but people aren't robots. These are still human interactions between people. You develop personal relationships at conferences, or fail to. People with a hostile attitude toward minoritized groups, whether explicitly expressed or not, are going to make these people feel less welcome, and as a result, they will have a worse outcome at the conference.

There's a fine line.

In the US, we've usually had reasonable parties in power, so it really didn't matter what your politics were.

Now... Not so much; and it goes both ways, too. There are loonies on both sides of the aisle.

I've always seen CoCs as needed for situations where a conference has a transgender person and a "poorly socialized conservative." Or a Christian proudly wearing a cross and a "poorly socialized liberal." Situations are even simpler; it could be a conference with a female speaker and a man who still believes in strict gender roles.

Unfortunately, the above situations come down to "political belief."

That is such an American PoV. Plenty of places in the world have or have had political persecution. It is a very real issue in large parts of the world.

In general CoCs enforce a very American world view, one where I as a non-American do not feel welcome.

As another non-American I feel similarly which supports the hypothesis that CoCs are primary political instruments.