The example is so anodyne and the pattern of CoC changes so regular that I can't help but expect that this was opportunistic - waiting for any such example to jump on and institute these changes.

The goal is to grant all offend/ed/ parties total, unimpeachable power against purported offend/ers/, and no amount of 'protected classes' cover removes the fact that this enables the same bad faith that harassing parties abuse, just for a different group.

Hold everyone to the same high standard. Period. Done. None of this thumb-on-the-scales nonsense.

That’s a mild “ha ha” kind of joke I’d expect to see on a joke-a-day cartoon calendar.

Right. Definitely stupid and probably a stretch to call it sexist. Would something like this really get you banned from a mailing list?

Something doesn't have to exist as a certain quality for a subset of people to determine that it may be perceived as "too much a likeness of some THING".

In short: You can be banned for talking about pasta in a noodles forum. That doesn't mean pasta is not a noodle.

It's not sexist. Them banning it as sexist does not make it sexist.

Every day I wake up to the programming community becoming more pretend, more fake, more toxic and less open. Ironically the very thing it is trying to distance itself from.

You're right. I clicked through to the (two) tweet threads for rationale and didn't scroll far enough in the git thread.

Ok, so unfunny sexism. Why not just tell the user to stop it? I do not see why this required a rules change.