> Someone can be "sex positive" and believe that a public global all-ages quasi-professional environment isn't the place for it.

Well, yeah, sure. But someone else can be sex positive and feel like using sexualized language, can't they? I mean, I am obviously not saying that the CoC should say that everyone should be forced to use sexualized language. And the fact that you can be a sex positive person and still feel like sexual things are more of a personal thing for you, say, doesn't change the fact that banning people from using sexualized language is sex negative, does it? Some sex positive people feel like anal sex isn't their thing. Making a law against anal sex is still sex negative, isn't it?

If you don't feel like using sexualized language, sure, more power to you as far as you expressing yourself is concerned. And really, as far as expressing myself publicly I'd generally be among those, it's not really my thing, at least not currently. What I object to is the authoritarian style of enforcing a particular set of values that have no direct relation to the goal of the project. And even moreso if it's done supposedly in the name of "being more inclusive".

If you are suggesting that someone could be sex positive and think that sexualized language should be banned in a "public global all-ages quasi-professional environment", really, I don't think so. Sex positivism in a nutshell is the view that there is nothing bad or shameful about sex per se. It's a thing many people do and enjoy, just as many people do and enjoy eating ice cream (and others don't, and that's fine, too). If that's your view, I don't really see how you could go from there to supporting a ban on using related language, pretty much no matter what the context. Either you think sex should be a taboo or you don't!?

> Which parts of the code do you think are unwelcoming to people with autism? Most that I know are neutral about it or are pleased that neurotypicals have started to recognize the benefits of explicit rules. I know of a couple of organizations where someone on the spectrum led the adoption of a similar code.

Do they prefer rules over no rules or explicit rules over implicit rules? If there is a rule that is enforced against you anyway, it's probably better to have it spelled out explicitly (than to be surprised by the enforcement of a rule you hadn't picked up on). But that does not justify introducing any particular new rule, only writing down what's already there anyway. And even then writing down what's already there does not justify those rules, it at best creates the opportunity to reflect on the appropriateness of those rules, and to possibly throw some of them out for good. I would think the objection is to being held accountable to rules they aren't aware of, not so much to not having rules.

Also, I'd be curious how similar that code really was. For example, "other behaviors that they deem inappropriate, threatening, offensive, or harmful" is very much the opposite of "explicit". It's so vague that if you think about it you realize there isn't actually any rule there. The only thing that's really there is the "rule" that the maintainer gets to decide the actual rules on the spot.

Edit: As for something not actually being a rule, I think this is a good test: Could you possibly use it to defend yourself against an accusation? No matter what you did, you could never justify your behaviour by saying "What I did was not deemed inappropriate, threatening, offensive, or harmful by the maintainer(s)".