When inclusion excludes.

I would argue that there are TWO classes who "can’t ’just’ say the pronouns and be courteous."

(1) As you describe.

(2) People who have a very strong sense of right and wrong, and who genuinely believe that telling lies is wrong, and that when the telling of those lies pushes a dangerous agenda that is even more wrong.

I agree with you completely, but I hate the implication that the majority of people are neuro-typical and should get on with prioritising being "nice" to people pursuing a dangerous agenda. As someone who is (I think) neuro-typical I don;t feel that I have any greater obligation to fight against my own rights by miss-sexing people than someone who due to cognitive/developmental/intellectual disability, can’t ’just’ say the pronouns and be courteous.

It has got to the point where I automatically think that any mention of Diversity and Inclusion will only be about the alphabet people.

This exclusionary inclusion is not about the LGB either. It isn't LGBT+ inclusion, it's TQ+ only. LGB are excluded and worse by these politics if they wish to be homosexual and say no to straight sex. You'll find TQ+ people also excluded and worse if they have anything to share about their views or experience that does not fit the political narrative.

If you start investigating you quickly find the political lobby has gently encouraged a belief that inclusion means only TQ+ and the EqAct is only about gender identity. You'll find a gentle encouragement to do impact assessments that only look at other protected characteristics in how they affect TQ+ people who are disabled/pregnant etc. You'll find views that faith/culture/disability/homosexuality/sex needs that are incompatible with TQ+ politics desires are wrong and should not be tolerated, and people should abandon their faith, get over their disabilities, overcome their genital prejudices and surrender their sex based rights. You'll find a lot of equalities training given by trainers with absolutely no qualifications or knowledge of any of the protected characteristics other than their own personal experience of being TQ+. Don't take my word for it; go and check. There is no value of inclusion or belief in it; it has merely been a powerful word that has successfully manipulated the well intentioned and a bit lazy/naive.

It's quite astounding. Particularly that so many in positions of responsibilities have fallen for it without bothering to stop and think, including local and national government. This will eventually form the basis of the 'what never to do' guide for organisations in safeguarding, it's a national scandal.

@MrGHardy you are 100% correct.

In a similar vein, but different, in my line of work (art and design stuff) we have an annual survey to complete and in recent years there have been questions about the importance of working with LGBTQ so 'their voices can be heard' 🙄
I reply every year that I couldn't care less about an Art Directors gender identity or sexuality (or age/race/their dietary preferences etc for that matter) I am just interested in what they are like to work with and how competent they are.

My work has rainbow lanyards which I am continually put under pressure to wear - I always ask which lanyard I can wear to show support for the students who can't access our buildings as they are in wheelchairs; or the students who have hearing difficulties but lecturers won't use the microphone; or the student with ASD who needs a quiet room for exams? Strangely enough there are no lanyards for things which would require effort and /or money to change. But performative rainbow ones and compulsory pronouns are prioritised

All the fuss about men wanting into my toilets when people wirh disabilities can’t even get into one anywhere.

chdck your privilege indeed

I work in the accessibility field and none of this remotely surprises me unfortunately. We often have to point out that there has to be a balance when designing things to ensure fixing one thing doesn't exclude another group.

14 million in the UK alone have a disability, versus 1.2 million who identify as LGBTQ.

Can't say I'm surprised.

You have to actually do things and change things to be inclusive we cant expect there to be money to pay for repairs when you have to pay SW to learn how to shit on every protected characteristic Instead.

There’s a really good concept from early disability rights action: parity of esteem. V useful when thinking about whether it’s need, visibility or the loudest voices who get the most attention when equality is being discussed

The whole pronoun thing is horribly un inclusive for some young people.

Thank you for saying this.

There seems to be a concerted effort to shut down the fact that there’s a whole class of people who, due to cognitive/developmental/intellectual disability, can’t ’just’ say the pronouns and be courteous. They can say what they see.

I always laugh when diversity and inclusion is all about LGBTQ. When I am at work, I am not interested in anyone's sex life. Why do we need a diversity of sexual orientations at work? When I am at work, I have no idea how anyone identifies, unless they announce it. So why do we need special policies to include TQ, how are they excluded in the first place? How can I exclude someone on the basis of their identity when I do not know said identity?

People with disabilities of any sort, physically, medically, they are very much excluded in many instances. But I guess helping them doesn't quite give the same virtue signal.

I don’t think I understand Conor’s story. Was there no one who could sit down and help him with the PDF form? How would that take months to resolve?

Lucy’s story is shocking. It’s annoying how much performative “inclusion” seems to push out actual inclusion.

Flags are cheaper than stair lifts and ramps 😥