She has expressed everything I believe in such clear language!
Now I wish that she or someone else would tackle a few additional issues:
'Inclusiveness' is an utterly sexist goal when it is only applied to the female sex spaces, language, and rights and not to both the female and male sexes. This erasure of only the female sex is openly sexist, yet we are to pretend that the bias doesn't exist. Or at least I never see it addressed by the gender identity ideologists.
Nobody appears to have a definition of 'inclusiveness' which would allow us to measure how well it has been achieved by various organisations. This often means that an organisation can claim it's inclusive without being representative so that women, say, can be severely underrepresented compared to our population size which is very large, as long as a few individuals from all possible demographic groups are included.
Statistical representation would be a more useful concept here: If some demographic group is 5% of the British adult population, then in most cases 5% of the employees of a governmental organisation should be expected to come from that demographic group. Not 1%, not 30%.
The biggest problem with the DEI concept is ultimately that it isn't properly defined at all and its three parts may wage war against each other.
Real equity may, in fact, require exclusive categories (Paralympics, say), not inclusiveness, and in some other cases (often about women) focusing on 'inclusiveness' alone is just a way of opening all doors wide for anyone who wishes to enter, even those for whom the purpose of the group (the reason it exists) doesn't apply. In the case of sports, for example, including male athletes in female categories will not increase equity for the vast majority of other participants.