How do we counter this ‘Inclusive’ narrative...

[ThePrincipal]

...everyone seems to get hooked onto ‘inclusive’ as a PC , inherently good thing, and instantly buys into the trans narrative.

Can we come up with a woke sounding hook to counter this?

I’m asking this because I m thinking of raise the issue with my employer (gender instead of sex on their diversity and inclusion policy) and dd’s school, and i’m Fully expecting them to throw ‘inclusion’ at me and want to know what I can throw back at them.

Ask them why both boys and girls are excluded from the other's spaces all the time?

Ask them if it is not being inclusive to not let teenage boys sleep in the same overnight spaces as teenage girls?

ie sex segregation is the complete opposite of inclusiveness. Ask them if they think that should stop?

And then if you're brave ask them if they really really think that a lesbian is not being inclusive if she discriminates against biological males

....without going down a rabbit hole of explaining sex and gender, EA 2010 etc. Etc.

I’m thinking ‘safeguarding’ for the school.

Employer....not sure....

Point out that including males as women excludes many women - Muslim women, survivors of sexual assault, women/girls self conscious about undressing around men etc.

The employer one is easier - sex is the protected characteristic. They can include additional ones but not exclude those set out in law

I think Stephanie Davis-arrai talks on this.

She said that ‘inclusive’ is now being used to erode boundaries (in this case of women and girls.)

Yes, including males in women's spaces no matter how they choose to identify will end up excluding some women - so not really inclusive at all,

As a Muslim woman I find the inclusive argument really manipulative, because it places women in more vulnerable positions but if we complain, we are accused of “excluding” others. Essentially, any women-only space that includes males excludes many women like me (Muslim, Jewish, Hindu, women that have experienced male violence etc). This limits our ability to engage with society and our access to essential services such as refuges. I have actually stopped using a local public space because they have switched to unisex toilets and I came accross a man butt-naked with the door open when I next took my daughter to the bathroom. Not only do I not wish to see naked bums, I felt vulnerable, pissed off that my child was exposed to that, and disgusted that a woman might have to sit on a seat covered in urine. As I was taught to be nice and compliant, I didn’t complain, I just stopped going. I find it profoundly unfair that my activities are limited because of males who do not give two hoots about actual women and their experiences.

If a definition is expanded to be more inclusive, it loses its meaning. It would be ludicrous to expand the definition of cats to include dogs. It is similarly ludicrous to expand the meaning of women to include men.

Essentially, any women-only space that includes males excludes many women like me (Muslim, Jewish, Hindu, women that have experienced male violence etc). This limits our ability to engage with society and our access to essential services such as refuges.

THIS.

When does 'inclusive' becomes 'intrusive'* ?

Answer:

-when it causes disruption or makes people feel uncomfortable.
-when it is uninvited and imposed, through lack of consultation
-when it is unwelcome because it frustrates and undermines the purpose of the space/meeting/service etc

*Acknowledgement of a MNetters who used the word 'intrusive' in another topic.

I think malaguena got it right: the answer can't be that being inclusive is wrong per se (it isn't, and any argument to the contrary risks offending any generally decent person's sense of fairness), but that inclusiveness is often not globally possible due to conflicting needs.

So, IMO, the argument has got to be one of 'inclusiveness is generally a good thing - but that's not limited to one particular, small group of individuals, and the generally inclusive thing to do is to make sure that as many people as possible feel able and safe to participate - we must be careful not to accidentally exclude entire sections of the population in order to pay lip service to 'inclusiveness', as that runs counter to the very ideal that's being upheld'.

Or, at least, that's the line of argument I'm using at present and it's worked pretty well so far. Then again, I'm told people think I'm scary AF, so maybe they're just too afraid to take me on.

Conflict between inclusion and diversity. Inclusion has become monolithic, one side fits all. We used to talk about social exclusion where people couldn't participate for specific reasons. Diversity recognises and respects different needs. Not to recognise the different needs of women and men and transpeople is a corruption of inclusivity - it makes things less fair and equal not more. A really regressive approach to social justice.

No, you do not want to be inclusive as it makes you feel unsafe and uncomfortable. Then when they start with counterarguments explain to them that a "no" is not the beginning of a negotiation and that they are proving that they are trying to cross you boundaries, by not respecting your "no".

Yes, including males in women's spaces no matter how they choose to identify will end up excluding some women - so not really inclusive at all,

Unfortunately, I don't believe that the left cares if women are excluded. You might find a few who are swayed by that point, but I suspect that most of them would secretly be thinking, "if you're scared of penises while you are naked then just stay away from those places you bigot".

I do not have a link but something that used to be passed around whenever the topic of persuasion came up, was a page which talked about 'how to get people to agree to something when they don't really want to'. Basically, you get them to agree to the principle first.

The inclusion argument doesn't really work as a starting argument because it becomes obvious immediately that in this debate, two sides are directly oppositional to each other and one is going to lose. So arguing with a transborg that "their side" should be the one to lose out, is not a persuasive argument that you want to lead with.

Lead with something that is far easier to get them to agree to.

A good, and uncontroversial, starting point would be to point out that sex is a protected characteristic in the Equality Act not gender. Gender reassignment is a separate PC.

Although that one appeals mostly to those authoritarians who equate 'legal = correct' it would still make a better starting argument, as is the one about, "women are allowed to set our own sexual boundaries". It is REALLY super difficult for the transborg (the difficult to convince people) to deny the reasonableness of those two arguments.

Not sure I explained that well enough. If they do NOT voice their rebuttal verbally to you, then you have no way of counter-acting what they secretly believe is a good rebuttal. IE "if you're scared of penises while you are naked then just stay away from those places you bigot".

The sexual boundary argument is more fundamental and therefor harder for them to argue against. Trolls used to come in here periodically to argue that "the space where you get undressed is a space owned by someone else and since they're the owner they get to decide who you get naked in front of". Combating that foolishness was the reason I joined. They stopped making that argument as soon as I reframed it to sexual boundaries.

And if it sound like I don't like the inclusion argument and I'm trying to talk you out of using it, then yes I am. It doesn't work as well as other arguments. Save the inclusion argument for when they're still willing to talk, and you've already made headway on other points.

Trans inclusive practices are often exclusionary for other groups. E.g. shared changing rooms that admit make bodies women. Muslim women often stop using the facilities these are attached to altogether because they rely it is against their religion.

I'm may be misremembering this, but I think Posie's fabulous rant a month or two ago had a section where she said we need to frame single sex spaces and services as the inclusion of women rather than the exclusion of men (however they identify).

I'm going to treat myself to watching it again as soon as I get some peace and half term is over.

When inclusivity for men in women's spaces, means that many women are driven away by it, then it really is not inclusivity. It is colonisation.

When it comes to single sex spaces they’re not meant to be inclusive of the other sex. That’s the point.

Yes. Single-sex has an objective biological reality. Unarguable.

Gender = personality and personal preferences, not the basic biological fact of your body.

Men can wear all the dresses and lippy they desire, and good luck to them! But men are not women, and even men in dresses and lippy and high heels are not women.

Because women are women.

Women-only spaces are exclusionary by design. It's their purpose. They are not meant to be inclusive of those who are not female.

Ask them what is happening? Is it now company policy to exclude women from their own spaces? Is it company policy that women are no longer allowed to say no to males? Are they intending to bully women to accept males in their spaces? How will you be disciplined for not agreeing to having your boundaries violated? Is their insurance company aware they are breaking the law and increasing risk to female employees?

And then I would indeed point out to them that they are breaking the law and illegally denying women their rights if they proceed with basing their policies on gender. You don't need to argue the terms - just show them the law as written.

Of course this is confrontational and may not be the best strategy if your job is at risk if you speak up.

I have been having this exact argument at work. My own line management agree that it at least merits discussion, but no traction with HR. Anyone who objects to our new inclusive policy is to be retrained :(

Inclusive: so that people who should be using the space, can, and know they can - eg. ramps, braille signage, making sure your posters include young/old/people of all races, that they specifically invite groups that might not realise the facility is for them and that they are welcome etc.

'Inclusive': so that people who have their own, identical facilities which they can access perfectly well, but want to use ones that are for someone else, for whatever reasons.