Does anyone else cringe at the word "diversity"?

[SunniDelite]

I had this email from someone on Crowdfunder...
"I am raising funds for the Lenny Henry Centre for Media Diversity at Birmingham City University.
In the last year, the centre has revealed the racism and prejudice actors face when they go auditions and, for the first time, exposed the lack of gender diversity of sound recordists. We're now building programmes to address this problem. So far, our research has highlighted specific problems for disabled people working in the industry and created more job opportunities for Black people behind the camera. Additionally, we are working with major broadcasters to change how they report on race, gender and disability."
I have no problem with the race and disability part, but what on earth does "lack of gender diversity of sound recordists" mean? That there aren't enough women? or that there aren't enough blue-hairs who can't decide what they are? or there aren't enough transwomen?
It's come to a point where I'm suspicious that any organisation that mentions diversity is a TRA, even if they're talking about hedgehog populations! :)

Lenny Henry alone triggers my blood pressure.

Unfortunately the word, 'diversity' now only brings to mind TWAW. Of course all groups need representation in the media as its a mirror of our culture and a massive influence on children's sense of who they are.

I feel that there is over representation of some groups in this industry.

The most recent Scottish census identified 1% of the population in Scotland as Afro Carribean, black groups, 2.7% as Asian, majority being Pakistani, 7.9%as white:other, Polish being the vast majority, Irish, Gypsy. 1% identified as mixed ethic groups, Arab & "other".

Media is so London centric that it has actually started to become non diverse, its not really representative atall.

Where are the Asian people, the poor working class white Irish, Scottish, Welsh, English people, non London based people?

Not sure why but the post has changed my punctuation mark from : to a weird smiley face?? After white. That's not intentional.

Rather telling on yourself, aren't you?

Diversity and inclusion are suddenly a bad thing now that you know it also includes that one minority group you're bigoted against...

@DisappearingGirl

I agree. Whenever I see anything about diversity, inclusion and equality my heart sinks. Which is really sad as I always strongly believed in those values!

Ditto when someone says gender diversity, I don't know if they mean between men and women or between trans and non-trans.

Also when I see blue-haired teens it makes me sad, as I was one once and still have a lot of love for alternative scenes, but I can't help thinking they're probably into gender ideology.

Maybe I'm just getting old!!

“Ditto when someone says gender diversity, I don't know if they mean between men and women or between trans and non-trans.”

And why would the latter be a problem? Do you believe trans-identified people shouldn't be included in anything at all? That they should be completely ostracized from society?

@Ereshkigalangcleg

cis women

Who are these "cis women"? What about the ones who are neither trans nor "cis"?

"Cis" means "not trans", so you might as well talk about people are neither vaccinated nor unvaccinated.

@JellySaurus

I'm not big on conspiracy theories but it does seem like there is an effort to simplify the narrative to better suit certain people.

And not necessarily the people the narrative is claimed to suit.

Very much so. Or sometimes it is a specific group of people within the larger group. Adolph Reed talks about this a lot with regard to id politics in the US and the emergence of an educated black middle class, whose economic interests tend to be most aligned with other middle class people.

@VioletLemon

Lenny Henry alone triggers my blood pressure.

Unfortunately the word, 'diversity' now only brings to mind TWAW. Of course all groups need representation in the media as its a mirror of our culture and a massive influence on children's sense of who they are.

I feel that there is over representation of some groups in this industry.

The most recent Scottish census identified 1% of the population in Scotland as Afro Carribean, black groups, 2.7% as Asian, majority being Pakistani, 7.9%as white:other, Polish being the vast majority, Irish, Gypsy. 1% identified as mixed ethic groups, Arab & "other".

Media is so London centric that it has actually started to become non diverse, its not really representative atall.

Where are the Asian people, the poor working class white Irish, Scottish, Welsh, English people, non London based people?

This can be quite weird. There was a tv show filmed near my house, not in the UK. It was also meant to be set in our city, in our part of the city. The cast of the show was far more diverse than the actual population, but that made sense for the show to some extent. (Though I don't think we have that many black lawyers in this whole region of the country.)

But what was really weird was that when they had shots of public places, the extras were also totally unlike the actual population. It was very weird to see people just sitting around in the background at the harbour and to think, wow, it looks like there is some sort of cultural festival going on.

In one way that's not a problem but I do wonder how actors looking for parts feel about it.

I received similar, very different work area, and sent back a short reply that included links to the EA2010 and it's guidance. I may have been a little bit more brusque than this, mainly because they acknowledged that women meant 'anyone who identified as a woman' but this is the general gist of it:

Dear ex university of choice.

I am disappointed to hear that you are just now beginning to focus on a 'lack of gender diversity'. If you mean sex based discrimination or lack of females in the sector then you are very late coming to that conclusion. Women have been under represented in all aspects of XX since the role/sector began. For over 100 years the sector has been male dominated and work at increasing female participation is long overdue.

If, however, you mean 'gender' and not sex, chromosomal, biological, then I will have to disappoint you as not only is it not covered in law as a protected characteristic, see links provided, but I personally dislike the term, and all of it's current meanings. I am female by dint of biology rather than ideology and much of the difficulty I have experienced finding work in XX sector has been because of outmoded perceptions of that biology.

I could happily support any drive to increase the number if women considering XX as a career. If this is what you mean, the advancement of biological females, then please, do let me know how I can help.

Do you believe trans-identified people shouldn't be included in anything at all? That they should be completely ostracized from society?

No. Had you any desire to engage here honestly you would know that we only seek to bar male bodied people from female spaces. That we don't work to remove any rights from any sector of society. But that we do fight, in many different ways, to maintain the rights and dignity of women and girls.

And if you have a problem with women having rights, with men not being given rights of access to single sex, female spaces, then you are part of an ever growing problem. A problem that disadvantages every woman whether she wants to see it or not.

"Cis" means "not trans", so you might as well talk about people are neither vaccinated nor unvaccinated.

It doesn't though. If it did just mean "not trans", a "trans woman" would be a biologically female person who identifies as a man. I don't identify with anything about gender identity ideology, so I'm not "cis". Many people don't actually identify as "cis", or see it as a meaningful label, because they don't share your gender-identity-based ideological beliefs. Hope that helps.

In the same way, I'm not a heretic or an infidel, because I don't define myself in terms of other people's metaphysical beliefs. I'm just a woman. That is, an adult female human.

@SamphiretheStickerist

Do you believe trans-identified people shouldn't be included in anything at all? That they should be completely ostracized from society?

No. Had you any desire to engage here honestly you would know that we only seek to bar male bodied people from female spaces. That we don't work to remove any rights from any sector of society. But that we do fight, in many different ways, to maintain the rights and dignity of women and girls.

And if you have a problem with women having rights, with men not being given rights of access to single sex, female spaces, then you are part of an ever growing problem. A problem that disadvantages every woman whether she wants to see it or not.

I personally do not see how this is all that different from seeing the inclusion of black people as "disadvantaging" white people, so I suppose we are going to disagree on that one.

That is in no way an honest answer. But it is one we see here often. It is disingenuous at best, racist at heart and seeks to silence anyone who disagrees with you - who would want to be called racist after all?

As you have ignored what I actually did type I'll ask you more bluntly:

How is allowing men, male bodied people, into single sex female spaces inclusive ?

And how is seeking to keep men out if such spaces, phobic or akin to racism?

Answers on a postcard... maybe!

@Ereshkigalangcleg

"Cis" means "not trans", so you might as well talk about people are neither vaccinated nor unvaccinated.

It doesn't though. If it did just mean "not trans", a "trans woman" would be a biologically female person who identifies as a man. I don't identify with anything about gender identity ideology, so I'm not "cis". Many people don't actually identify as "cis", or see it as a meaningful label, because they don't share your gender-identity-based ideological beliefs. Hope that helps.

“It doesn't though. If it did just mean "not trans", a "trans woman" would be a biologically female person who identifies as a man.”

This is just disingenuous spite-driven linguistic pedantry, and you know it.

It's like arguing that "gay marriage" is a contradiction of terms because "marriage" is "union between a man and a woman".

Your reasoning is entirely predicated on your refusal to see trans women's identities as legitimate, just as homophobes refused to see gay relationships as legitimate.

I personally do not see how this is all that different from seeing the inclusion of black people as "disadvantaging" white people

Your lazy analogy is completely back to front. Women, ie female people, oppressed by males for millennia are the "black people" and males are the "white" ones. The oppressor group. Try to get it right.

This is just disingenuous spite-driven linguistic pedantry, and you know it.

Anything that denies the importance of biological sex, particularly for women and girls, is the only disingenuousness here. I prefer reality.

Your reasoning is entirely predicated on your refusal to see trans women's identities as legitimate, just as homophobes refused to see gay relationships as legitimate.

Oh, BINGO!

Gay people are gay.
Straight people are straight
Bi sexual people are both, in a way.

Transwomen are male
Transmen are female
Neither are both male and female.

Your analogy continues to be lazy, facile, laughable.

“It is disingenuous at best, racist at heart and seeks to silence anyone who disagrees with you - who would want to be called racist after all?”

It is simply a futile attempt to explain to you why what you're doing to trans people is wrong, in terms you might understand.

You are using the same tactics and arguments as racists and homophobes had used against black and gay people.

That's a fact, even if you think it's different when these tactics and arguments are used against a different group, a group that you personally think it's okay to exclude and discriminate against.

Bigotry is bigotry, even if it's against groups you think it's acceptable.

Your reasoning is entirely predicated on your refusal to see trans women's identities as legitimate

If you're referring to my disbelief in your personal ideological views that any males can and should be considered a type of woman rather than seen as their biological sex, I guess you're right. My bad.

I have been mispronouncing it as Divicity so have decided forthwith to stick with Divicity and Exclusion.

@Ereshkigalangcleg

This is just disingenuous spite-driven linguistic pedantry, and you know it.

Anything that denies the importance of biological sex, particularly for women and girls, is the only disingenuousness here. I prefer reality.

Again, how exactly is this different from saying it's "denying the importance of sexuality" to argue that gay men and lesbians shouldn't be excluded from locker rooms for the sake of "safeguarding little boys and girls" from "potential predators"?

Aside from the fact it's targeting a different group based on a different immutable characteristic, how is the logic different?

I'm not "refusing to see". I think the idea that a particular group of male people have the same "gender identity" as women absurd. I simply don't believe it, because it's not true.

Again, how exactly is this different from saying it's "denying the importance of sexuality" to argue that gay men and lesbians shouldn't be excluded from locker rooms for the sake of "safeguarding little boys and girls" from "potential predators"?

Whether it's different or not, it's still the truth that biological sex is important. This is all you have, isn't it? No actual argument why your position is the right one. Just weird deflections. How surprising.

@Ereshkigalangcleg

I personally do not see how this is all that different from seeing the inclusion of black people as "disadvantaging" white people

Your lazy analogy is completely back to front. Women, ie female people, oppressed by males for millennia are the "black people" and males are the "white" ones. The oppressor group. Try to get it right.

Trans people are the oppressed group, and cis people are the oppressor group.

Those who deviated from their assigned gender categories have always been oppressed in comparison to those who did not.

@FrecklesMalone

I imagine you are white, straight and not disabled. For me diversity means a lot more than the single issue. In most places of work it is relevant still because 99% of my managers have been white and not disabled.

Is it acceptable to make an assumption like 'you are white', can I make the assumption 'you are black' without censure?. Your post shows why so many people of all colours, ethnicity, orientation etc etc are fed up of people like you who think they can be as rude as they like and have created this backlash against many sensitive topics, Well done!