What inclusivity means

[JellySaurus]

I was chatting with two of my dc, 20yo dd and 16yo ds, and it became apparent that 'inclusivity' means different things to us. Dd considers inclusivity to mean making everyone feel special by celebrating their differences, whereas I consider it to mean supporting everyone to be ordinary by accepting their differences and accommodating them without fanfare.

Ds, at first, agreed with his sister. I asked him which of his schools he felt was the more inclusive. He immediately chose his secondary. Ds is neurodiverse. Before his diagnosis he was very upset that other children (with diagnoses) would be fussed over and comforted when they became overwhelmed, whereas he would be penalised for 'misbehaviour'. This was at primary. His secondary school put accommodations in place immediately, while awaiting his diagnosis. The result is that ds is fully integrated into the school, no longer has meltdowns, and has friends who want to be with him rather than classmates who enjoy the fuss and kudos of being comforters.

Ds recognised that his secondary allowed him to be ordinary, they put in accommodations that enable him to just get on with being part of his school community.

It's a bit of a clumsy analogy, but doesn't it seem that we are going about 'inclusivity' wrong? That celebrating difference in a pushy manner does not create true inclusivity? That celebrating difference is actually different to accepting difference.

True inclusivity is the person with a trans identity being fully accepted in work and social life, their differences in appearance/voice/dress being irrelevant in all mixed-sex areas, and also irrelevant in the single-sex area that is the same as their sex.

Never thought it this way. Need to go talk to my teens.
For me inclusivity is more an equal opportunity thing. So regardless of issues, people should be offered a job (if they have the skills), able to go to the movies, able to access facilities etc. Adjustments should be made so people can access these things as required.

''Dd considers inclusivity to mean making everyone feel special by celebrating their differences'

Apart from the fact that sounds exhausting, its not the same as accommodating people's differences, is it. Its like those fake corporate style campaigns that look great on social media, but nothing changes for people who actually face challenges.

Agree with the even playing field meaning of inclusivity. You can celebrate difference up to a point but not everyone wants their differences pointed out. I also have a ND child who is finding secondary school inclusive because of the reasonable accomodations they have made. She most certainly wouldn't want school saying 'Let's celebrate X's neurodiversity!'

Take the transwomen in sport debate: Inclusivity would be transwomen feeling they can compete in the male category without comment or negativity and celebrate real achievement. It's a fair and inclusive situation. Allowing transwomen to compete in women's sport makes it unfair for women and highlights their differences by creating an uneven playing field. It may celebrate or validate the 'specialness' of these male people by making an exception for them to the usual rules but does not promote inclusivity, fairness or positive feelings towards them from other competitors.

As a neurodiverse individual I pray to be treated as ordinary, in the workplace for example. I'd hate to be made to feel special because of my condition no matter how well intentioned.

this Is how I see it too. I think also in a work environment it’s about making a culture where people feel psychologically safe to ask for what they need and where no one makes assumptions.

I have had a lot of trouble trying to understand what others mean when they say 'inclusive.' There already were terms which refer to treating people fairly (equality of opportunity, fairness etc.), so I always thought that inclusiveness must mean something more than that. But what?

There's the queer theory origin of that term where it may be used to destabilise a concept, such as 'female' by expanding it through the demands for including all sorts of people who are in some ways viewed as being on the borders. The goal there is not fairness, actually, as far as I can tell, but the idea that if a concept cannot be easily defined in language, then it cannot be used to oppress people.

That is incorrect, of course (unless you believe that language creates reality).

Even if we turn 'women' in language into something that nobody can define, employers will still know which employees might get pregnant, sexual attackers will know which bodies to attack, misogynists will know what group of people they wish to call femoids or stupid or sluts etc. It just makes fighting back and political organising much more difficult, as the wide group aimed at in misogyny and sexism now becomes undefinable.

I always myself thought that true inclusion means to let all those into a group who belong to it, yet not open the doors to anyone and the rain and the wind. Granted, who it is who belongs to a certain group is what we are really debating here. For me the group 'women and girls' must be defined on the basis that it faces discrimination for, not on the basis of lifestyle choices. So that would be sex or apparent sex.

Is it about letting all those into a group who belong to it, or about access to things most people take for granted, such as employment, education, entertainment, privacy, security?