10 Comments
User's avatar
⭠ Return to thread
Chris Fox's avatar

“I’m just trying to be inclusive”

To which I ask:

Why?

What is the point?

Expand full comment
Steve QJ's avatar

"What is the point?"

I think history has shown us time and time again the point of inclusivity. People asked the same question about gay people and black people and Muslims and women and basically everybody who wasn't straight, white, male, Christian and right-handed.

I think our concept of "normal," or of who should be "included" in society, should be as broad as possible. But that's never meant it should be limitless or in opposition to reality. And certainly not that we should be in such a blind rush to "include" one group that we steamroll the rights of another.

I think the vast majority of people agree that trans people should be included in public life to the same extent as everybody else. But just like everybody else, that doesn't mean they get to bend the fabric of society to their will so they feel more validated.

Expand full comment
Chris Fox's avatar

I am not saying the opposite. I am not saying we should form up into tribes and hate everyone outside them.

But when people dutifully say "he or she" or, worse, "they," then it's no longer inclusion, it's compulsion. I don't see anything amiss in having gendered nouns like actor/actress, waiiter/waitress; calling for their elimination quickly becomes a fad, not a social advance.

Sure, let the pretenders have a place at the table, until they monopolize every conversation talking about their gender hobby. I have a friend in the US with a coworker who takes over every meeting talking about "their" gender identity, is in HR every day sobbing about being "misgendered." They can't fire her because they know she'll sue so they are taking months to lay the requisite paper trail to fire her for not doing any work. She'll still sue, but with the stack of emails, the employer will win.

"Including" a person like that is going too far.

I don't see any point in gender-neutral language or any defiance of that which is unambiguously real.

I think it's more important to try not to be rude than to try to be "inclusive."

Expand full comment
Steve QJ's avatar

"it's no longer inclusion, it's compulsion"

Right. But you didn't ask what the point of compulsion was. You asked what the point of inclusion was.

Inclusion might require adaptation of behaviour. And that adaptation might even need to be compelled. For example, white people were compelled to "include" black people post Civil Rights Act. Some required more compulsion than others in this regard.

The point is that compulsion should only ever be applied for clear, logical, intellectually defensible reasons. It shouldn't compel people to deny reality or put them in harm's way. It shouldn't create a sacred caste who can't be criticised or questioned no matter how unreasonable their demands are.

I see some value in gender-neutral language. For example, I do my best not to use words like "mankind" or default to "man/he/him" when I'm referring to a generic person. But again, I think I (and everybody else) should be free to choose the degree to which I use that language. It's the mindless compulsion that's the issue.

p.s. A friend of mine is in exactly the same position at work with a trans subordinate. Constant mental health days, lowest performer in the team, a long history of suing employers who got tired of pandering. She's having to build exactly the same paper trail. The refusal to talk about the wildly disproportionate levels of mental illness in the trans community is preposterous.

Expand full comment
Chris Fox's avatar

No disagreement. Except I am accustomed to thinking ahead and never have to use nor circumvent gender-specific construction. People are always challenging me with examples:

Challenge: "Someone left their wallet here. I hope they come back and get it"

My response: "I hope whoever left that wallet here comes back for it."

Mine is shorter, clearer, and doesn't mix singular and plural.

Expand full comment
Grow Some Labia's avatar

I noticed 30 years ago how self-obsessed transwomen were, minus the narcissism. Lovely people, and probably genuinely dysphoric, but with one notable exception they were one-track-minded. They didn't make demands on others and they didn't trample women's rights; but with the exception of the one with a job and a life, they were really dull.

Expand full comment
Grow Some Labia's avatar

This is the weak spot of the left. Its drive to be 'inclusive' and 'nonjudgemental' lead it to being unwilling to draw boundaries, and ergo to excuse a mind-spinning array of human rights abuses. And it's *always* considered acceptable to throw women under the bus. Especially for women. Many of those raging the loudest against 'patriarchy' are the ones who unconsciously support it the most.

Expand full comment
Chris Fox's avatar

Or those people who spin off half a page of bigotries: "racist, misogynist, homophobic, transphobic, antisemitic, blah blah blah" instead of just "bigot," which covers them all.

As for nonjudgmental, that is morally crippling. To be unable to make a value judgment means going through life without ever learning a thing.

Expand full comment
Chris Fox's avatar

The better I get to know this "left" the more I see of what you say.

I don't think I've ever seen "A trans man is a man."

And feminism has cast aside all political goals in favor of nebulous BS about attitudes, more imagined than real. See my post below about Greer.

Expand full comment
Grow Some Labia's avatar

I did see it, but I have never read any of her books so I have no opinion on her.

Expand full comment