"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. …
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.
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.
"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.
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.