21 September 2021 | OPINION
Inclusivity is a term we have become all too familiar with, in association with the Left’s cause to impose its identity ideology upon society. But whilst the Left demands it, it attempts to ensure the opposite.
The weaponisation of ‘inclusivity’ for the sake of living in a more peaceful, ‘tolerant’ – and tolerable – society, has achieved anything but the meaning of the word. After all, in this seemingly noble quest for social and political harmony, in ‘including’ a variety of marginalised identity groups, be it on the basis of race, sexuality or gender – for the sole purpose of rallying momentum behind the Left’s political cause – what it has in fact achieved is the deliberate exclusion of certain groups. Not on the basis of their immutable characteristics, but groups of people with ordinary beliefs who have been made to look extremist in their views, so as to exclude them from the conversation.
Take the transgender debate as a primary and significant example. In recent years, the Left has encouraged the normalisation of trans people, and thus their ‘inclusion’ into society, by treating transgender men (biological women) as men, and transgender women (biological men) as women – even to the extent that the rights and opportunities of women must be questioned, and in some cases imposed upon, to make room for trans women. This is what modern socialism (the shift from a class war to an identity war) would define as ‘inclusive’. The definition is convenient, in that it chooses to neglect the repercussions of this intrusive ‘inclusivity’ on biological women, and purposefully ignores – or excludes – women, and generally any person, who challenges this.
Despite the warm and positive front that this cause for ‘inclusivity’ projects, it is, on the contrary, menacing to those who do not conform to this definition of what an inclusive society looks like. After all, this same political force also emphasises its ‘support for women’ and the feminist movement, and talks about empowering women – standing up for injustices and fighting for the rights of all women in any circumstance. And yet, just as with race, it is this selfsame lobby that has weaponised gender – as part of this identity war – to promote its own agenda.
However, the drive for ‘inclusivity’ under the Left’s philosophy does not support all women – only women who are submissive to the ends of this vicious lobby. It sounds rather sexist, doesn’t it? The women who oppose or question this ‘inclusive’ ideology, which is in fact intrusive to women’s rights and opportunities, are abused and threatened with violence. They are ‘cancelled’ and excluded from a conversation that entirely effects them, their lifestyles and their rights. Take the author J. K. Rowling, or Labour politician Rosie Duffield: they are examples, victims even, of this very situation; there is little that is ‘inclusive’ about this.
What this malicious political lobby is pushing for is in fact not ‘inclusivity’, for it does not allow for inclusivity of opinion. It has taken advantage of a marginalised group under the guise of striving for better representation for women – and of course, ‘inclusivity’ – for the sake of excluding the people and opinions that do not support this fanatical group of zealots. In spite of this image of being the politics of shiny, happy people, the truth is frighteningly the opposite.
Take the same group’s utilisation of race as another clear example. The Left took advantage of the death of George Floyd in America, which led to the rise in support of the extremist Black Lives Matter movement almost eighteen months ago. An opportunity was presented to use what was an innocent campaign message protested by innocent people for the cause of racial equality originally, but which then turned out to be smoke and mirrors for an anarchic ‘abolitionist’ ideology.
Those who raised concern over the legitimacy of the message ‘black lives matter’ were and are hounded as racists and bigots – and divisively, ‘white supremacists’ – thus were and are excluded from the race conversation. It is as though those who question the legitimacy of this cause are treated as lepers.
The whole movement was disingenuous. What was absolutely maddening was that there were instances where white Black Lives Matter protesters were screaming abuse, and even racist abuse, at black people who did not support this ‘movement’. Even now, black people, and ethnic minorities more generally, who oppose the left-wing race narrative are racially abused for being non-conformist to the expectations of this duplicitous agenda, from conservative commentator Calvin Robinson, to Home Secretary Priti Patel or Under-Secretary for Equalities Kemi Badenoch – along with members of the public. This has never been about combatting ‘racism’ or striving for ‘inclusivity’; it is about political gain.
The idea of inclusivity being forced upon our society by the Leftist lobby, our educational institutes, our politicians and a large section of the British media is not what inclusivity should be about. It does not support inclusivity with regard to thought and opinion and civil political discourse, but a pseudo-inclusivity that perpetuates the identity war and exclusion of the people who are were unafraid to challenge the dangerous, despotic left-wing lobby that has taken advantage of marginalised groups, or groups of people who perceive themselves to be marginalised, with a view to political advantage.
This is the exclusivity in ‘inclusivity’.