One of the most pervasive mantras of the woke-ocracy is ‘inclusive’ or ‘inclusivity.’ It’s a word co-opted from the standard lexicon of common English language usage and then charged with meanings specific to any individual or group claiming grievance and demanding ‘acceptance,’ forced if necessary. It is hyper-politically weighted. It’s a rhetorical bludgeon of the progressive identity-politics left. I say, it’s time to shut down its use and replace it with another banner, one declaring normalcy.
When a conservative is attacked for lack of inclusivity, the innocent conservative is sincere and is prone to take language at face value. They view a word like inclusive according to its generic roots. If they’re attacked with an indictment of not-inclusive, exclusive, or by further implied character flaws such as bigoted or hater, they promptly fold. Their principles may not accept the premise being presented to them, such as: ‘of course a transgender man must compete against my daughter at the high school swim meet’, but the binary choice of include vrs do not include, cannot be evaded. That’s because the aggressor has framed the choice and chosen the language necessary to assure only one option.
I believe it’s time to reframe the choice: there must be normality, normal, or norms. Against that standard, the boy passing themself off as a faux female is abnormal, is engaging in abnormality, and is petulantly trying to subjugate others to the unfair physiological advantages carried within the body of a chromosomal male masquerading as a female. They are not adhering to societal and biological norms. They are leveraging medical technology to their preferences in the same way as any athlete taking anabolic steroids.
Who exactly are the arbiters of civil morals? Who christened the progressive identity-political left as gatekeepers and judges? Who decided that their iteration of inclusive held more weight than being normal? The ultimate trajectory of inclusiveness is that there are no absolute limits on any behavior, immoral choice, or aberrations that must be rejected by any cohort of peers or neighbors. In contrast, civil norms are the basis for all law protecting the common interests of the broadest group of people. There’s a reason why you can’t paint your three quarter-million $ two story colonial home on a nice street, pink or rainbow. There are reasons why the athletic aspirations of millions of girls should not be undermined by the perversion of a few mentally ill males. There’s a reason why we don’t countenance child porn or pedophiles.
While Americans might flirt with a fad of identity dysphoria, a great many other nations would rightfully expect any of us traveling to their borders to correct that twisted fantasy. A county board of education and media handlers here may be too deranged to admit a sexual assault here by a trans male, but almost the entire rest of the world would not be so ‘understanding’ if the same thing happened in their school bathrooms.
I propose that we forcefully insist on normalcy as a retort to inclusivity. Be normal according to timeless civic values. All people have foibles and preferences that make them unique. Most people have the wisdom, common sense, and propriety to keep them private and not impinge on their peers and neighbors. I reject the therapeutic culture that claims that some people lack the emotional stamina to accept themselves unless the thousands around them alter their values to support the proclivities of the few. At some point, Darwinian reality will prevail, sooner or later. True compassion would be to prepare the perverse weak for that day.