The nature of exclusion

What about intersection of 3 parameters? 5? 10? What about people who don’t conform to any, like “other race” or “one of a kind”?

Inclusivity is not “include X, and X&Y, and X&Y&Z”. It’s “include, period”. For businesses, it’s like there is an area of “regular operations” and there is an area of “diversity”. They are fine with allocating resources to the diversity department for handling X and Y. Now, they are required to allocate more resources to handle X&Y, Z, A&B&C, and anything in between, making it really convoluted. With M&N still not included and creating a rift. It’s understandably frustrating. But it’s a misjudgement in separating the areas, it should be THE operations.

First of all, it’s important to understand the nature of (social) exclusion (it boils down to social behavior, as we’re not robots yet). I like this project http://www.understandingprejudice.org/segregation/, it explains it very hands-on. I encourage to go through both games. Exclusion is not an action, but an omission and stems from favouritism towards “people like us”. “Excluding X from a groups of As” is not just “ignoring X” but “always picking As”, after which “forgetting about X” comes naturally. Inclusion is anti-favouritism, whether it’s “stop favouritism towards men to include women” or “stop favouritism towards white women to include black women”. Stop favouritism, period. It’s like in the second game, every member is encouraged to bring in somebody different from them.