Inclusion vs Exclusion?

[Retro Rob]

Just wondering and gauging opinion here -- I often here many, MANY people stating the Government needs to be as "inclusionary as possible" and that got me to thinking: you can't be inclusionary without being exclusionary, so how can we remotely be "inclusionary as possible" while being a huge melting pot at the same time?

The child transgender issue really got me to thinking, a sweeping bill is being passed in California. There is a small, tiny portion of this country that identify with the opposite gender, and they want every law in every state basically catered to their "needs", shall I say, that effects nearly all of America. So how can we be inclusionary, while basically dismissing the concerns (valid in many cases -- this isn't like the SSM issue) of the majority of Americans?

Ok -- say for instance we make every bathroom sexless. How many transgender people are actually going to use them? Based on the percentages, there won't be many at all across America, as a whole. So basically, it seems as if we'll be dismissing the concerns of nearly every American to make changes where they generally aren't needed, and opening women in particular, to uncomfortable situations...potentially.

I'm just saying, everything comes at a cost... we can't be totally inclusionary without being exclusionary by default because of the sheer diversity in this country.

Should the desires of the many be over-ruled by the desires of the few, in this example?

 

[alzan]

We have always attempted to respect and incorporate the needs of the minority with the least possible effect on the majority. Bolstered by various USSC rulings, as well as a sense of fair play, we've shown a moderate success rate.

Of course in a country this large and diverse you're not going to please all people all the time. Nor will you be able to avoid excluding some small percentage of people with inclusionary laws/regulations/etc.

As far as this specific example: if transgender folk in California want bathrooms to be sexless, (and I'm assuming that would include language that absolve them of any "crime" committed for using an opposite sex bathroom), they'll have to find a like-minded legislator willing to put forth a bill to accomplish that. I don't know the specifics of the bill in California but it can only affect CA at this point, not any other state.

 

[Patranus]

The biggest PC flaw here is "inclusion" is being defined as the progressives as including people with mental disorders.

Being "inclusive" to those with mental disorders servers nothing but to harm society and promote these mental disorders as being acceptable instead of what they are, disorders.

 

[alzan]

The biggest PC flaw here is "inclusion" is being defined as the progressives as including people with mental disorders.

Being "inclusive" to those with mental disorders servers nothing but to harm society and promote these mental disorders as being acceptable instead of what they are, disorders.

Well we (AT) include you even though it brings harm to the AT community. As to how you further harm society I can only guess.

Fortunately it's not up to you to decide who or what is a mental disorder. I see no harm from allowing people to pursue legislative relief to an issue. The OP did not link the "sweeping" bill in CA and only commented that it had passed. At this point all we have is an unsubstantiated rumor.

 

[Jaskalas]

So per the example, our sensibilities for gender specific bathrooms will be excluded in order to include a minor abnormality.

I think progressives will come back and simply say you're afraid of change. That they have no reason to respect or regard the established practice nor consider people's sence of normalcy. In fact, progressives are likely offended that your sense of normalcy isn't inclusionary to begin with.

So to them, you holding an old, backwards, and bigoted view doesn't count for anything. I think they'll be proud to exclude "bigotry".

 

[DominionSeraph]

The biggest PC flaw here is "inclusion" is being defined as the progressives as including people with mental disorders.

Being "inclusive" to those with mental disorders servers nothing but to harm society and promote these mental disorders as being acceptable instead of what they are, disorders.

Conservatism is a mental disorder. It can be helped:

Yet somehow I think that you believe conservatives should be the ones defining who should be excluded.

 

[piasabird]

Freedom means you are free to be you. Not some other guy down the street. The government function is to protect freedom, not communism.

You are free to succeed and you are free to fail. If you are too lazy to succeed then too bad. Maybe you should try something else.

 

[sao123]

Just wondering and gauging opinion here -- I often here many, MANY people stating the Government needs to be as "inclusionary as possible" and that got me to thinking: you can't be inclusionary without being exclusionary, so how can we remotely be "inclusionary as possible" while being a huge melting pot at the same time?

The child transgender issue really got me to thinking, a sweeping bill is being passed in California. There is a small, tiny portion of this country that identify with the opposite gender, and they want every law in every state basically catered to their "needs", shall I say, that effects nearly all of America. So how can we be inclusionary, while basically dismissing the concerns (valid in many cases -- this isn't like the SSM issue) of the majority of Americans?

Ok -- say for instance we make every bathroom sexless. How many transgender people are actually going to use them? Based on the percentages, there won't be many at all across America, as a whole. So basically, it seems as if we'll be dismissing the concerns of nearly every American to make changes where they generally aren't needed, and opening women in particular, to uncomfortable situations...potentially.

I'm just saying, everything comes at a cost... we can't be totally inclusionary without being exclusionary by default because of the sheer diversity in this country.

Should the desires of the many be over-ruled by the desires of the few, in this example?

The goal of being the all inclusive melting pot - is flawed fundamentally. Individual groups of limited diversity should be governed seperately. It makes governing more efficient, less complex, and less intrusive. Segregation, provided it is not racially based, nor discriminatory, is beneficial.

 

[zsdersw]

Inclusion and exclusion are manifestations of two of the basic human social needs: the need to feel like part of a group and the need to be our own persons; to be unique. There is no perfect way to harmonize between the two, there's only ways that are better than others. There probably isn't meant to be harmony between them, because they are two of the big motivators of change and growth; two things without which our species would come to an end.

 

[piasabird]

There is something about government and schools that require people to be homogeneous. No talking. Walk in a straight line. Do not question Authority. Do not ask any questions. Conformity for conformity's sake is just so life sapping. Life happens when we express ourselves in a way that we stand out from everyone else. However, life is not drugs or alcohol. Those only can bring pain and misery.

What conformity does is it teaches us to be unsuccessful. Quit giving everyone a trophy for participation. The entire American Public School system dumbs people down and prohibits individuality because teachers teach innovation out of us. Everyone must learn to meet the minimum standards and no higher or lower.

Child transgender issues is just throwing your brains out with the dishwater. There is a need for some boundaries that cant be crossed. Dont expect society to accept every crazy idea you come up with. Sure you are free to wear diapers and swing from trees but dont expect society to just accept all your eccentricies. What you do in the privacy of your home for fun is fine but society is free not to accept you. Freedom works both ways.

 

[zinfamous]

I honestly don't see the huge concern with this. My initial thought when a transgendered individual walks into the restroom--assuming I somehow recognize them as such--is not that they are going there just for a peep at my junk. No reason to think the desire for that is any different than any other random bathroom attendee. Or maybe I am not understanding the concern? what sensititives are people afraid of, here? Is it Jesus-related?

Hell, if they feel privileged to enjoy the opportunity to smell my stinky shit as opposed to what they will find in the ladies bathroom, then who am I to say that my shit, indeed, does not stink so bad?

:hmm: