Exclusionary Isn't a Dirty Word, an essay

Exclusionary Isn't a Dirty Word, an essay

The word "inclusive" is all the rage these past few years. Followers of trends have clamored over each other in a frenzy to establish themselves as the most inclusive, fostering the greatest inclusion, being the queen bee of inclusivity adored by their people and opposed by evil at every turn. At face value, it sounds good. After all, isn't it nice to be nice? And all those Instagram "likes" and social attention feel rewarding, too. So when it's viewed superficially, it just sounds like being the sainted angel on the playground who includes every marginalized kid into their playgroup. And if inclusion is the highest good, than exclusion must be the greatest of evils.


I've learned that there's a significant amount of people who aren't as interested in being quietly good than they are being SEEN and perceived by others to be good. It's become more obvious as the "Be Inclusive Above All Else" fad has picked up steam. "If I was inclusive but no one saw it, did it actually happen?" So they go out of their way to create this persona of the perpetually morally-outraged sweetheart who is just overfilled with so much compassion and empathy that they are compelled to go full Hulk on everyone and anyone who doesn't want to practice inclusion for whatever reason. "Punch terfs" because the Inclusive One is so filled with righteous indignation they must get angry, get loud, get forceful and authoritarian. They would be loving and peaceful, if only the wicked TERF's would sit down and shut up. They wouldn't have to shut down your events if you would stop having them. Calling someone "exclusive" gives the Inclusive One card blanche on being vindictive, cruel, and angry to you, because you have already been labeled as far worse than they could ever be: EXCLUSIVE. Anything they do to you is a lesser sin than your TERF status. Therefore, they are justified in bullying you while claiming victimhood for themselves. They are simply the oppressed standing up to the oppressor of mankind.


There's no reason that is reason enough to exclude anyone, is the basic Inclusion trendy's creed. "You aren't lesbian, you're queer" they say. "You aren't a female, you just identify with the gender they assigned you at birth". "You can't celebrate your uterus or biology because that doesn't make you a woman, ANYONE who can be a woman if they identify as one". "Women don't menstruate, that excludes transwomen; the correct word is that you're a uterus-having menstruator". "Women don't have babies, birthing persons do".


It reminds me of the debate among parents a few years ago about whether or not they should force their children to share. At the time, most parents agreed that it wasn't useful to make their child share because it taught them that having boundaries wasn't ok. Because if a kid learns early on that they cannot have anything to themselves and always have to surrender it to whoever demands it, they will become adults who can't say no to anyone. And saying NO isn't bad, it's actually healthy for individuals to have boundaries.


Same goes with inclusion. People who go around demanding access to spaces that aren't theirs aren't heroes. Neither are they "stunning and brave". They're bullies. And people who tell them "no" aren't bad or morally-bankrupt for having boundaries. If I start a baking club and a hockey player wants to join and make the club center and cater to hockey while progressively pushing out everything bakery-related, am I bigot when I say "no, this club is for people who bake, it's not about hockey, there are hockey clubs you can join"? Of course not. No, a mixing spoon isn't a hockey stick and I won't call it one. No, baking and hockey are not the same. What if it really hurts the hockey player's feelings? What if he goes home and cries about it for weeks? What if he threatens to kill himself? What if he goes to town hall meetings and demands my baking club be shut down and shunned as a hate group because it wouldn't cater to him? Whose in the right in that situation?


There are over 7 billion people on this planet who have their own interests, hobbies, needs, experiences, etc. We don't need to melt everyone into a single homogenous blob where there's no diversity. A healthy hypochondriac wanting to join a cancer support group isn't valid, they're a jackass. A regular Joe demanding access to Masonic initiations is an entitled jerk, not a warrior for goodness. Fighting your way into a Navajo society when you aren't Navajo isn't a victory for society, it's a dissolving of people's boundaries and disregard for their unique experiences. Trying to join Dianic witchcraft as a male isn't progressive, it's typical male bullshit.


Same goes for women. Women have a unique biology and lived experience. Did you know that when it comes to genetics alone, we have over 6500+ genetic differences from males? That makes women and men as different as humans are from chimpanzees. We have our own dreams, hardships, and concerns. It is HEALTHY for us to be exclusionary because that exclusiveness is what gives us the ability and space to grow our potential and have a sanctuary of our own. We have different spaces for women because we ARE different. Exclusionary means recognizing difference. There's no sin in acknowledging the reality that a male is not a female. In healthy society, this difference is celebrated and women are respected for who they are independent of men.


If a male can say he's a female and be treated as female, then everything a female is becomes null and void because womanhood is defined by who composes it. If womanhood is made of males and females with no set characteristics, then how do we advocate for women? We can't, because everything we are "allowed" to advocate for must be filtered through the male of the group. No more celebrating the qualities of the woman because the male does not have those qualities. "Women's rights" becomes fighting for men to be called women and punishing women who won't go along as "terfs". Exclusion, the greatest crime of all=women having boundaries, women stating that males don't belong in their group. A human with XY chromosomes who gets an erection when he puts on a wig and women's clothes and masturbates to the idea of inhabiting your body is a woman just as much as you are, the inclusive trendy believes. The biological function of sperm production is just as womanly as pregnancy, the TRA believes. "Woman" means nothing except "I feel better when I call myself one".


I'm proud to be exclusive. I have healthy boundaries and I know who I am. I am a woman, an adult human female. This was determined the moment I was conceived by my father's XX-carrying sperm cell fertilizing my mother's egg during the ovulation window. I quite literally have only ever been female, will always be female. My remains after death will be female. I am a woman because woman is a biological, exclusive class. When people say I am "trans-exclusive", what they actually mean is that I am male-exclusive. I do not accept males in women's spaces. It has nothing to do with them, it's not a Mean Girls move, it's quite simply "This is a woman's space and you are a man, so you aren't allowed here. Go find a a group that aligns with your experience, don't try to force yourself into mine. We are different."


I am exclusive.