If it were that, then it would be. It isn't.
Explain your reasoning here. We have groups that exclude a set of people from participation on the basis of their skin color alone, and you seem to be perfectly fine with that... while simultaneously arguing that it doesn't exist?
For example:
British Columbia school separates indigenous children from others, and provides pizza to the indigenous kids while denying it to other kids, and also refuses to allow parents to pay for an all inclusive pizza party to smooth over the hurt feelings of the excluded kids.
Brent Kennedy Elementary School in Crescent Valley, BC had a "Celebration of the Indigenous" pizza party February 21, where only indigenous children were allowed to participate.
www.westernstandard.news
That's because that's not the argument I'm making. The argument I'm making is that inclusion is justifiable. You know, making sure that everybody gets a chance at the pie. Racists think that this means that white people get shorted by black people being included.
Not really though, not since the early 70s in the US for the most part. What we're seeing right now, however, is white people being excluded, which really isn't inclusion now is it?
Sexists think that this means that men get shorted by women being included.
Again, pretty much since the late 70s to early 80s, this really isn't happening.
Transphobes think that this means that cis women get shorted by trans women being included.
Let's be clear here, almost all of us have no objection to transgender identified people being included in employment, housing, etc. No objection at all. On the other hand... most people object to males being included in single-sex spaces and services where sex actually matters. If someone sets up a "women's book club" I don't think anyone outside of a few loonies are going to have a problem with a transgender identified male joining, most wouldn't object to males joining regardless of how they identify. But that's something entirely different from giving males the right to use female single-sex showers over the objection of females, or be housed in female single-sex jails, or compete in female athletics. And that isn't because they identify as transgender, it's because they are male, and these are situations where sex makes a difference. Including males in these specific types of situations actually DOES end up displacing, disadvantaging, and increasing risk for females.
If you really think discrimination is bad, then you should be full-throated in supporting DEIA programs. Instead, you fixate on those cases where DEIA was used by bad-faith actors as a hammer and use those to justify all of the attempts to discriminate that genuine DEIA programs are fighting. Because that is what the Yearslong Campaign has brainwashed you to do.
I already support, and will continue to wholeheartedly support, ignoring surface-level differences that aren't material and focusing on content of character, skills, and merit across the board.
But I'm getting very tired of this bait and switch that you keep doing. Look, I get what DEI is *supposed to be*, what it has been *described as*. But you've been provided a substantial amount of information about the US that demonstrates that what is has been *implemented as* is NOT what you keep talking about. In the US, in a huge number of situations over the past decade, it has NOT been the ideal that you value. It has been actually put in place in ways that ARE discriminatory.
Why do you keep ignoring the many cases where actual racial discrimination and exclusion are occurring?
www.nbcsandiego.com
apnews.com
www.dictionary.com
