A quick note on the nature of identity, and why the pathological “inclusiveness” of the left destroys them all:
An identity’s meaning derives from being exclusive. If everyone is a “woman” it means the “woman” category, from which the woman identity derives, becomes meaningless. Or at least, it doesn’t mean what it did, since the notion becomes interchangeable with “human”, which would otherwise have been the only universally inclusive category for humans.
This is problematic because there is something about reality that the category “woman” was there to describe that wasn’t adequately captured by “human”. It is the same with ethnic identities. If everyone is potentially “Swedish” than all that it means to be “Swedish” is to be human. But isn’t there a discrete history and phenotype that distinguishes Swedes as relevantly distinct from other categories that fall within “human”. What about Northern Europeans versus Mediterranean populations? At the very broadest, is there not something about those humans whose phenotype was shared by a separate development in Europe, that distinguishes them historically from those whose phenotype was shaped by discrete evolutions in Asia or sub-Saharan Africa? Is there not some meaning implicit to calling a Han Chinese person “Asian”, that is not captured by including an Igbo in the same category? The answer is obviously yes, and our inability to openly discuss the meaningful content behind categories like Man and Woman, or Swede and Somali, derives from our contemporary obsession with the notion of “inclusion”.
What is ironic is that “inclusion” could only be a moral imperative while there are categories to be included in. What is the point of morally requiring an African Igbo to be a European Swede, or a Man to be a Woman, if there were not some meaningful content implicit to the category “Woman” or “European Swede” that you did not want to equally share? Why would it be morally desirable to include anyone in a category that doesn’t mean anything? The irony here is that all the categories I have described only derive meaning by being exclusive. If they become universal and potentially describe every human, what is the point of wanting to be included in them in the first place? Demanding “inclusiveness” is a self-defeating. As one category loses meaning, the left will hunt for another for everyone to be “included” into, and another and another, until non exist at all. Indeed, if they are forced to include every human, they cease to be categories other than the “human” category, and could only drift out of parlance as meaningless vestiges of an age when they had meaning.
There are two problems this causes. First, because “Swede” and “European” are fragile categories, the content of their meaning could literally be permanently expunged by allowing every human to share in these categories. Would the world not be poorer for what used to distinguish a “Swede” or a European from the universal “Human” category being removed? Would it not be “unfair” if this only happened to Europeans, while other categories “Black African” or “East Asian” remained?
The second problem is that, with other categories, the semantic content encapsulated by them remain objectively true whether the category terminology once used to describe them ceases to exist or not. In other words, there will always be something meaningful about the category “Woman”, that is not captured by the category “Human” or the category “Man” regardless of whether the former and the latter categories get universalized into oblivion. This creates creates a deficiency within human communication, since it will become harder to describe why a certain group of people have certain common experiences on average, whereas another may not. Differences will remain, but it will become impossible to discuss them meaningfully, or to find solutions that my help one group while hindering another. This is why a woman or a Swede is perfectly justified in objecting to those trying to force them to have a category that is more “inclusive”. Such impositions dilute the meaning of such categories, which also act as useful identities for those people within them, and thus should be seen by a sane society as objectionable.
It is interesting to note that the inherent harm of legally enforced category destruction (and thus identity destruction) goes without saying in most of the world, but needs to be spelled out in the modern West. The South African state would never force the Zulus to make their identity more inclusive than it has to be. The absurdity of believing that the category and identity “Zulu” is equally meaningful in describing those whose ancestors are Swedish or Japanese, as it is for those whose black Africans whose ancestors created, or were subsumed into, the category, is obvious to Zulus. It is as obvious to the Chinese, or Japanese that there is an important definitional aspect of the ethnically “Chinese” or “Japanese” categories, including shared histories, phenotypes (as common history manifest) etc., that gives these identities their meaning, which necessarily excludes Swedes or Germans. This unspoken belief is evident in how absurd most Asians consider the Western notion that one could simply become “Chinese”, or “Japanese” in every, or in some cases any, meaningful sense. You would have to build a time machine and change history itself for a Russian to become “Japanese” in terms of phenotype, shared history, and the culture that derives from both.