I am trying to take you in good faith and I take your point, these things are fluid, but I actually think it is a great step on James' part to say, ok, I am not willing to be part of this panel unless representatives unlike me are also present (for lack of a better way of phrasing it). To return to the race example, even if someone has a "more ambiguous appearance" and "tires of having people assume that they have had a life experience as a POC"... like, I feel like someone with a more ambiguous appearance could have experienced racism, which might consciously or not have prevented them a slot to speak to an audience.
Basically I am not seeing how James' decision really has a downside, without him specifically asking each panelist how they identify, which I think you'd agree is the worse option all told. What steps would you prefer James to take?
no subject
I am trying to take you in good faith and I take your point, these things are fluid, but I actually think it is a great step on James' part to say, ok, I am not willing to be part of this panel unless representatives unlike me are also present (for lack of a better way of phrasing it). To return to the race example, even if someone has a "more ambiguous appearance" and "tires of having people assume that they have had a life experience as a POC"... like, I feel like someone with a more ambiguous appearance could have experienced racism, which might consciously or not have prevented them a slot to speak to an audience.
Basically I am not seeing how James' decision really has a downside, without him specifically asking each panelist how they identify, which I think you'd agree is the worse option all told. What steps would you prefer James to take?