Fairness or Inclusion?

There is background to this question which I am fairly sure that we all agree on (no prizes for guessing) but, in your day to day lives which is more important?

  • Fairness
  • Inclusion

0 voters

tobad there isn’t a both vote on there

That’s deliberate.

1 Like

I don’t quite get the terms – isn’t inclusion itself a form of fairness, as in, being fair to everyone?


If you’re not being inclusive you’re not being fair. If you’re not being fair you’re not being inclusive.


But, again, that just means that “fairness” requires “inclusion” – so I don’t get it how we should vote for one or the other.
I guess I’m missing that background to that question mentioned in the opening post.

1 Like

Possibly a certain recent decision made on women’s sports? That was my immediate thought, anyway.


The problem with this is that they’re mutually exclusive in many instances such as sports.

don’t forget disabled people. We have to fight to be included in everything from sports to society. Did you know in the late 1980s… Judith Hurrman and a bunch of other disabled people went to Capitol of US and (Walked, climbed, and crawled) up the same steps that riots stampeded on Jan 6, 2021 to get the ADA pass?

I interpreted it more in terms of job applications.

If you’re hiring somebody only because they’re in a minority, but other people are better qualified, that is inclusive but not fair.

If you hire the person with the best qualifications but not any of the less qualified people in minorities, that is fair bit not inclusive.

If the qualifications are the same, then hiring the minority person is both fair and inclusive and refusing to hire them is neither.


Like how some people are born with longer legs than others. That’s not fair to people with shorter legs.


@KiannaMcDowell got it right with the FINA decision. The same decision is also being made for the International Rugby League and has been endorsed by Nadine Dorries, Minister for the Department of Culture, Media and Sport, in the UK.

She has announced that the DCMS will be following a policy of Fairness being more important than Inclusion, and will be holding a round table of the various sporting bodies in the UK.

1 Like

There’s no evidence that transgender athletes have an unfair advantage over cisgender athletes. Athletics at the elite level of worldwide competition is already at a level most people cannot reach and there being one or two trans women at that level is not evidence that they got there unfairly. It’s a decision being made by bigots to enforce their bigotry while hiding behind a shield of fairness and leaning on science that doesn’t exist. I can’t answer the question in the OP because it depends on the situation, but the situation you’re asking about is about bigotry.




I agree that it’s pure bigotry and, quite simply, wanted to see peoples’ thoughts before the situation became apparent.

Agreed. This concerns me, not just because of the bigotry that trans people are facing, but also because there’s another issue that I am worried about that falls under the DCMS umbrella. If discrimination like this us becoming official government policy I am very worried about this bigotry and further erosion of civil rights being rolled out across Western nations wholesale. After the pandemic I fear that we have just shown governments just how compliant we all are.


I didn’t vote because I have two problems with the question itself.

  1. “Fairness” can be twisted to mean whatever you want. You can argue that any possible difference is unfair. Like let’s say Athlete A has long legs and short arms while Athlete B has long arms and short legs. Suppose they are competing in tennis, where both arms and legs are used. If Athlete A wins and you support Athlete B, you can say it’s unfair to make B compete against A because A has an advantage with leg size. Similarly, if B wins, you can say it’s unfair to make them compete because of arm size. Or, if A has more experience than B, you can say it’s unfair because of that. If B had more time to warm up before the match than A did, then that is unfair to A. We know that fairness is a good thing, but it’s vague and different people can decide that different things are fair. Inclusivity, on the other hand, is a very defined term. They’re different, so that’s why I’m saying the question is unfair. :stuck_out_tongue:

  2. I consider it a false dichotomy. I don’t consider it fair (or equitable) if you aren’t giving people equal access to something. If you’re not being inclusive, then people aren’t getting equal access. Let’s say you have two kids who are qualified to get a cookie and you give both of them a cookie, then that is fair. But if the cookies contain eggs and one of them is allergic to eggs, then giving one of them poison is unfair. So you could only give the non-allergic kid a cookie, but that is also unfair because the other kid is also qualified. The only thing that would be fair in that situation is inclusivity: making sure you get cookies that won’t poison either kid.

Another example: let’s take the job application example from above. If you’re picking the most qualified individual from a list of candidates, that is fair. If you’re picking someone because of a non-qualifying attribute, like race or gender, that is not fair. But suppose the qualifications you’re looking for include college education and people of some races or genders are not allowed to go to college. Is it fair to exclude people who are less qualified but don’t have access to those qualifications? If the society around you is not inclusive, then that leads to a situation where there is no option that allows for complete fairness. In that case, and assuming the job isn’t critical (like practicing medicine or replacing the head of the company), it may be more fair to give someone with less qualifications a chance to gain experience in the field. After all, the college-educated candidates have better opportunities than the ones who don’t have access to college, so they’ll have an easier time getting a job.


Until every business starts thinking that and suddenly it’s the qualified candidates that can’t find jobs /j

In all seriousness, I agree with you. I think it’s also important to point out that people perceive minorities/marginalized groups to have less qualifications/appeal even when they have the same literal qualifications, so in many cases by hiring the marginalized person you are cancelling out your own unconscious stigma/bias. It has also been shown that more diverse working groups are more productive and creative, which is often not taken into account when making hiring decisions, but might mean that the supposedly less experienced candidate might actually be the better choice for the job.

1 Like

I think i read in one of two books about biases/racism- one of the books said that if a white man has a babyface they wouldn’t hire him vs if a Black/Caribbean/Middle Eastern had a clean-shaven babyface they would hire him vice versa if the men had beards.

This topic was automatically closed 30 days after the last reply. New replies are no longer allowed.