Universal love is by default more inclusive than love by inclusivity. Such that this progressive movement of “inclusivity” is a huge backward step compared to universal love.
Universal love doesn’t care about attributes or classification. Thus it is not hindered by misperception or bias or ignorance. Nothing and nobody is omitted or excluded.
In contrast, inclusive love very much cares about classifying (people, things). It can only include things or people that they know about or care about. Thus ironically it will not include things they could care less about or have no information about. So when new information or things later come into view or concern, it has to include that piecemeal, and still erroneously omit things and people.
For example, gender pronouns in English. Old/Middle English used to use ‘they’ to indicate a gender-neutral third person singular form. So if you don’t know the person’s gender or amount, you would say “they” did something. This was universal pronoun.
Then, feminist movement thought this was inappropriate and humiliating. Thus prominent style guides of authority, such as Chicago Manual of Style, thought they would be progressive and on the “right side of history” to replace “they” into “he or she”. Because that sounded more inclusive.
But remember I said “inclusivity” is reactive to new information? Well by late 20th century and early 21st century, other gender movements starting gaining notice and traction. Such that some people didn’t identify as either male or female. Thus they rejected the gender-laden pronouns like “he” and “she”. That means the change to “he and she” was totally and utterly pointless. So now Chicago Manual of Style has retracted and retarded back to using “they”, which they deign is now more inclusive and progressive for 21st century.
What a waste of naive, infantile tantrum by this movement of inclusivity. When all they had to do was maintain universal love and stuck with a universal pronoun. Wise people had already recognized centuries ago that universal love and acknowledgement was the way to go. The so-called right side of history (which is another stupid term to pander to naive masses) went a huge detour to do things differently, and now returns to what people had been doing for centuries. Wisdom is timeless; just because you call yourself “progressive” doesn’t make you wiser than ancient sages. Nor does doing vapid, thoughtless virtual signaling put you on the right side of history.