If Diversity, as it suggests, includes everything then it does not and cannot discriminate. It cannot define what is not diverse.
But if everything is diverse then how can Diversity be implemented as an Ideal? There could be no reason to implement Diversity because the current system based on the current Ideal would already be considered Diverse.
Let me think.
For Diversity to have any meaning at all it must inherently define and acknowledge that which is not, in fact, diverse.
But…I sense a self-defeating problem here.
If Diversity acknowledges things not diverse, then it cannot be all inclusive. And Diversity not all inclusive is Diversity which discriminates. Which means it’s not really diverse. Someone or something doesn’t belong to the Diversity crowd. There is a difference it won’t accept.
Which means that Diversity can only really be “Diverse”…that is, conditionally, or subjectively, diverse. But Diversity as a sociopolitical IDEAL does imply Absolute Diversity, because ALL Ideals are necessarily monolithic–they intend to define, describe, and organize reality. But monolithic diversity, or Absolute Diversity, is a contradiction in terms.
In other words, Diversity as an ideal, sociopolitically speaking (or otherwise), demands the contradiction and nullification of itself: it must be absolute AND it must discriminate.
All of this is the reason why Diversity is little more than a deceptive euphemism for your run-of-the-mill bigotry; a rank assertion of non-white, non-western, non-cisgendered existential superiority. Which is why it’s so inherently and obviously oppressive in its application, despite the good intentions of some of its proponents.