Imprecision does not inclusivity make. In fact, it makes absolutely no sense to say “people” when you exclusively mean “men” or “women”, “partners” when you mean “spouses”, “spouses” when you mean “husbands” or “wives”, or “LGBT” when you mean “cis white gay men.” This nonsense is becoming more and more common as inclusivity becomes a more and more common goal, but inclusive-seeming language can serve as a shield to the lack of truly inclusive and intersectional concerns.

What might you expect from an article called “What Happens When Rich People Marry Poor People“? I would certainly expect a focus on heterosexuality, as is the case in most articles about marriage-without-the-modifier, since, in the common parlance, same-sex couples get same-sex or “gay” married while heteros simply get married. True to the heterocentrism that so pervades society, the piece focuses on male-female married pairings despite the magnanimous use of “people” in the title. Confusingly enough, the word “partner” is used to refer to the two people in the relationship instead of the far more accurate “spouse.” Further belying its title’s attempt at inclusivity is the piece’s exclusive focus on rich man-poor woman marriages.

A more accurate title for the article would have been “What Happens When Rich Men Marry Poor Women,” but instead, the title has an inclusive sound that rings hollow when the actual content is taken into consideration. Saying “people” but only allowing for the voices and experiences of rich man-poor woman marriages to be heard not only is disingenuous, it is erasure.

The erasure becomes more egregious when placed into historical context. The notion of women “marrying up” is an age-old one, worthy of several tropes around it and the source of much of straight male resentment against women (so-called “hypergamy”, anyone?). Not referencing the phenomenon in a title for a piece that actually is all about it ensures a rather favorable decontextualization. I’d imagine that seeming to be about anything other than the usual “rich men marry poorer women, news at 11” probably works out in favor of the people behind the piece. This is true whether they realize it or not, and most likely the latter, since the problem isn’t deliberate malice but the lack of deliberation that often underlies these sorts of flubs.

I’m reminded of when Joan Rivers passed away. News outlets and fans referred to her as “one of Hollywood’s most vocal supporters of LGBT equality” (emphasis mine) despite the blatantly transantagonistic remarks that she had made just two months prior to her demise. Joan Rivers is hardly the only example of a so-called “LGBT” advocate despite apathy-at-best and outright-hostility-at-worst to trans people. The HRC, widely recognized and considered to be the LGBT rights organization up to and including on the government level, has done so poorly on trans issues that its president felt compelled to apologize for it last year. This isn’t even considering the bi erasure and hostility that characterizes many “LGBT” orgs and groups.

Inclusivity that is more attempt than actual is not only unhelpful, it hinders real inclusivity. To return to the article, unless you’re reading closely and with an eye for such things, you’d conclude that there has been research on people in marriages that go either way when that is clearly not the case. As for Joan Rivers, the HRC, and other “LGBT” advocates that only or primarily focus on the rights of a single letter in that initialism, those outside of activism might conclude that trans activism is more powerful than it actually is.

Precision and specificity are important in all facets of life. Inclusivity — and activism as a whole — are not exempt.