When talking about inclusivity — including accessibility — this insidious argument is often used: exceptions or accommodations will be made if necessary.

It may seem a logical or even fair statement, but it hides an element of injustice: it adds a new requirement for certain people to fulfil.

Using a historical example, it’s often argued that homosexuality was removed from the APA list of mental illnesses for political reasons and not for scientific reasons.

This is true.

What this argument hides is the fact that homosexuality was included in the list with no scientific reason to begin with. Someone considered it was against social norms and decided to include it. That’s political.

When people argue about the need for a scientific reason, what they say is that to stop homosexuality from being considered a mental illness, the requirements are different and superior than to start doing it. It also relies on people not knowing how the list of mental illnesses was created in the first place.

So, suppose a workplace demands justification for certain accommodations. Unless they offer a justification for why these accommodations are not offered by default in the first place, they are expressing that they will only offer those if they consider them necessary. They are the absolute and final judge of whether they are reasonable or inclusive.

Which is convenient. But not logical or fair.