a conversation with Natalie.

In June of 2023, Texas' Republican Governor, Greg Abbott, signed a bill to ban diversity, equity and inclusion offices and iniatives across higher education institutions in the state.

While, on the whole, more and more employers are eliminating the need for a Bachelor's degree, this does not appear to be the case for Tech. In a list of 15 most in-demand tech jobs for 2024, how many of them didn't need a bachelor's degree (at a minimum)? Zero.

Education - and ensuring it's accessibility - is vital. While the argument can be made (and probably has been!) that anyone who falls under the bracket of being a minority or under-represented group is not being discriminated against, those who make it are missing the point. Inherently, our global higher education system has been set up with white men in mind since it was initiated:

The first woman in the US attended college in 1837 - 200 years after Harvard was founded. In the UK, the first woman went to university in 1869 - this is 800 years after the first university in the UK was founded.

A 2022 report by McKinsey shows that progress in ensuring racial equality in higher education is incredibly slow; it would take about 70 years for all not-for-profit institutions to reflect under presented students fully in their incoming student population. And this was before the law was passed in Texas.

Positive discrimination, by definition, is "the practice or policy of favoring individuals belonging to groups regarded as disadvantaged or subject to discrimination".

The UK's Equality Act of 2010 includes the following as protected characteristics:

• Age
• Disability
• Gender reassignment
• Marriage and civil partnership
• Pregnancy and Maternity
• Race
• Religion or Belief
• Sex and Sexual Orientation

In 2016, Ida Tin coined the term "FemTech": what she meant by this was health technology targeting women. Because, for so long, "HealthTech" had seemed to rely on the idea of a man as the control. "FemTech" is now a broadly-used term for anything that involves fertility (even when it involves male infertility/fertility) and women's health.

Whether it is finance, health, or education: while every non-white-man is not (allegedly) "discriminated" against anymore, we are still playing catchup.

Across the spectrum of tech there are too many companies to count that have found their niche in working with, and for, those that are members of the protected groups listed above. Whether it's FinTechs aimed at Black communities, or "FemTechs" or companies such as FOLX Health , who work to ensure that the LGBTQIA+ community have access to vital care.

The fact that the higher education system has been set up with white men in mind acts as a microcosm for every part of our society. Whether it is finance, health, or education: while every non-white-and-straight man is (allegedly) no longer "discriminated" against anymore, we are still playing catchup.

I sat down with Natalie Coletta , Chief of Staff at FOLX, to discuss this month's theme: Inclusion Through Exclusion. Or, more simply, why there is a need for Tech companies to "exclude" the majority to ensure the minority are looked after.

what drew you to FOLX?

Natalie says that her attraction to FOLX was threefold; Mission, Team, and the Momentum.

Mission

"As someone who identifies as LGBTQIA+, I feel this is critically important work I can do to support my community -- particularly given the current U.S. political and regulatory environment. FOLX's mission to make quality, affordable, lifesaving care accessible for LGBTQIA+ people is something I'm so grateful to be part of."

Team

"The people at FOLX are wildly special. Our clinicians are the leading experts in LGBTQIA+ care. Our management has decades of experience using business as a force for good. The team collectively is authentically queer and reflects the members we serve. I'm humbled by the professional excellence and relentless advocacy my peers show every day."

Momentum

"FOLX is a newer organization and has already touched the lives of many thousands of people. It was really exciting to join an organization that is making waves at such a rapid clip."

do you think there is a difference between not including someone, and them being excluded?

The general perception here is, of course, that one is passive and one is active. As Natalie says, "there is a difference in intentionality", but the "end result can be equally damaging". When I worked in a US summer camp during university, one of the key pieces of advice we were given at the beginning was that "Perception is reality": it does not matter what your intentions are, it matters how your actions are received.

the foregoing of inclusion often results in exclusion.

Obviously, this was in regard to ensuring that seven year old kids didn't take offence to something, but the idea still carries over here. Often, the idea of "inclusion" - especially in a work environment - is, lets take everyone out for drinks. Which excludes those who do not drink.

In healthcare, Natalie says, "the average medical professional has ~5 hours of LGBTQIA+ specific training over the course of their education." It becomes a "tick box" that they are competent in providing LGBTQIA+ care, but they are not actually equipped to do so.

Whether it is treatment for a common cold, or gender affirming care, members of the LGBTQIA+ community are routinely denied access to the care they need.

"95% of FOLX members did not have an LGBTQIA+ competent provider before joining FOLX and 40% of members actively avoided medical care due to discrimination by providers."

"That," she says, "is the impact of not authentically including a group of people, even if they're not overtly excluded."

I also spoke to Juliette Richert, who works for The Artemis Fund . She said something that stuck with me: "The foregoing of inclusion often results in exclusion": it is not enough to simply not be exclusive. Inclusion is a choice, and it is one that we must actively participate in.

That said - as Natalie points out - there are some very real, very scary, repercussions of intentional exclusion. New bills are introduced (and sometimes passed) that make it "illegal or very, very difficult for LGBTQIA+ people to get the healthcare they need."

do you think it is necessary for some companies to exclude groups in order to solve one issue?

The core pillars of western society - economy, education, healthcare, justice, and culture - were all set up with straight, white men in mind. Not intentionally: at the time, this was the default. But, through refusing to acknowledge that this still impacts people today we are only exacerbating the problem.

Our institutions have been designed to benefit a specific group of people for centuries; that is preferential treatment

The banning of D,E&I groups in universities on the basis that it shows "preferential treatment" while existing in a world where white men earn bachelor's degrees in engineering at 11 times the rate of black women is laughable. And this, again, is with D,E&I initiatives encouraging these women to pursue these careers.

"Our institutions have been designed to benefit a specific group of people for centuries; that is preferential treatment," Natalie says. "Course correcting system disadvantages is not - it's an attempt to level the playing field."

Unintentional exclusion is often why there is a real need for companies such as FOLX to exist: the system does not believe it is broken, and therefore there is no reason for it to find a fix.

what is the biggest challenge of working for a company or in an industry that "excludes" some of the population to focus on others?

In asking this question, I imply that FOLX is explicitly ignoring straight, cisgender people. I do this as it is what I imagine was going through Greg Abbott's mind when he banned D,E&I groups for showing preferential treatment, not because it is what is true. FOLX do not actively exclude straight, cisgender people; they actively include members of the LGBTQIA+ community. Straight, cisgender people are not excluded from healthcare for being straight or cisgender: we do not need a company to advocate for us, because the system already does.

there is real value in better servicing our community.

Indeed, Natalie says that working for a company that advocates for those who are frequently excluded means that "the systems are apathetic toward your cause at best -- and often actively working against your cause at worst."

FOLX's mission is twofold: to advocate and educate that the LGBTQIA+ healthcare gap exists and is consequential; and that "there is real value (to society and financially) in better servicing our community".

what is the best piece of advice you have received in your career?

"Understand and invest in your superpowers. Too often there is an exclusive focus on improving weaknesses. Get the areas where you fall short up to par, then pour gas on the skills that make you able to do what others can't."

what advice would you give to someone who is looking to go down a similar career path to you (in particular, if they are looking to work for a company that champions those who are frequently excluded)?

"Do whatever you can to stay close to your consumer. Deeply understanding the people whose lives you're trying to improve will

1. Help you build better solutions
2. Ground you in what matters
3. Keep you motivated and inspired during tougher times. Keeping your consumer at the center of everything is critical."

what is the problem you are most passionate about solving?

"Getting groups who have been left behind to parity. In my career thus far, that's taken a few different forms: competent healthcare for LGBTQIA+ people, better intimacy for people with vulvas and their partners, accessible undergarments for people with mobility restrictions, and others. I want to make this world a more equally enriching, fulfilling, pleasurable place for everyone."

Further Reading/Watching

More than 1 in 8 LGBTQ people live in states where doctors can refuse to treat them

To Tackle Inclusion, We Must Be Honest About Exclusion

Mind the Inclusion Gap, by Suzy Levy

While I haven't made it a habit to spotlight companies that my interviewees have worked for previously - I have wanted the interviews to be about individual's experiences rather than the good their companies' do - I feel it is important to do so here.

For more information on FOLX, you can check out the amazing work they are doing here: