There is no discussion “with peers” to be had here. You are trying to argue a point you are not qualified on, with people who are qualified. It really is that simple, and makes the details of your argument moot - you do not have the lived experience needed to productively argue this topic, and so your arguments are based on misconceptions and wrong assumptions (which, I would add, people have repeatedly tried to correct you on, to no avail).
And so what is “not productive” is you continuing to insist that your opinion should be heard and considered in a process where you do not have the expertise necessary, particularly because that opinion boils down to “you should not be doing this”, ie. attempting to block what would otherwise be a productive process carried out by others. This is interfering, not contributing.
If you simply wish to understand why these measures are proposed, then that is a valid question to ask - however, it is not relevant to the purpose of this meeting, nor to the introduction of the measures. The introduction of these measures is not predicated upon your understanding of them. A request for explanation of the ‘why’ should also probably be in the form of a question, not the form of a disagreement (and people are likewise not under an obligation to explain it either).
In what way are you affected, specifically?
I have already answered this - advocating for inclusivity is done by listening to those whom it concerns, and following their recommendations. Without trying to inject your own opinion. Listen and implement instead of speaking.