WS: Welcome to Missive's Seat at the Table podcast where I, Whitney Simon, sit down with incredible guests spanning PR, tech, DE&I, and unpack complex DE&I topics that typically get overlooked. Today, I am so thrilled to have Jai Clarke-Binns, DE&I partner at Google DeepMind, to discuss all things intersectionality.

Intersectionality originally was a term coined by Professor Kimberlé Crenshaw, an American civil rights advocate. In her 1989 paper, “De-marginalising the Intersection of Race and Sex”, she introduced the concept to describe the multiple forms of discrimination faced by black women. Since then, the term has been expanded and evolved to apply to various identities, and it's an increasingly important topic and DE&I lens that many people are trying to incorporate to truly create an inclusive culture. So incredibly excited, Jai, to have you on the show to talk about this topic.

JCB: I'm incredibly excited to be here. Thank you, Whitney, for having me. I can't wait to get into all things intersectionality.  Maybe there'll be some hot takes. Maybe we will disagree on something. I hope we don't, but it's okay.

WS: So, you became the DE&I partner at Google DeepMind about 18 months ago. Prior to that, you had started your own DE&I consultancy. Can you tell us a bit more about what the process was of launching your own company then moving on from that and coming into this role?

JCB: I pretend I have a squiggly career, but I really don't. I love to pretend that I do. Just to fill some context, I did a curation degree, which was really interesting. So, focusing on art history, museums, and how you piece shows together, and the context in which they situate themselves. There's a lot of stuff in there around power.

But then my career has been predominantly within HR roles. I've been focusing on centre of excellence roles, so working as a HR analyst and also with systems, then working on compensation, working on employment engagement, and then working in generalist roles. And something that I started to notice, I think, around, maybe 2015 or so, was I noticed that there was a lot of a conversation around DE&I generally within the HR space. But I noticed that there was a big focus on women and focus on gender. But I also started to think about, what happens to people like me - I'm black. I'm queer. What also happens to people who are black women? So, I started to notice that the conversation wasn't really there. It wasn't touching on all the facets of oppressed identities. And so, me and my best friend Swala decided to take it upon ourselves to go down actually to the school of life. We took a course called “How to Change the World”.

And this course was just 90 minutes, but it was something that was really impactful for the 2 of us, where we decided that we wanted to take ownership of the DE&I conversation ourselves. But we focused on the idea that we wanted to highlight, inspire, and connect other people of colour in the creative sector. And we wanted to show all the experiences of this career path from people who had just an idea, to people who are running things like the Black British Business Awards. And then through that community engagement, that's when I started to do DE&I consultancy with organisations, and they tended to be quite high innovation organisations. So, places like Space 10 or Bakken & Bæck, these types of organisations that are focusing on high design, or thinking about the future of what technology could do or be.

When I really think about all the things and how I ended up getting into the space, it was because I truly believe, as a HR person, you can't develop good processes if they're not equitable. So, DE&I is fundamental to developing equitable processes so that everybody can flourish. But I think within HR, a lot of the time you don't see that happening. So, the processes are inadequate and the processes are working, but not everybody. And then I got into DeepMind about 4 years ago now. I joined there originally as a P&C partner. And then 18 months ago, the opportunity came up for me to move into the DE&I team. And I just basically was, like “I'm going throw my hat in the ring”, and the rest is history. Now I have a full-time job as a DE&I person, not my own consultancy, which is, me doing it myself. So, someone is actually paying me full time to do this now.

WS: Yes. Love it. That's really fascinating. I think the point that you made about these HR practices, they don't necessarily work for everyone. That is so important because I think you're right. We look at HR in a very broad way, but there needs to be a bit of more bespoke approaches so that truly everyone feels supported by that department within a business.

So, it nicely leads on to my first question of what does intersectionality mean to you, and why do you think it's so important in the workplace?

JCB: To me, I think the most important thing that I would try to teach people about intersectionality is the fact that it's about when identities of oppression come together, they compound and they mix. It is not just about identities mixing. Because I've seen this happen a lot with people - my identity and this identity, this intersectionality. If both these identities are not oppressed identities, that's not intersectionality. That's not why Kimberlé Crenshaw coined the term. She's trying to look at these unique experiences. And it's really important to look at intersectionality a bit like colours.

If you have blue and you have red, it makes purple. That's new. That's something completely different. It's not blue and it's not red. It's purple. And that's what happens with intersexuality. I will use myself as an example. I'm black and I'm queer. So, I have, like, racialised homophobia, but I can't disentangle the 2 and tell you exactly what's happening and where it's coming from because there are different stereotypes and nuances about someone who is black and queer, and I can't pull them and tease them apart.

So, it helps us to understand the complexities of identity. And some people will be like, oh, this makes it more complex. But I think everybody's quite complex. Everybody has faceted identities whether somebody is oppressed or not. I think it's just a fact of reality. And it's all about, I think, listening to other experiences that are not your own and acknowledging that experiences can be different.

WS: Absolutely. And that's so important in the workplace because as a result of COVID, it does feel as though borders have ceased to have as much importance as they did before. We're working with global organisations with people all around the world, and so it's even more important to take that into consideration. I completely agree.

So, what is your biggest observation about the unique perspectives and experiences of people with multiple marginalised identities in the workplace?

JCB: I think it's challenging. I think in the world of DE&I, the work that I do, it's challenging when you're working with organisational leaders. The reason why I say this is because organisational leaders are time poor. It's not about the fact whether they care or they do not care. They are time poor. And they're trying to fire all cylinders and they're trying to make decisions for the organisation’s health and longevity. And as we enter the conversation of intersectionality, it starts to make things for them feel more complicated, more nuanced. It makes them feel like they cannot get a grasp or enter the conversation, which sometimes means that they shy away from those topics.

And then they just resort back to what I consider, “DE&I 101”. This group, this group, this group, have different things or they start thinking about DE&I from the lens of stat ranking, identities, and being like, “we'll tackle this, then this, then this”, and then that's going to help. So, I think for leaders, it's really challenging. I think for the individuals in the business with those marginalised identities that are coming together, it's difficult because it's hard for them to express what's happening to them in the workplace with people. It's hard for them to get empathy from people. Especially if some of your identities, I'm going to use air quotes, feel like they're “touchy”. So, an example is if it's race. It’s that moment where it may be okay if you want to speak about being a woman. But at the moment, you then compound that with being black - it's like, “Woah. We're really uncomfortable. Why are you mentioning this topic? Please don't bring it up”.

So, I think for those individuals, they feel like they sometimes, in the organisation, cannot have voice to the challenges that they actually have, and they sometimes feel like they have to shrink and minimise their experiences for people to have empathy towards them. You also sometimes feel like you're a troublemaker. Or people feel like you're just wrong spotting. And I've seen this a lot, and it's really disparaging for individuals because it impacts your mental well-being as well.

WS: Absolutely. And you use the term wrong spotting. It's new to me. Can you elaborate a bit more on what that means?

JCB: Yeah. When I think about wrong spotting, it's a bit like people are essentially thinking about “what is this thing that someone's doing that is wrong?” It's an individual. It's a person being, like, “why do you have to mention that topic, that particular thing”, and you become a source of wrongness or problematic, basically. I think all marginalised people, I personally believe, they have some form of stereotype threat. The fear that you're conforming to some sort of stereotype about who you are and your identity. But the implication of that for other people is they wrong spot that in terms of how they perceive you. They see that stereotype-ness inside you which is wrong.

And then they see it as a source of a problem, and you become the problem. Rather than it being the system, you as an individual are the problem, which is really unfortunate because on the more extreme end of that spectrum as an individual who's experiencing all of that, you are going to have severe challenges around your mental well-being, around your sense of self, and around how you perceive yourself in certain spaces and how that's going to impact you in your job performance, which you already have these headwinds against you in your job regarding how you show up, how people perceive you to perform. Having this on top of that is not a winning combination.

WS: Definitely. That's so real. And I think, the next question building on that, what are some of those additional misconceptions about intersectionality in the workplace?

JCB: One thing I will say, which maybe sounds really silly, is that people think it's just people attempting to be woke. I see this a lot. People are like, “stop using these weird terms”. And I'm like, “what do you mean terms developed by social scientists and academics?” These are not weird terms and they're not new. I think all that's happened recently is that because of multiple, seismic global events, like George Floyd or we have other challenges in the world, what’s happening is that people are now somewhat educating themselves. Some people are using the terms correctly.

Some people are weaponising them. Some people are using them incorrectly. And so, we start to see this actually manifesting in spaces, essentially, and how people are actually using the language and what this is doing to the organisations and people around us.

WS: It's so interesting. One of the things that I'm also really passionate about is language, and inclusive language, and understanding how these things aren't just static. They evolve. The meanings evolve, how people connect to them, and I do feel as though we are in this very interesting phase of society right now where these terms that have historically been here have increasingly been weaponised or misappropriated, and so it just further feeds into that confusion about what is the purpose of having these conversations.

JCB: A lot of the time, if a concept is new to somebody who's not well educated on, like, DE&I topics, they then use it as a way to basically say, “I can't get it right”. Throw their hands up in the air to be, like, “people are just inventing new terms”. I have to keep on evaluating and updating my language. But updating our language is normal, all language changes. If you look at the history of even English, where it came from, how it's changed over time, how we incorporate words from different languages into our own language and use them every day, language, like you said, is not static. But for something to do with identity, it feels like people really want it to be static.

And I always question, why do you want it to be static? And it's also because in my eyes, you want to uphold certain belief systems. That make sense to you rather than living in that complexity of things that maybe they don't make sense to you, but just acknowledging them.

WS: Snaps for that. So, some of these misconceptions, in your experience, what are some ways that organisational leaders can address this? And do you have an example of initiatives that have worked well, initiatives that have failed?

JCB: One thing I think for an organisation is that you have to be really clear on how you're defining terms. As a DE&I person, as an organization, you'll have training. I'm not necessarily the biggest fan of training for many reasons, but training can actually create a shared vocabulary amongst all of your employees, meaning that everybody understands the terms, how they're supposed to be used, how they're not supposed to be used. And I think giving leaders that confidence and ability through coaching them enables them to feel a bit more fluent in some of the terms, some of the challenges that may come up in the organisation. So, I think level setting around, what is the DE&I glossary for your organisation? How do we use these terms? How do we not use these terms?

This enables leaders and individuals to feel like they have permission to give feedback on the terms when they're not correct. Because the organisation had determined what they believe is appropriate and it's cascaded down. A lot of the time, organisations don't do that. So, words can be weaponised, language can be termed differently, and it's hard for an individual to give feedback.

Because they're giving feedback from a place of positionality, like how much power do you have compared to that person? Whereas, if I'm giving feedback from the organisation's vocabulary, the positionality and the power is the organisation’s. I'm just sharing it. It doesn't mean it's less risky, but it means that you probably feel that you're going to probably have organisational support if things go south. Maybe your manager will step in or maybe a colleague can step in because they can refer you back to something else to say like, “actually, x person, this is the way that we use it here. Maybe use it somewhere else differently, but this is why we use it. And for these reasons, please, can you make sure you educate yourself on this?” So, I think the education amount and awareness and that shared vocabulary is the very first step. I know it sounds basic, but I see many organisations doing a lot of DE&I training, and they don't have a shared vocabulary at all.

So, they come out of the training, and they're just a little bit like, “oh, that was interesting”. But they can't necessarily understand how to use the terms or to understand how to explain what they're seeing. So, I think that that can be a real missing step. Because like I said, I'm not the biggest fan of training, but I think definitely having shared vocabulary definitely helps. I think I've seen that, and I've seen that work in many places. As an organisation, it stops marginalised people also coming under fire.

WS: And there's that psychological safety of it too. Because if we're being honest, I think oftentimes these topics, these conversations, they are introduced by people from marginalised identities. And, you know, there is that just emotional mental burden of having to be that voice talking about the exclusion and the bias that you deal with while also trying to get people to buy into that. So, I think that's really valid.

JCB: And one small point to someone as well, sorry, because this just triggers something, is, many marginalised people in the workforce are just turning up every day wanting to do a fantastic job. Do a great job. And they're now having to do their job and some DE&I thing on the side. And they're not being paid for it. And there's so much unpaid labour and unpaid toll on them as an individual.

So, I think there's something we need to really think about. It always tends to be those impacted by the oppression who have to tend to educate folks. And I think that those who have the power to step back, kudos to you because that's hard. Because it means you're probably still going to face stuff at work. But you've decided to take a step back from being the person who's maybe going to voice the things that you've seen because you're also thinking about the implication to your own mental well-being and to your career advancement.

WS: Absolutely. And on that point, it's made me think about - so what is the role that organisational leaders can play from an ally or advocate perspective to help alleviate that burden?

JCB: I think they have to, as leaders, to really practice allyship, they have to realise what it means to use their power and their influence to shape the culture. And to drive the behaviours that they actually want in their organisation. Too often, managers see things and they don't step in. They don't intervene. And sometimes, because they have a lack of awareness or sometimes because they're scared, they're going to say the wrong thing. Everybody's scared they're going to be cancelled. I'm going to tell everybody here, cancel culture is not real. And cancel culture only tends to stick with people that are marginalised. Just really think about that. It doesn't work. The thing that's supposed to be stopping people from getting shots fired at them is not really happening.

So, I think there's that. So, I think they have to really use their power and understand that so they can actually step in when they see things, and they have to use their influence to shape policies within the organisation that drive these structural changes because leaders can do that. They can determine, should we be working a 4-day week? Should we be flexing for parents? Should we be thinking about how we make meetings inclusive for people that maybe have religious holidays? They have the ability to shape the context in which we have to navigate within. And I think leaders need to understand how to use that power.

Because the more senior a leader you are, the less involved in the day to day you are. But the more you can shape the organisation. And then for middle managers, I think, is for those middle managers who are really on the ground to really role model behaviours every single day. Because they're working with people day to day and being consistent in their behaviour and acknowledging when they've made mistakes because everybody makes mistakes, and it's absolutely normal.

WS: Absolutely. You talked about some of those strategies that you've seen work in terms of creating that shared language, accountability, organisational leaders using that power to create space and advocate for inclusivity and those actions that will truly create inclusivity. In your time at DeepMind, what are some of the strategies or practices that you've seen or you've incorporated as part of your team that have been successful?

JCB Something I think about, with DE&I work, is there's multiple ways you can approach it. Ultimately, the purpose of DE&I work for me is to really ensure that there's equity within systems that people that are underrepresented groups or marginalised can actually achieve success within the organisation. But also, we have to think about how all of these challenges, systemic challenges, how they also create headwinds for everyone. They actually do, like, the patriarchy. We're all suffering underneath that. It doesn't matter if you're a man or a woman. You're we're all suffering underneath that.

Same things about anti-blackness. There are systemic forces that are meaning that there are headwinds for multiple people around this. So, I try to think about my work as in 2 facets. What do I need to do for all to really focus on making everybody feel like they can have a great experience within the workplace and there's equity and systems? And then what do I need to actually do for underrepresented and marginalised groups? So, really thinking about that balance because you can take different approaches. So, I'm thinking about what can I do for all is how do I ensure that everybody within the workplace feels that they can fully contribute?

Depending on their personality type, depending on their preferences and their styles, how do I also ensure that everybody is able to get recognition for the work that they're doing? And that makes you think about work arounds all people in the organisation. But then I have to sit down and think about what some of the unique challenges are that maybe people in the organisation who are black may be facing, or people who may be Asian might be facing. What are their headwinds? And what are some of the strategic things that we need to put into place for that community?

And I always think, with most DE&I work when done well, it helps everyone. And so that's how I'd like to think about it. Routines is a way to shape behaviour and change, cultures. And so, something I was doing a little bit was running small experiments to think about how to embed different routines into teams to change their culture to maybe think about how do you give feedback, how do you actually, have meeting norms, how do you agree those ways of workings? Basically, developing things that mean that teams actually have a way for them to also develop feedback loops. So really the focus there was on routines to change behaviour and create new norms and set expectations for people. And so there was a lot of work that we did in that space there around that ‘all DE&I work’.

WS: That's incredible. I really love that. And feedback, actually, you have a newsletter that comes out. Is it monthly?

JCB: Oh, I don't know. At the moment, it's a lot. The laptop was broken. I'm supposed to be doing one this weekend. Let's see. But, yeah, it's 3 to 4 weeks.

WS: When it does come, it is absolutely fascinating. And one of the topics that you addressed in

JCB: https://aloadoforgness.substack.com/

WS: It's a fantastic newsletter that drills into, again, the nuances of navigating the world and the corporate world as a person with marginalised identities and thinking about it in a way that feels more human. We talk about feedback so much, but we don't actually think about what does feedback mean for different people. So that was incredible.

JCB: And spoiler, I say feedback is a grift, because I'm just not made equal. And for marginalised people, it's usually not feedback. It's usually just some other weird thing that someone just wants to get off their chest, which isn't additive or helpful.

WS: Yep. Going back to intersectionality. So, with this podcast, we're talking to people across industries. So, DE&I, public relations is where I started my career, and obviously tech. How do you think the concept of intersectionality within tech organisations, do you feel as though it's fundamentally different or it's approached differently?

JCB: I think everything is a result of context. So, I think something I want to share with everybody here is I wouldn't necessarily consider where I work tech. So, Google DeepMind is a AI research lab. Meaning that the majority of individuals within that space are people that will tend to have masters education upwards. And then some people will have PhD. A lot of people have PhDs actually. A lot of people there will. And actually, it's quite interesting because a significant bunch of people even have PhDs in roles that traditionally you wouldn't think you have PhDs in. So, there are a lot of people who will be working in the P&C world and they'll be like, “oh, I'm an organisational psychologist”. Or there are people like, my manager, they also have a PhD as well.

My colleague also has a masters. So, like, there is a very, very, academically high elite kind of environment, if I can say that. And so, I think it's a little bit different because I think from academia, they have completely different challenges around intersectionality because diversity within the realms of academia is incredibly challenging and already so low because of barriers to access. As we know.

And so, I think that you have to think about it a little bit different in those spaces, how is someone's identity somewhat different than if they're in a different community? Because it's true. In the world that you work in, being, black and queer is different to being in some industries that can be seen as, like you maybe may have more headwinds or less head, or tailwinds. But things are somewhat different. So, I think the context really does shape how the intersectionality shows up and what that looks like in the environment and how likely you are also to be tokenised.

Because in some spaces, I think within the world of academia, it's very common that you could be the first and only. So, you could be the first of something and the only of something. And that can be very common because there could only be so many people in the world who have your PhD. You're really, really narrowing it down now. Whereas I think in other industries I've worked in, you can be first and only, but it's less so. And it only tends to really happen proliferate at the really, senior levels. I think within academia, you could be first and only, even in your masters, you know, at that stage of your academic career trajectory. So, I think it is somewhat different.

WS: Got it. No. That makes sense. I mean, context in kind of all facets of life is super important. So, for our listeners, we've had some really great conversations about what intersectionality truly is, how people can create space to have these conversations, but also alleviate the burden off of their employees that are within those marginalised identities. What are some best practices you would recommend for improving intersectional awareness across hiring, promotion, company culture, product development, and customer service?

JCB: Well, the first thing I say to people, it's reality. So, you just have to accept that for it. You can't fight it. You can't say it's complicated. It's reality. So that's the very first thing and acknowledging that. And then I would say, once you’ve gone through the organisation building the awareness, it's about understanding, what are the challenges that those communities face now? It's about reading about some of the work that's out there that tells you, how those communities are experiencing the workplace and then working with the teams that own processes because something I always say is that DE&I people don't own processes. There is no process that's a DE&I process. But what we do do is partner with people who own processes to give them the equity perspective and lens.

I think for me, it's really just working with partners in the business to help them identify some of these challenges and help them understand the nuances within that to unpack that. And I talk about recruitment because recruitment is the only way you diversify an organisation. There's no other way. And everything else is inclusion and equity stuff, that you do. But working with your recruitment team is really educating them around candidate experience. How do you engage with those communities? What do they need? How do you make them feel safe? In the journey? How do you make them feel that, you know, that they're being listened to? They're being treated well? Are you sure that the experience is consistent? It might be. It might not be.

And it's working with them to understand, like, how do we ensure that the process is equitable for all? And how do we ensure, I don't know the term, how do we ensure that there's a baseline? A ‘baseline’ in processes rather than the term ‘best practice’? Because best practice makes it sound like there are good practices, and there are best practices. And that, I think, is a linguistic trap. Because you're like, “oh, if I don't do the best practices, then I'm doing the good practices”. But as you know, as a DE&I person, most of the time when you say best practices, you mean these are the the baseline. So, I'm just like, what's the baseline?

Do you know what the baseline is? Can I work with you on what that baseline should be? And then we can collectively come together to find something which fuses, their great experience as TA people and my experience as a DE&I person. It's long winded, but I think it's making them understand the nuances of identity and how they can show up in process if that makes sense.

WS: Yeah. I really love what you were saying about shifting away from the concept of best practice to baseline, because for me, when you said that, it made me think about when you hear the term best practice, it means that there's no room for improvement. Or change. And realistically, best practices, usually, there are systems or processes that are due for some change and some innovation. So, baseline is a really great way of thinking about this is the baseline. How can we continue iterating, building, improving?

So, I really love that concept, and it's something that I'm going to start incorporating because, not going to lie, I have been conditioned, and I use the term best practice too often.

JCB: Oh, no. We all do. I think it's one of the normal things because it's corporate speak.

WS: To summarise for our listeners in terms of the baseline recommendations, in terms of improving intersectional awareness and hiring promotion company culture, what are kind of the 3, 4 baseline recommendations for you?

JCB: So, one I would say is that that awareness piece around the language in the organisation. So, everybody is singing from the same hymn sheet. So, everybody understands the terms correctly and they're using them adequately. And it avoids them being weaponised or dismissed as something that's irrelevant.

The next I would say is, as a DE&I person, if you are the DE&I person or you are the person who's working in a capacity to shape culture, think about partnering with the teams that own processes and really help them to understand, what is the baseline? What is the organisational experience that you would like for every single person to take away when they interact with you? Whether that's external or internal, challenge yourself, and also be open to hearing things you don't want to hear. That's one thing.

And then another thing that I would think about is this, seems silly, but do not go around being like “this identity, and this identity means this”. Because that is not helpful. That is tokenising. It is also missing the point of identity and of the complexity of how people navigate in the world. So, what I would suggest is thinking about how you broaden your exposures to different communities for watching things, reading things, really learning about things, and challenging your innate reaction to be like, “oh, that can't be possible”. You have to think about these challenges on a system level, on an individual level. It's not a case of “I don't do that”. It's acknowledging these things happen because the systems and the processes bake in these biases which drive these outcomes.

WS: This has been such an incredible conversation.

To kind of wrap this up, it's crazy to think they're on our last question. But I know during our last conversations we talked about the role that employee resource groups play. And so, I'd just love to hear about how can employee resource groups approach processes or initiatives in a more intersectional way? And have you seen, whether it's in your organisation or in other organisations, successful programs or structures like ERGs that really move the needle forward on these conversations?

JCB: ERGs are very, they're very powerful, but they're also quite like, how do I describe this? There's, a duality to them.

Because an ERG is basically set up around one collective identity. And then there's many collective identities that set up around different ERGs. I don't work on ERGs, there's another person in my team who works on the ERGs. But I think just generally with ERG groups is to help them understand, what is their role? What is their purpose in the organisation? Because I think a lot of the time ERGs tend to think that they are a force for lobbying. I would say that ERGs are people that should be consulted, and they should be their lived experience should be fed into the organisation through the processes.

But remember, ERGs also have other jobs, like the members. They have other jobs. And, they shouldn't be designing processes, but they should definitely feel like they should be consulted on stuff. And they definitely feel that they should be able to raise challenges to whomever, and through the right channels. So, it's thinking about how do you strategically position them to be a force of change, but in a way which leverages their lived experience as the critical experience that they have in expertise, without overextending them.

And then the other thing I would say is also thinking about how do you encourage the ERGs generally to think about, okay, so it's, International Women's History Month now, so you might have a woman's ERG, but they should be doing programming with all the other ERGs because we may have a black ERG, but there are black women. You may have a queer ERG. There are queer women. Your imperative to make sure it's intersectional because that's the representation of reality. And that it cannot just be simply like, “oh, this is our context and we own it”. So, making all the ERTs realise that that is a fundamental thing they need to be doing is that all your events that you do where you feel like you have ownership over that event. Maybe it's pride or black history month, it has to be intersectional because we within our community will have people that have all these different identities.

So, I say it's really thinking about how to encourage them to accept that that intersectionality is reality, and partner with the other ERGs, but also about positioning ERGs to be forces for change and the lived experience is their expertise and the criticality and how do you leverage that to make sure that they can impact organisational processes. They can consult on them, they can feel like they're informed about stuff because it helps them feel like they actually are a pivotal strategic force for an organisation.

WS: Snaps. Honestly, snaps. I have nothing to add. I mean, that's so helpful. Jay, this has been a pleasure. I just want to keep going.

JCB: Thank you so much for having me.