The excluded is always included by an observer. In other words, the observer includes the excluded as the excluded. This is a two-sided form, which means the boundary separating the two sides must be crossable. An observer can only exclude something that could potentially be included. There are no laws prohibiting a person from flapping their arms and flying into the sky like Icarus because such a law could not be broken—i.e., the line separating legal and illegal could not be crossed.
Foreign-born (or naturalized) US citizens are currently excluded from the presidency; however, the law could be changed with a constitutional amendment. So, the foreign-born US citizen could potentially become president. In contrast, a cat could never become president, which means there is no need to exclude it. Only things that could potentially be included can be considered excluded.
This brings in the temporal dimension because at some future time, foreign-born US citizens could become eligible for the presidency.
In the above example, it would be more accurate to say that the cat’s vocalization or utterances are not recognized by society, although they do irritate society—invite some response.
To continue … Until recent years, there were no laws or “Bathroom Bills” prohibiting a transgendered person from using the restroom or locker room that they feel is appropriate. Nor were there counter-laws allowing transgendered persons to choose a particular restroom. In other words, transgendered persons were not observed or included in legal communication. They simply didn’t exist for the legal system. The issue was not part of the modern discourse on human rights.
In the same way, child neglect/abuse, domestic violence, animal cruelty, etc., were not always included in legal communication. These issues didn’t exist for the legal system. Nor were they observed as social problems.