I consider this exact issue frequently. I come down on the side of the fence that favors inclusion of all. I am no more ‘right’ or ‘wrong’ than anyone else. I simply live with the negative effects of exclusion and have yet to see the positive in my own life or at large.

There are many aspects of this conversation that I consider:
- What is to be gained? Lost?
- Is exclusion being used as a replacement for in-group management of the participants and curriculum?
- Is the group becoming a top-down decision tree?
- Is the group becoming an echo chamber?
- What does the group hope to accomplish as a result? How will they measure effectiveness?
- Whom does exclusion serve?
- What does exclusion say about the group to outsiders? Prospective members?

Anyway, great post. Thanks for it.

-sgb

“I recognize common ground helps to solidify a community, yet I urge us all to consider other avenues for uniting us rather than basing them on who we fuck, what parts we have, or what expression of gender we choose.”

Generally speaking, I don’t think the means justify the ends. In other words, WHY a limitation or exclusion exists is not really a justification for doing it. Perhaps inclusivity seems utopian now, as Wendy Blackheart (great name) suggests, but I think it’s great that you are challenging people to hold onto their identities a little less tightly.

BTW Say hi to CatalinaLoves for me. She’s one of the first bloggers I connected with at The Femme’s Guide.

Looking forward to reading more of your blog! Stop by and visit me at Sublimefemme Unbound the next time your in the neighborhood.

And even some of the events that seem inclusive, aren’t always. Suspension excludes, or attempts to exclude, those who’s definition of fetish attire doesn’t fit their own, as to many other parties.

Even Alphabet soup seems to lean more towards the kinky side, rather than queer. Queer kinksters, perhaps, but kink scares away and excludes those pesky vanilla people who might come otherwise – even if they’re queer too.

(this isn’t an attack or condemnation, of course. Just pointin’ stuff out.)

I mean, would you actually ever want to date/play with a Bush Republican?

As I said, I recognize that policies are made to make people feel safe and comfortable. I just find that restrictive policies make me itch. I don’t know… while I have to admit the close-minded hetero cisgendered could be removed from space without hurting my feelings, the same could really go for close-minded and judgmental people of any orientation and lovestyle. My only limitation is that people respect each other and their choices/preferences/expressions/etc.

It’s more a case of why the limitation exists. Does it exist to give a group of bottom or submissive identified people a chance to connect and relax without feeling like a dominant person is either on the prowl, or will end up directing the meeting? Is it about giving transmen & transwomen a place where they can talk about where they’re at without having to answer the “so, what’s in yer pants?” questions? Is it about giving men a space where they can play without being ogled or having attention drawn to them in negative ways? I can get those – it’s lines that are drawn for the benefit of those within, rather than the blind exclusion of those without.

Any space, whether it is exclusive or inclusive without limits, seeks to serve the purpose of making attendees feel like they belong. There was once a club where guys were encouraged (or at least not discouraged) from wanking themselves while other’s played. Many people couldn’t stand it b/c they didn’t “feel safe” – so now there are No wanking policies in many – if not most – clubs. Is that exclusionary or just selective?

Yes, some times people are selective in what they need. Other times they are more inclusive. Some people need to work up to said inclusiveness. Other people… well… they are you.

But, I’m certain, if you think about it, there are times you don’t want to be around X population – even if the X-factor has nothing to do with gender. Doesn’t mean you NEVER want to be around them, just not for certain activities.

And that’s ok.