you are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

[–]millicentfawcett 27 insightful - 1 fun27 insightful - 0 fun28 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

It's this sort of mission creep that means very soon no group identity or freedom of association will be allowed. It was reported today about a women's refuge in the UK that had previously become trans inclusive lost their funding because they don't provide services for gay men. So let's say they did relent and accept gay men then immediately straight men have a good legal argument for discrimination. The end result being that what was formerly a women's refuge becomes a refuge for everyone and very few women will want to access it.

[–]JulienMayfair 14 insightful - 1 fun14 insightful - 0 fun15 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

We really need some thoughtful expositions on why exclusion is frequently necessary for a group to be able to carry out its mission.

I'm on a professional group on Facebook. It's a secret/private group, and we only allow people into the group with documented expertise in our field, and it's a great group. If you look at open amateur groups on the same topic, they start out with a few knowledgeable people and very soon get overwhelmed with people who know nothing and just want free help.

Inclusion is not always a universal good, and exclusion is not always a universal evil.

[–]millicentfawcett 9 insightful - 1 fun9 insightful - 0 fun10 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Yes. I hate the way any kind of exclusion is automatically a bad thing now. There are situations where it serves a completely valid purpose.