Inclusive or Exclusive. Both should be acceptable.
But careful, hypocrisy is just around the corner.

You cannot claim to be inclusive while being exclusive. You cannot claim to be open to diversity while excluding or rejecting others based on their race, sex, color, or creed. There are thousands of examples that could show exclusion. And of those that would claim the exclusion justified, none could also claim to be inclusive. By definition, inclusive and exclusive are antonyms. Meaning they are the complete opposites of each other. Make no mistake, I’m not saying that all institutions should be inclusive. For example, the Catholic Church should not be ostracized for not including Satanic doctrine or Satan worshipers in their church. Another example would be that an all-male club should not be ostracized for excluding females. The same goes for exclusively female clubs or organizations.

Current discussions about a great many of our institutions, organizations, clubs, etc. have many pointing fingers at others and claiming them to be intolerant. But who is really the hypocrite and intolerant? The woman that says she wants to be part of an all-female quilting group? The man that wants to host an all-male evening of playing darts? Or, is it the man that says he wants to be part of the quilting group and raises hell when the women reject his request? Or, maybe it’s a black women’s quilting group and they would prefer it be exclusive to black women. Are they intolerant if a white woman asks to join and they reject her? I don’t think so. Exclusive? Yes. Intolerant? No. Now, if that white woman raises hell, calls them out and actively tries to get the group ostracized, who is truly the intolerant one?

A great example of acceptable exclusivity would be “Miss Black USA.” If you are not black, you are not allowed to enter the pageant. And for me, that’s fine. If someone wanted to start a Miss Pacific Islander USA and be exclusive of their entrants, I’m fine with that. Or a Miss Trans USA. Or a Miss White USA. All I request is that the group/organization not claim to being diverse and inclusive, while being exclusive. And do not be hypocritical by decrying about another groups/organizations exclusivity as being racist or otherwise should not be tolerated or allowed to be exclusive. And for the sake of society, please don’t protest Miss White USA while saying Miss Black USA is okay.

Something that really caught my attention recently was a video that went viral where a young white university student was sitting in the library. A young woman of color approached him and informed him he was in a “safe space” that was exclusive to “people of color” and he was making them feel uncomfortable. The young white man was likely simply protesting the exclusivity of this area of the library that has been authorized by the university as a safe space for people of color. Now, logic might dictate that he should approach the University and request this exclusive area be inclusive to all. Or, he should request a “safe space for whites.” Either scenario could be logically argued. But this is an example of where inclusivity should be the norm.

So, what’s the difference between these self segregating “safe spaces” and the quilting group? For starters, the library is a public space. Additionally, the University, as an entity with power over the student body, has the ability to abuse its power discriminately. A quilting group holds no such power over all quilters in the area. By allowing these exclusive areas, the University is doing a disservice to society. They are allowing protected self-segregation. And if we are to come together as the true melting pot, we cannot implement rules that support self-segregation. Especially in public spaces such as a university library. Because we must ask the question, “where does it end?” Should I be allowed to request a safe space for white men over 50 that play Dungeons & Dragons? How about one for self identifying human/amphibian hybrids?

On the other hand, self exclusion should not only be acceptable, it should be defended against any who would try to force another to be part of something they wish to exclude themselves from. For example, a black man should not be forced to sit in the “safe space for people of color.” Thereby, forced to participate in something he deems inappropriate. Another great example currently in the news is that of an NHL hockey player. He wished to not participate in a “Pride” event in which players would wear a particular jersey during warm-ups. He was ostracized for his very personal religion-based choice to not participate. He didn’t protest. He didn’t bash the non-heterosexual groups. He simply chose not to participate. I expect the same people that would ostracize him also did not particularly care for individuals in the NFL who opted to not participate in protesting the national anthem by taking a knee.

And one final thing. Exclusive female sports should not only be acceptable, they are necessary. Forcing female athletes that wish to participate in sports to compete against biological males is a travesty that would degrade female involvement in sports. By the way, I also believe male sports should only have biological male participants. If we want to build coed sports, let’s have that discussion. Generally, no one should be excluded from sports because of anything other than their inability to compete. But if we continue to allow biological men to compete in female sports, eventually females will be supplanted by physically superior men.

Exclusive/Inclusive. Both should be acceptable. But we must be consistent in our application of each. Otherwise, hypocrisy becomes the norm and anger replaces enjoyment. If you believe there should be no exclusivity in the world, that it shouldn’t exist, I will disagree with you, but I do respect your consistency of thought.