As far as I'm concerned, there is validity in preserving spaces for marginalized groups that explicitly exclude dominant groups. There is NOT validity in preserving spaces for dominant groups that exclude marginalized groups. (Just as a note, I'm focusing on LGBT spaces for the purpose of this entry, but I feel the argument can/should be applied to other marginalized experiences).
But it is not "The Solution We Should Be Working Towards".
Why? Simple: We do not live in an egalitarian society. Power hierarchies exist, and these dynamics are easily and often insidiously replicated, even in spaces that are purportedly "inclusive". From the definition of the values of the space to who is given authority within them, power is present in various subtle but visible ways. And more often than not, what is established falls along the same predictable lines of valuation/devaluation that infiltrates dominant institutions. I can't speak for everyone, but I personally would feel a lot less comfortable voguing in a mixed bar than an explicitly gay one. The fact is that inclusive spaces are usually more inclusive of "the right kind" of minority, i.e. the one that plays by more normative rules.
So, there is something to be said for the comfort of a space that precludes a certain kind of predictable power dynamic. For one, it removes the often-frustrating burden of representation, when marginalized group members are asked to speak for or explain their larger group ("why do gay people care so much about getting married?", "why do you think gay men are more promiscuous?" "Why are lesbians so angry all the time?"). It can also create conditions that allows for a more nuanced investigation of a particular perspective. This raises the overall discourse and allows for more complex understandings of important sociopolitical issues, particularly when these ideas are eventually put in conversation with other formulations on the same topic.
Exclusionary spaces are also particularly important in cases where dominant institutions make no effort to create them, or indeed actively resist their creation. Consider, for instance, the resistance to the establishment of LGBT resources in many high schools, or the exclusion of trans* people in the vast majority of both heterosexual and LGB spaces. The point is to empower voices that go largely ignored, even violently opposed, in other spaces. It would be great if all voices held equal weight in all spaces, but that's simply not the case. The painful truth is that some people need exclusionary spaces to feel safe, respected and heard.
This is a key point of differentiation, and why I have no patience for arguments like "no one could get away with excluding gay people from straight bars". Straight people (as a group) don't need an explicit safe space to be heard because they have no corresponding lack of access, support or visibility to justify the exclusion. This is because every space that isn't explicitly gay is assumed to be heterosexual. Invisibility has been a primary historical tool in LGBT disenfranchisement and oppression. To overlook this is to deny the very real struggle of "coming out", the pain and terror that invisibility has inflicted on LGBT people for decades, and the political importance of stating our existence. To this day, the pressure of the heterosexual assumption alone is enough to cause many LGBT people to inhibit expressions of affection, question their dress, change their posture, worry about their vocal inflection, doubt their competency, accept daily expressions of prejudice, feel isolated, fear each other, and kill themselves. So yes, we need a space that states simply and defiantly, "we exist."
I understand that many allies feel that this reinforces separatist notions of identity. Allies deserve to be celebrated and play crucial roles in all progress and social change. However, allies do not experience oppression and marginalization in the same way as the group they support. This isn't a good or a bad thing, but it does means that there's certain areas of experience that are inaccessible to allies, and those areas deserve exploration just as much as our points of human commonality do. Ideally, both ally-inclusive and -exclusive spaces can exist, because they serve different functions.
Finally, I am of course aware that problematic hierarchies are established even within these exclusionary spaces. This legitimates the need for other exclusionary spaces, which will legitimate the need for still others. That's a good thing...the more spaces created, the better. And again, let me reiterate that this should always operate in balance with the opening up of established spaces and the creation of spaces that promote inclusion. I simply resist the idea that the latter is better, or negates the need for the former. Ignoring power paints a rosy picture, but not a very realistic one.
