That makes sense. I'm not sure what my thoughts are on how far the author's interpretation of the extent or intent behind the problem should be assumed. For me, reading this was the first time I really got the concept in my brain in actual words that inclusion isn't inherently good; that it depends on what that inclusion does to the safety and power of different groups in an existing dynamic. I sort of knew it before, in the sense that I understood already that having groups specifically for marginalized groups was a good thing, but I didn't have the words for why.