I'm not sure what your point you are trying to make.
People always hate being excluded from anything. Those who are discriminated against tend to hate discrimination in any form. I very much doubt that a "gay" community would stop a straight person from joining and participating, provided that the participation was still within the intent and spirit of the community. An explicitly exclusionary organisation, on the other hand, would not be very likely to allow a straight person to join and/or participate.
The reason why a gay community might exist is that there is a sub-cultural assumption which is not shared by the general populace. I can't see that a "straight" community would have purpose except being exclusionary. It's not like it exists to offer a different sub-cultural perspective (one shared by its members), because the "straight" perspective is the default and dominant perspective. If someone were to raise an objection to some hypothetical "straight" community, I can only imagine that it would be on those grounds. Such a group could only exist for the express purpose of excluding gay members from a sexual-orientation-neutral group, whereas a gay group could exist with a primary purpose of offering a different perspective which is member-centric, where those members happen to be predominantly gay. The lack of a straight membership would point to a lack of interest or shared experience, rather than a deliberate exclusion tactic.
It's the same reason why most universities have a Women's rights officer, and not a Men's rights officer. Offering the dominant perspective (that of straight white middle class males) is redundant and unhelpful. If you disagree that western society operates in a means that is primarily beneficial to straight white middle class males, then I guess we'll have to agree to disagree.
no subject
People always hate being excluded from anything. Those who are discriminated against tend to hate discrimination in any form. I very much doubt that a "gay" community would stop a straight person from joining and participating, provided that the participation was still within the intent and spirit of the community. An explicitly exclusionary organisation, on the other hand, would not be very likely to allow a straight person to join and/or participate.
The reason why a gay community might exist is that there is a sub-cultural assumption which is not shared by the general populace. I can't see that a "straight" community would have purpose except being exclusionary. It's not like it exists to offer a different sub-cultural perspective (one shared by its members), because the "straight" perspective is the default and dominant perspective. If someone were to raise an objection to some hypothetical "straight" community, I can only imagine that it would be on those grounds. Such a group could only exist for the express purpose of excluding gay members from a sexual-orientation-neutral group, whereas a gay group could exist with a primary purpose of offering a different perspective which is member-centric, where those members happen to be predominantly gay. The lack of a straight membership would point to a lack of interest or shared experience, rather than a deliberate exclusion tactic.
It's the same reason why most universities have a Women's rights officer, and not a Men's rights officer. Offering the dominant perspective (that of straight white middle class males) is redundant and unhelpful. If you disagree that western society operates in a means that is primarily beneficial to straight white middle class males, then I guess we'll have to agree to disagree.