Forming isolated cliques is definitely a risk. However, not all sub-communities are isolated. When you're "Doing It Right," sub-communities exist to support t

Forming isolated cliques is definitely a risk. However, not all sub-communities are isolated. When you're "Doing It Right," sub-communities exist to support their members in joining the parent community. If you're a Ruby programmer, you're much more likely to go to a conference if there's a Ruby panel! In that example, the Ruby "sub-community" (panel) serves 3 functions: It gives skeptical Rubyists a "safe place" to base their experience; it gives curious non-Rubyists an entry point to start learning; and it creates an organizational "bucket" for Ruby-related discussion, so it doesn't clog other panels (as much, maybe). Of course, "Ruby" is a separation by technical necessity, whereas "Queer" is a cultural one. I'd be remiss in claiming that the exact same forces were at work. My main point is simply: In a perfect world, sub-communities would not be necessary. In the real world, sub-communities--when managed properly--can be a huge asset to prospective novices who don't belong to the majority.