Area (2009) 41.2, 186–197 doi: 10.1111/j.1475-4762.2008.00852.x Area Vol. 41 No. 2, pp. 186–197, 2009 ISSN 0004-0894 © The Author. Journal compilation © Royal Geographical Society (with The Institute of British Geographers) 2008 Blackwell Publishing Ltd Framing exclusion in Cape Town’s gay village: the discursive and material perpetration of inequitable queer subjects 1 Andrew Tucker Department of Geography, University of Cambridge, Cambridge CB2 3EN Email: art25@cam.ac.uk Revised manuscript received 6 July 2008 Within and beyond geography, there has been a growing concern in understanding how and why exclusion can occur within ‘gay spaces’, with a specific focus on Western Europe and North America. Heidi Nast’s (2002 Queer patriarchies, queer racisms, international Antipode 34 874–909) work on the ‘white queer patriarch’ has taken this work further by exploring the multiple, interrelated, historical and contemporary factors that can lead to exclusion and exploitation. Despite growing interest surrounding South Africa’s new liberal queer agenda, issues of contemporary exclusion among queer groups as a direct result of race and racism have remained relatively unexplored. By incorporating elements of Nast’s schema, this article will examine the power that exists in the creation and framing of essentialistic ‘white’ and ‘coloured’ queer male subjects in Cape Town’s gay village. These subjects will be shown to simultaneously draw on historical inequalities while also re-imagining them in contemporary settings to re-inscribe perceptions of classed and gendered difference. The creation of such inequitable subjects helps us understand how exclusion can become real and normalised within a space such as Cape Town’s gay village in a way that draws on a history of material inequalities and discursive perceptions of race. Key words: queer geography, South Africa, race, sexuality, gender, racism Introduction In October 2003 a ‘coloured’ man, Marcus Pillay, together with his ‘white’ partner Pierre de Vos were enjoying a night out in the De Waterkant gay village in Cape Town. 2 During the evening the pair decided to visit the then very popular Sliver nightclub. While the security staff at the entrance allowed de Vos into the club, Pillay was turned away. The security claimed at the time that this was because Pillay was inappropriately dressed (a claim later dismissed, see Lane 2005). An argument developed between the couple and the security staff during which both Pillay and de Vos were physically assaulted. 3 In the following weeks Pillay and de Vos (who was a highly regard constitutional law professor) lodged a complaint with the city’s newly formed Equality Court. In a settlement between the two parties before the court made its judgement, Sliver admitted to having in place a racially discriminatory door policy. It also paid R10 000 (approximately £1100) 4 to a charity of Pillay and de Vos’ choice. The story soon became well known in Cape Town and the wider country (Ajam 2003; Kassiem 2004; Oosterwyk 2003). In the weeks that followed many other black African and coloured queer men came forward and described similar experiences of exclusion at venues in the gay village, leading in one instance to a picket outside another club. 5 While the admission and settlement on the part of Sliver helped frame this issue as one solely about race in South Africa – whereby skin colour