If a group cannot accommodate these issues of respect, then its existence is problematic, and maybe a mass exodus and formation of a new group with new principles of unity is a good outcome. The trick is to find the balance between the constant struggle that democratic and inclusive practice requires, and the ability of the group's goal to be pursued without endless splits. As Reagon graphically explained, real coalition work is hard. Individuals who repeatedly engage in disruptive behavior should be expelled from a group, as long as some sincere attempt is made to reconcile the person to the group's principles of unity regarding appropriate behavior. Nothing is more destructive in a mass organization than rumors claiming someone is a secret member of a cadre cell, or a police agent, or mentally unbalanced.
Some people are just disruptive, for whatever reason.
It is essential that the objective effect of the behavior be the focus, not the assumed intent or cause of the behavior. It is manipulative, elitist, and profoundly undemocratic. Members of cadre organizations need to be sensitive to the fact that their presence changes the dynamics of mass organizations and learn to tread lightly. They may see themselves in the vanguard, but history makes that judgement. Insisting it is so will not speed up the process.