An additional perspective on this situation based on the following supposition:
Specifically, I well imagine that (horse) stallions are excluded from the hunt camp.
If that is the case, then it would be based on the reasonable conclusion that relative to, for example “white ponies”, as presented above by immissvixen, a stallion (especially an unknown stallion-rider combination) has more potential to cause problems (of a different sort) than a gelding or a mare.
I am sure that many of us, myself included, have hunted along side wonderful, well-behaved stallions that demonstrated no virility-based antics out in the huntfield. Truly wonderful hunting horses.
But would exclusion of an unknown stallion (and its rider) from a hunt camp full of newbie horses and riders be considered prejudicial against stallions? Or would it be considered a good common sense decision based on assessment of relative risks.
Perhaps the owner /rider of the stallion would consider themselves to be a “victim of predujice”, as it were.
But an alternative interpretation is that this policy of exclusion of unknown stallions is a reasonable decision based on the increased potential risk of unacceptable virility-based behaviors by stallions, as a whole.
By analogy, the same would apply to the exclusion of mules. A certain percentage of horses have a profound and negative response to mules. This is known. In turn, the decision to exclude mules, would then be based on this known increased chance (again relative to white ponies) of the mere presence of mules causing disruption.
Importantly, this is in the context of newbie horses and newbie riders (NOT experienced hunting horses and members - where is would be expected to handle a variety of situations, mules and otherwise).
If the initial supposition that I proposed is incorrect, then obviously what follows in null.
But perhaps it is of use to look at this mule exclusion policy as one based on assessment of relative risks. Any such decision will have an “arbitrariness” about it, such that the individual who is excluded will feel that they are a “victim of prejudice.”
Unfortunately, doing so may result in the inaccurate and unfair assigment of people’s motive, when indeed, they have the best of motives - specifically to assure the good results for the group as a whole.
'Nuff said. Thanks.
As far as “not permitted,” well…I’ve gotten permission to come hilltopping with two hunts, personal invitations (some from folks who serve as staff) to hunt my mule with four others, and heard at least a dozen anectdotes about mules successfully participating in Virginia Hunts, with at least a couple having been ridden by masters or whippers-in.
