My first thought is that allowing relationships to develop naturally and slowly is different from "false constructs of separateness".
There have been tons of conversations around here about the pitfalls of looking specifically for a triad: dealing with the differences in relationships between the participants (assuming you are even able to find 3 people who are all interested in being together in a triad), rushing into co-habitation, and having not only the three relationships (each pair) to navigate but also the overall relationship of the three.
With so much more complexity, it makes sense to me to have a certain level of "separateness" as the relationships are first developing. Rather like training wheels on a bike. It's only meant to be used for a little while as people learn about each other and themselves in this relationship configuration, and then the training wheels are taken off. It's when the relationship does not grow past the need for training wheels and in fact becomes dependent on them that it becomes problematic.
I also think inclusion can be forced just as much as separateness. That's when it comes across more like a demand as opposed to redpepper's invitation. "Bringing someone in" implies an expectation, which puts even more pressure on an already complicated situation.
It seems to me like she's assuming that the opposite of "inclusion" is "exclusion", but though that's how the English language works that's not an accurate description of how relationships work. There's a LOT of gray area in between "everyone all together" and "everyone must stay separate" that she's either unaware of or choosing to ignore. Like I'm choosing to ignore her "we are already connected energetically as souls". Just because I'm connected to someone as a fellow human being, it doesn't automatically follow that I want to spend time with them!
Pan Female, Hinge in a V between my mono (straight) husband, Monochrome and my poly (pan) partner, ThatGuyInBlack