This article raises the question of whether STEM educators have unknowingly reinforced privilege structures, promoting the "Myth of Meritocracy" in defining "belonging". The drive to facilitate belonging for all students derives from the knowledge that, particularly for members of stigmatized or minoritized groups, a feeling of not belonging, of being isolated, of being the "outsider" comes along with a diminished sense of potential and interest in joining, or drives them to leave STEM. Thus, in efforts to decrease students' feelings of not belonging, of not fitting in, educational developers like myself train educators to nurture classroom climates and design curricula that give all students a sense of belonging. Many resources explain that "nurturing belonging" means valuing diverse student voices and creating a space where every student, regardless of background, can learn. It means seeing individual student difference as a source of strength. It means inclusion. However, it was only during my discussion with female professors, none of whom identified as feeling belonging in science, that I began to question whether not belonging, not fitting in, and feeling isolated are truly remedied by nurturing belonging as it is typically defined. Through interviews and surveys with practicing STEM instructors, I concluded that "inclusion" has been defined as "belonging" and belonging said to be synonymous with membership, with fitting in to normative structures. We have believed that if only the marginalized students can come to be a part of the "in crowd," then they will become privileged. This connotation casts "belonging" as a process of assimilation, which needs to be addressed and revised.