The present paper intends to understand the paradox expressed in the context of social policies with goals of social inclusion for adolescents: this policies may be inadequate to deal with expressions of social and gender identities, and with particular demands holds by adolescents clients. Therefore, processes that legitimate exclusion are internally generated, and potentially, the expulsion of some subjects is the result of interactions. The paper addresses a theoretical agenda drawing on debates on social vulnerability, social exclusion and citizenship. The main assumptions hold are: a) articulation on social categories on risk and vulnerability frame interactions and expectations hold by agents, determinating patterns of inclusion and exclusion; b) gender identities, contexts and modes of participation, interest and demands may determinate flexibility for negotiating in some areas while not in others. To do so, the paper’s empirical evidence has been produced through ethnographic work in different contexts of implementation of social policies with goals of social inclusion directed to adolescents defined as in social vulnerability in the metropolitan area of Buenos Aires. Some of the empirical questions are: which are the figures or social categories constructed by programs as “vulnerable” or “at risk”? What programs consider as social inclusion? Which behaviours are considered legitimist or ilegitimist? What the participation in the programs means for the adolescents? Which interactions results in expulsions and which ones in transformations –of programs and/or adolescents?