Oh, I think this is very different now from when it was happening back in time. Back in the 60s-80s, younger generations were the ones actually fighting for the Freedom of Expression. Nowadays the younger generation is the one pushing for harder stances to make people shut up. Look at safe zones in university campuses, it's actively enforced by students themselves.

To pick a hopefully neutral example, should it be "safe" for you to go to a chess club meeting and diss everybody there because you think Go is superior? They'll ask you to leave, and rightfully so.

It's a good thing to have these small "bubbles" for all sorts of minorities in which they get to define the rules.

Where it gets more interesting is when it affects the broader public sphere. That said, the particular examples you gave are ones where you'd be rightfully excluded depending on how you approach the subject. The evidence seems pretty clear that being gay or trans are real things. It took me some time to figure that out, but I found that as long as I approached the topic in a civil way, others responded in kind.

The problem is that the kind of people who complain about "anti-freedom of expression" or "excessive political correctness" are usually not the kind of people who approach those topics in a civil way. They have a certain foregone conclusion in their minds, and aren't ready to accept anything that contradicts that conclusion. So naturally, they end up being (justly) excluded from the discussion.

Your framing of this issue as simply being about LGBT wanting to be able to meet together without harassment is disingenuous.

The point is: Yes, the public sphere is also changing, but it's changing slowly, and the participants of the discussion who see a danger to freedom of speech are >95% hysterically exaggerating.

Meanwhile, it's good to keep in mind that there are <5% crazies in every group, including chess players and LGBT people. Listening to them is never a good idea.

[0] When you dig down, what you usually find is some minor committee discussing whether they should change the language used in their own bylaws and/or publications. I.e. it's not legislation, nobody is being forced to do anything, and most of these initiatives don't even pass in the first place.

> Examples of Violations

> a. Intentional or repeated refusal to use an individual’s preferred name, pronoun or title. For example, repeatedly calling a transgender woman “him” or “Mr.” after she has made clear which pronouns and title she uses

[snip]

> And this isn’t just the government as employer, requiring its employees to say things that keep government patrons happy with government services. This is the government as sovereign, threatening “civil penalties up to $125,000 for violations, and up to $250,000 for violations that are the result of willful, wanton, or malicious conduct” if people don’t speak the way the government tells them to speak.

Also, that entire last paragraph requires a great of assumption and stereotyping on your part.

Do our college students really need to be kept "safe" from mere disagreement?

Quite the opposite. Typically safe space warriors are demanding that people have different rights in public based on their genetics, not the same rights.

E.g. "You're a white man so shut up, I should have a special right to speak over you because of [XYZ]."

Here are some examples: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xK4MBzp5YwM

Part of maturing is learning how to stand for one's ideas and beliefs, as well as learning how to deal with (bigoted) opposition to those. Isolating yourself, locking yourself in the echo chamber will make you unprepared for dialogue with those outside of it, or worse, will end with you radicalizing because you'll grow up with your standing never contested.

This is also going the other way. If you'll remove yourself from discourse, you will willfully marginalize yourself. How can local population know that LGBT people are living among them and are their friends/relatives/normal folk, if those people will lock themselves up in their safe spaces?

My favorite example when it comes to LGBT is polish activist turned politician, [Robert Biedroń](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Biedro%C5%84), who has spent life being vocal and visible activist for LGBT rights - extremely courageous feat in mostly catholic and conservatist Poland. The culmination of his work was gaining enough popular support to become mayor in 100k large city.

If this guy ran in my city, he'll get my vote. Even if I disagree with 90% of what he says because politically he always aligns himself with socialists and I'm moderate, I believe that what he does for making our society less bigoted is worth every support.

Now ask yourself, how many such Biedrońs will not come to be because they'll close themselves in their small worlds in fear of their feelings being hurt by some bigots?

I know you'll argue against that point, but I mention it not for you, but to put what you said into context for other readers.

Is your argument "oh, but racists are also shaping discourse of their societes"?

My post wasn't for you.