I don’t care to get into it or take a position on the matter, I am just pointing out that it’s possible to have disagreements about where the boundaries are without it being the case that there is an element of hate involved.

It’s possible for someone to disagree that a man is a woman without hating them for thinking they are a woman. It’s also possible for them to be sensitive about how they express that without unnecessarily harassing or harming the other person. And it goes both ways. The degree to which others, particularly those with incompatible views, are willing to modify their own life in order to accommodate yours, is going to vary greatly. Figuring out where to compromise is the difficult part.

Do you think it’s disrespectful for someone to eat a big juicy steak at work while sitting right next to a vegan animal rights activist who sincerely feels anguish at the thought of us factory farming and slaughtering animals for food?

I think that issue is a lot simpler than some of these other issues, and yet I doubt that polite society can even agree on that.

Yes, and at certain points how you refer to a person is political because they are trans, what do you do then? What is the sensitive, non-harmful way to refer to a trans woman as a male? What is the sensitive, non-harmful way to refer to a trans woman as a woman (if you believe referring to trans women being seen as women is a hateful thing)?

Similarly, what happens if you believe espousing homosexuality as normal is hateful? What is the sensitive, non-harmful manner to ask your co worker to never bring up his husband, ever, in the workplace?

I'm not asking meanly, I genuinely don't understand.

I don’t think those examples are the more difficult ones, and those aren’t the issues that the detractors have. It’s not symmetrical. Some people think that it’s rude or even hateful to intentionally call a trans woman a man, but nobody thinks it’s rude or hateful to call a trans woman a woman. Where that becomes a problem for that side is where things get complicated.

Can trans women fight biological women in MMA? Can they compete in tennis? If you think they shouldn’t, is that hate and misgendering? Who is allowed to apply for scholarships reserved for women? Do trans women get lower insurance rates? Should we even be discriminating on scholarships and insurance rates to begin with? Is it reasonable to expect someone to use other pronouns that didn’t previously exist in English simply because someone requests it? Is a man allowed in womens change rooms because he puts on high heels but otherwise has taken no steps to transition his/her/their identity, or is there some arbitrary level of transitioning that counts? Who decides that? Everybody seems to have strong opinions on a lot of these issues and nobody is going to agree anytime soon. Yes, sometimes it’s hate, but it doesn’t take an ounce of hate for two individuals to be radically opposed on how this is supposed to work.

Could you clarify how this is the case that it isn't the issues detractors have, when another comment responding to this is in fact exactly whether or not trans people can ask to be called by their prefered pronouns?

Yes, that's the point I'm making. Their identity and their claim is a political statement, so banning politics at work puts being trans in a confusing situation which I'm curious about.

I'm not saying anything except that what does one do when a workplace bans politics but being LGBTQ is a political act? How does one avoid politics when calling someone 'he' or 'she' (either way) is a political act?

> being LGBTQ is a political act

Clearly that’s not the case, unless you make it your mission to make it so.

> How does one avoid politics when calling someone 'he' or 'she' (either way) is a political act?

If you allow this to be a treated as a political act which can only 1. be applied by someone who wants to exercise power over others, and 2. Can be used by former group to claim discrimination universally...

> what does one do when a workplace bans politics

Clearly politics is not banned, only certain kinds of politics is. The other kind is being enforced hard.

Don’t accept the double-speak.

> Clearly that’s not the case, unless you make it your mission to make it so.

I don't know if it is so clear, since the poster I'm responding to is explicitly claiming that trans women are not women, they are men. As far as I understand this is something referred to as politically charged subject matter.

> Clearly politics is not banned, only certain kinds of politics is. The other kind is being enforced hard.

Can you clarify? What is the other kind?

> If you allow this to be a treated as a political act

Is referring to a trans woman as a man or as a woman inherently apolitical, as it does not reflect on one's belief on if trans people are the gender they identify as?

> Is referring to a trans woman as a man or as a woman inherently apolitical, as it does not reflect on one's belief on if trans people are the gender they identify as?

My personal view is that people should be free to be who they are, and as long as it doesn't negatively impact others, it should be their own bloody business, and should have no legal implications.

So you're gay? You're a queer? Good for you! And no legal implications, please.

So you're legally man, with XY chromesomes, and you somehow feel like a woman, and maybe even like to dress as one? Good for you! Have fun, be proud, defy conventions! I do not hate you, but you are still a man, so no legal implications please.

To me, that's a statement of facts, and there's nothing awfully political about it.

The people who oppose that simple rationalist approach, are the ones who are rallying for a political platform, while at the same time claiming that opposing viewpoints must absolutely be denied a voice.

Despite the popular notion that these people are "liberals", there's nothing liberal or moderate about such a view, quite the contrary.