And a few parallels - what do you do about the person who's afraid of being shot if the government comes to take their guns (and thus is going to be uncomfortable with opinions leaning that way), or the person who's afraid of their kids being shot at school (and thus is going to be uncomfortable with opinions leaning towards fewer restrictions on guns)? You can't satisfy both of them without banning discussion, and a lot of issues are like that.
So I don't see some things as political issues at all; they have political components, and extend into politics, but they start somewhere else: I see them as human rights issues, and issues around empathy. If you're going to deny someone their existence, and are arrogant enough to proclaim that your lived experience is the be-all, end-all of everything, and that your exclusionary way of life should be enshrined in law, then I frankly just don't think you're a good person. And that has nothing to do with politics.
(To stop the expected rejoinder: no, this isn't a way to justify things like pedophilia. Everyone should be able to live their life they way they want to, but the key component is: as long as they aren't hurting anyone else in the process. Gay rights doesn't hurt anyone else. Pedophilia does.)
Regarding guns, I've had many productive discussions with people who own guns and staunchly support the 2nd Amendment. (My personal view is that 2A should be repealed, and we should have strict licensing and training requirements around gun ownership.) I don't know that I've changed anyone's mind, but I do feel like I understand some people better, and vice versa. With a few people I just hit an impasse; then I agree to disagree, and get on with my day.
And regardless, there's plenty of room for common ground there, too. Most of the gun owners I know think it's ridiculous how easy it is to get hold of a gun, and support more restrictions and requirements. Some even agree with me that "assault style" weapons should be restricted to gun ranges (or banned entirely) and not sold to the general public. And I've fired guns at ranges before and totally get how fun it can be. I'm generally skeptical of self-defense arguments, and think defense-from-government-tyranny arguments are laughable, but there's still plenty of common ground and productive discussion to be had.
This is one of the most overused, vague and inaccurate arguments. Nobody is denied from existing. These kind of extreme claims cause more friction than any actual discussion of the issue at hand.
Regardless, if you don't like it, remove that phrase from your reading; my point still stands without it.
If your identity requires acceptance by others for you to consider yourself valid then it's not really your identity at all. If that sounds strange then replace gender identity and sex orientation with religion. Nobody needs to accept your faith for you to have one. You remain fully independent and capable of having whatever identity you want.
Does that include Muslims and Catholics who oppose gay marriage?
> And regardless, there's plenty of room for common ground there, too. Most of the gun owners I know think it's ridiculous how easy it is to get hold of a gun, and support more restrictions and requirements. Some even agree with me that "assault style" weapons should be restricted to gun ranges (or banned entirely) and not sold to the general public. And I've fired guns at ranges before and totally get how fun it can be. I'm generally skeptical of self-defense arguments, and think defense-from-government-tyranny arguments are laughable, but there's still plenty of common ground and productive discussion to be had.
To me, this looks like you're so far to the gun control side of things that you're having conversations with milder gun control advocates and then thinking they're second amendment supporters. Have you ever had such a conversation with a true, "machine guns and artillery should be unregulated"-tier 2nd Amendment advocate? Or any 2nd Amendment advocate that doesn't support increasing gun control?
Your example discusses risks and statements about the future, but not questions of identity and personhood.
Identity is whatever a person decides it is, according to progressive doctrine, therefore it's not intrinsic to the person either. There's no objective identity-o-meter.
Interestingly, even that statement takes a particular religious stance.
Some branches of Christianity hold that a person does not choose to be Christian, but rather is chosen by God to be a Christian [0].
When two deeply-held elements of personal identity are in conflict, the only way to resolve it is for both sides to keep silent or for a third party to insert himself and pick the side in which he believes. In either case, you are telling someone he must change who he is.
The alternative is to simply not discuss such matters at work.
And yes, I believe both sides have the right to express their beliefs and that the comfort of neither trumps the right of the other to speak. I just think time, place, and manner are generally reasonable constraints.
This asymmetry of feelings is actually an argument in favor of not talking about some topics at work, unless all involved parties voluntarily agree to it. A less controversial but essentially equivalent example would be religion. It's widely recognized that you shouldn't spend time at work trying to invalidate your co-worker's religious views (or lack of them), unless they specifically ask you to. This applies to everything people build their identities around.
However this clearly won't lead to a productive workplace, which is why it's not a good idea to allow these discussions. There are plenty of other restrictions within a private company to create the best conditions for the work they're paying you for. It's perfectly reasonable.
Politics are making work hostile for everyone. Let's avoid them altogether.
The point is that instead of drawing a line around topics to say which ones are acceptable and which ones are not, there should be a line that says any discussion that causes harm/hurt to colleagues is frowned upon and to be avoided?
It's quite easy to say let's avoid politics because it causes problems at work, but that stance ignores the nuance in the situation.
Salary disparities based on completely arbitrary physical characteristics is not harm, it's politics. What does gender and race have to do with your salary? Aren't you negotiating your salary based on experience and competence? Is someone actively being harmed? How so?
That's the difference.
A salary disparity is also not a political discussion but its not a easy topic to bring up as in any company there will be multiple disparities. Work hour disparities. Work freedom disparities. Perks disparities. External disparities such as commuting distance between work and home. Flexibility disparities. Skill and social contact disparities. Education disparities. There are even game theory issues such as optimizing for retention might not always end up with all employees being identical cogs that can simply be replaced.
Just recently I know a very skilled employee that left his company after almost 10 years because the company had a policy of having every employee under the same title, same wage system, and same heavily rotating schedule. That place suffer a very heavy turnover and looking at their strategy for handling employees it is not that surprising, but in fairness they have no salary disparities if you account for hours worked. Everyone is treated as an identical cogs in the machine.
Should you be able to comfortably express that to your trans co-worker, no matter how uncomfortable that makes them?
That's why this is not a symmetrical issue.