If someone is gay, straight, whatever, it doesn't have any bearing on their work, so it's not something that's discussed. I have literally zero desire to hear about anybody's sexual relationships at work.

If someone thinks that the mere presence of a gay person is an agenda, then they fail rule 1, which is be polite and professional to your co-workers, and it's on them to either get a grip or leave.

So you shut it down when people talk about going on a date with their spouse or talk about their kids?

Because literally, this is the bar a lot of homophobes exist at to consider a conversation about a gay relationship 'political' or even religious, and they will act on it.

Insisting on personal pronouns over another employee’s pushback is a much more realistic (and still compelling) line of argument.

If a company I worked at went full no-politics at work after two minor incidents about the founders use of ablest language, and the acceptability of making lists of "funny" names, then I think I'd probably not know where the line is for them.

So the homophobe is being political, and therefore breaks policy.

Perhaps they would feel better if they let their misapprehensions and hate towards their colleagues go.

Their goal is to further marginalize the already-marginalized, and shut down conversations about making the workplace a more inclusive place.

Because somehow "hey let's stop discriminating against $XYZ type of person" is somehow "political".

Usually its a bunch of people advocating for socialism, screaming silence is violence, and saying white people are going to hell

From what I've seen (maybe this is just the bay area) you don't usually know someone is conservative until they trust you lol

You’re not very good at straw man arguments, for what it’s worth.

How do you define what's a fireable homophopic offense. You need to discuss it, you can't shut it down because its political and uncomfortable to discuss. You need to listen to the people that are being made uncomfortable and have these discussions. "stop being political" is making a decision, it's the side of no change.

If you see a homophobic (or racist, or sexist, or inappropriate, etc) offense, you should absolutely report it to your superior and/or HR, and AFAICT Basecamp's changes don't say you shouldn't. It sounds like they're just banning discussions in the open channels with coworkers ("Hey everyone, do you think what Bob did was homophobic?").

Of course, I might be misinformed on 1) whether you're still allowed to report workplace offenses to HR, and/or 2) whether company-wide conversation about your coworkers' potential offenses is actually a positive thing to allow.

As a racially ambiguous guy, most people are professional, but I pick up occasional comments and the way people act when you try to show them a better way or correct them really shines a light on this issue.

This is what actual tolerance looks like in action!

You say that is the case. People affected by it say it isn't (and have examples). Who to believe ...

Were there people that didn't like me because I wasn't like them? Sure. They weren't the majority, most people are just fine no matter where you go in the world, and I'm doing fine myself.

Learning to come to grips that you aren't going to like everyone (and that it is mutual) is a large part of the lessons of becoming an adult. Learning to appreciate the fact that most people genuinely are able to treat you professionally at work regardless, no matter what the social media crowds say, is just as important.

It might be harder to come by in smaller metropolitan areas or rural areas.

EDIT Also, it is very difficult to suss out this type of before being hired. Most people at least pretend to be professional until they get comfortable.

But personal talk absolutely does not belong in larger meetings or workplace discussions where you're trying solve work issues. It's a distraction at best, and unprofessional in general.

Discussion about the details of the sexual act that led you to needing to take paternity leave: No, don't care, not interested, not relevant.

Some humans do, some don't. It makes sense for people who aren't interested to be able to avoid it and for people who are interested to be able to have it.

It's not, though. I've worked with a lot of gay people, and none have ever brought politics into work. This is just a BS argument by the people who do. There is a legitimate point about where do you draw the line (e.g. is bitching about CA taxes "politics"), but this is not it.

Maybe to you, but most of us don't give a shit either way.

Please don't use your gay colleagues as political totems. It's actually quite dehumanizing. Just treat us as people. Thanks.

If someone considers their very existence political, I think that's a big red flag. Whether it's because they think society is persecuting them for being Christian, or for being gay, it will still be a high confidence predictor that they will create drama in the office.

It's not since very recently -- and to some extent still only in certain geographies -- that being gay in the workplace is apolitical.

I'm actually generally a fan of "no politics / no religion" cultures (IME: actual literal rules indicate the culture is broken... not opposed to rules, but I prefer places where it doesn't even need to be said out loud!). But there absolutely are workplaces where being gay is political. And prior to the 1990s being out at work was very much not a good idea in most of the country.

We're not talking about ancient history here...

As in, "let's pretend they don't exist, ban them from anything that straight couples can do, and push them to get conversion therapy so they behave like us 'normal' folks".

Her big question to use was "is there going to be a problem with me working here". As in "are people going to treat me like shit because I am transgender".

It was an extremely professional environment and I and my boss unequivocally said - we don't care what you are as long as you do your job and do it well.

I worked with her for probably near a year and I did not see people overtly treating her badly, making comments of any sort at all. People called her by a name that she chose and used the pronouns she wanted.

Of course I don't know her experience but I can't express how it was a 'professional' environment enough. I have never worked somewhere that was so damn... professional. This included old dudes, old women, young men and women, people from all sorts of cultures and backgrounds (UK, India, Ukraine, and all over the US, and probably more places).

People minded their own business, were polite, did not intrude upon personal matters, and while there was some jockying around sports teams - it was a place where all sorts of people and backgrounds worked. There was an extremely competent HR department, and middle management and C levels who were very serious about being professional.

I don't know - kind of a rant - hopefully her experience at my workplace was one of her better ones.

DHH has been very vocal in the last few months in public tirades against Apple, government lobbying, etc. While he has every right to his views, he's also the public face of Basecamp. So it comes across as a teeny bit hypocritical to issue a no-politics diktat on his workforce.

The real problem with Basecamp isn't the no politics thing. The problem is that the company exists for the personal gratification of its two founders, and it's one rule for them and one rule for everyone else. If you're on board with that, fine, but maybe for some employees this was just the final straw.

Being vocal about apple's business practices isn't necessarily political. It sounds more about business to me.

Thankfully, most places have moved on from that, but many still don't allow people to, say, marry the person they love.

How is that so? They have pretty clear definition.

(And those disagreeing are wrong, but telling them that suddenly, by the logic of the "no politics" crowd, makes you the problem. Almost like all of this exists to reify a status quo that's good for the people currently high on the hog. Hm.)

Given that the only obvious reason to actively refuse to use their preferred pronouns amounts to a pretty deep attack on the legitimacy of their identity, you can see why it would not feel like a trivial thing.

You might be similarly intent on insisting that people call you <actual name> rather than <offensive nickname>; that's just as real an example of "dictating other people's words".

Which, to be fair, everyone with names and/or pronoun preferences (including a preference for the pronoun that is associated with the gender one is assigned based on the appearance of one’s genitalia at birth) tends to do, its just that when either the name or pronoun preference conflicts with someone else’s ideological view of the world, then the person who is trying to impose their ideology over other’s identity projects the other person’s identity as a “political position” and an imposition on liberty.

In general I find it more productive to focus on myself than demand others conform.

This misses the point. If you would be bothered by an actually offensive nickname, surely you can empathise with trans people who feel the same way about pronouns. If you are truly unoffendable, great, but you must realise that you're unusual in that respect, and that trans people are far from the only ones 'dictating' how others refer to them.

In any case, this comment is more to the point (you may have already seen and downvoted it, I'm not sure): https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27002002

But since you asked, no I don't talk about myself in the third person.

If you would complain if a colleague persistently referred to you as 'she' (if you're a man) or 'he' (if you're a woman), your real argument is not that nobody should be 'forced' to use a certain set of pronouns when referring to another person.

Deliberate misgendering is harassment.

You can put in whatever pronoun choice you believe is correct.

I may or may not have an opinion about it.

I can keep that opinion about it to myself, unless you ask for it.

Nearly all political differences have nothing to do with performing one's job.

With a few exceptions, I consider it very unprofessional for an employee or colleague of mine to start discussing their sexual preferences, gay or straight. I wouldn't ask for the same reason.

> ... just blanket “No religion/no politics” is just a way to say you like everything the way it is and don’t want to feel uncomfortable

I think you are just projecting. There are tons of benefits (mentioned elsewhere in these comments) to keeping politics & religion out of the workplace.