Unless their statement is "My wife/husband worked on a problem very similar to the one we're trying to solve here, let's give her/his solution a shot!" it's not a conversation I want to have at work, while trying to solve work problems.

Which is fine, but small/personal talk is extremely common at work, and many people would find a workplace completely devoid of it to be rather cold. I don't think most people saying 'no politics' want to take that as far as banning all talk of anything not directly related to the task at hand.

Small/personal talk is best done in small, personal social settings. If two co-workers who know each other well are enjoying a conversation between themselves, great! I mean that. I have friends at work, too.

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.

I guess I was thinking of something in between a private conversation and a meeting. Things like chatting in a shared office (which I know is a distracting no-no in some contexts, but not all, at least when it comes to a slightly extended greeting/farewell), or in the kitchen/corridor/doorway/photocopier room. Anywhere people naturally gather and mingle when they're not necessarily in full work mode. Depending on the workplace, that sort of thing is very common and a ban would seem weird and draconian.

It really is easy enough in practice. As tech folks, I know we as a group naturally hunt for edge cases, but I can say with complete confidence that everywhere that I've worked that put the kibosh on politics/personal during everyday business discussion was a much more humane place, for everyone, to work than one where such limitations weren't present.

I disagree that those are edge cases, but I'm happy to accept that we've had different experiences.

How about 'I'm taking paternity leave'? That's them telling you something x-rated they did 9 months ago and it will definitely change how you solve problems.

Discussion about the details of your paternity leave, how long you're planning to be away, and contingencies if you need more time: Yes, and congratulations!

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.

If 'gender of partner' counts as 'details', that's a pretty extreme stance to take. (If not, the original point still stands.)

I mean this politely- please stop assigning the worst possible interpretation to what I'm saying. It goes against the spirit of discussion, and doesn't generate insight.

I don't receive it very politely. It's clearly condescending, and from my perspective you are the one reading uncharitably. I explicitly didn't assume either interpretation of your statement; my point was that it was either extreme or, as far as I understood the thread of this discussion, irrelevant. (This subchain began with someone pointing out that one's sexual orientation will naturally be revealed in a work context.)

> We’re humans, we share about our lives.

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.