Of course. A better way of saying what I intended is this:

We cannot control the statistical distribution of opinions within the population and hence cannot control whether we will be shunned or shamed. However, that does not mean that we throw up our hands and define "repulsive" to be whatever gets us shunned by the majority: neither truth nor morality is completely relative.

The two propositions I gave differ markedly in the degree to which they should be controversial to a kind rational mind:

(1) That ceteris paribus two humans who differ only in their ethnicity should be accorded the same rights, a kind rational mind will always agree with.

(2) That a man who decided recently to try to become a woman is not a woman in exactly the same sense as a standard biological woman is something that most kind rational minds will agree with, but some still perhaps might not.

I'm sure you're not suggesting that either of those propositions is repulsive in any absolute sense. What I am saying is that in order to maintain standards in society, rather than letting those standards drift with cultural fashions and whims, all those who write and speak with the aim of maintaining a healthy culture should state clearly that proposition (2) is not repulsive or deserving of shame.

What I find repulsive isn't the point. There certainly are people who will avoid working with you if you make public statements in support of (2). It's not up to us to define the threshold at which people will or won't shun us. Unless you want to give up on the concept of free association --- it seems clear you don't --- you're going to have to accept that it's possible to have and express opinions that will foreclose on some options in life for you. You have freedom of speech, but not freedom from social repercussions, and there is no clean divide between "social" and "workplace".

People in countries which had civil wars, can work together today even if they were literally fighting each other a decade ago. But disagreeing with some woke theory makes you somebody who can't be worked with?

I think the point should be that society benefits greatly by giving room for a wide variety of thought and opinion without shame and judgement. Opinions, generally, shouldn’t be considered odious, rather, the actions we take that impinge on others directly.

As a teen in the 80s, I was a conservative on a debate team full of liberals, including members of the Young Communists. Guess what- we were all good friends despite being ideologically at odds.

Having room to rationally discuss our differences makes for an ability for a pluralistic society to have open debate without rancor and violence. Using well formed argument rather than vitriol and public shaming to truly convince rather than force public agreement and private grievance seems to me a better recipe for a harmonious and just society.

Yes of course I accept all of that — one can hardly have missed that in the last five or so years, since completely unreasonable positions have been raised to the status of dogma by educated liberals in the sorts of workplaces that you and I work in. One can and should remind the world that it shouldn’t be that way: shunning and shaming should be reserved for extreme opinions.

Who's to say what's "reasonable"? Marriage equality was considered absolutely unreasonable just 15 years ago. I think you need to learn to live with the fact that people can simply decide to find your opinions odious, and a consequence of that will be you not being able to work with them. You don't have a right to force people to associate with you.

I’ve already told you that I accept that. But odious cuts both ways: people like me find people who would shun and shame someone for holding a differing view odious, and we wouldn't want to work with them. Or hire them. I would never have shunned and/or shamed them had they not started it, but I am capable of retaliation.

In fact, this conversation has inspired me. I interview for SWE positions. It's time to stand up against these people. I will argue against hiring anyone whom I suspect would engage in shunning/shaming someone for failing to fall into line with progressive dogma; I'll find excuses for making the argument on technical grounds.

Absolutely, go right ahead.