To in wit you might get the reply "Why do you find that joke hurtful?"
You can either throw out a semantic stop sign or engage in empathy. You can share meaningfully why you don't like those terms or jokes. You might say something like "My father told a lot of homophobic jokes to crush my self esteem once I came out as gay and I still find them hurtful."
Notice how we are enforcing a boundary not as an arbitrary line but as a conversation between two people? We use reasoning - not just cold rationality but the full spectrum of emotional reasoning too - to negotiate boundaries.
> When I’m able I’d much rather spend the time to educate someone about diversity and inclusion issues and see if I can change how they see the world a bit. But I don’t always have the time and energy to do that. And sometimes, even if I did have the time, the person involved doesn’t want to be educated.
So in this case, I would agree with you. I think the author would as well. She is not making this suggestion as a one size fits all response to off-color remarks. It's useful when people really should know better and there's other work that should be done. Or, the person is unable to accept criticism.
> “We don’t do that here” should be a statement of fact and nothing more. It clearly and concisely sets a boundary, and also makes it easy to disengage with any possible rebuttals.
Of course it cuts both ways. Any method of setting a boundary can be used to enforce morally just or unjust rules. The authors point is that
> “We don’t do that here” was a polite but firm way to educate the newcomer about our culture.
Genuinely asking: Does your position of "maximizing individual agency" mean that we should not enforce boundaries? If am running an office and someone makes a homophobic joke (not acceptable), what (in your view) is my recourse?