[laughfactory]

Uh, safe for the minority perhaps, but not safe for anyone who would dare to express any contradicting views. Imagine if someone said they thought their was no such thing as being gay, or said that they didn't think being trans was a real thing. Do you think the "safe zone" would be "safe" for them? At least in my perspective it's a very one-sided, anti-freedom of expression movement. It seems ignorant of me for so many which support them to overlook this.

[nhaehnle]

It's not supposed to be safe for other people.

To pick a hopefully neutral example, should it be "safe" for you to go to a chess club meeting and diss everybody there because you think Go is superior? They'll ask you to leave, and rightfully so.

It's a good thing to have these small "bubbles" for all sorts of minorities in which they get to define the rules.

Where it gets more interesting is when it affects the broader public sphere. That said, the particular examples you gave are ones where you'd be rightfully excluded depending on how you approach the subject. The evidence seems pretty clear that being gay or trans are real things. It took me some time to figure that out, but I found that as long as I approached the topic in a civil way, others responded in kind.

The problem is that the kind of people who complain about "anti-freedom of expression" or "excessive political correctness" are usually not the kind of people who approach those topics in a civil way. They have a certain foregone conclusion in their minds, and aren't ready to accept anything that contradicts that conclusion. So naturally, they end up being (justly) excluded from the discussion.

[braveo]

There has literally been attempts at passing legislation to force people to use gender pronouns other than he or she.

Your framing of this issue as simply being about LGBT wanting to be able to meet together without harassment is disingenuous.

[nhaehnle]

Unsuccessful attempts, maybe, although I doubt it. These kinds of stories tend to be greatly exaggerated, so: citation needed.[0] Meanwhile, there have been actual laws (not attempts!) that criminalized deviation from the heterosexual norm not so long ago -- or even today in not-so-nice countries.

The point is: Yes, the public sphere is also changing, but it's changing slowly, and the participants of the discussion who see a danger to freedom of speech are >95% hysterically exaggerating.

Meanwhile, it's good to keep in mind that there are <5% crazies in every group, including chess players and LGBT people. Listening to them is never a good idea.

[0] When you dig down, what you usually find is some minor committee discussing whether they should change the language used in their own bylaws and/or publications. I.e. it's not legislation, nobody is being forced to do anything, and most of these initiatives don't even pass in the first place.

[braveo]

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/201...

> Examples of Violations

> a. Intentional or repeated refusal to use an individual’s preferred name, pronoun or title. For example, repeatedly calling a transgender woman “him” or “Mr.” after she has made clear which pronouns and title she uses

[snip]

> And this isn’t just the government as employer, requiring its employees to say things that keep government patrons happy with government services. This is the government as sovereign, threatening “civil penalties up to $125,000 for violations, and up to $250,000 for violations that are the result of willful, wanton, or malicious conduct” if people don’t speak the way the government tells them to speak.

[nhaehnle]

Thanks for the link, that's indeed extreme. It's a pity that the original source link is dead.

[talmand]

That's all well and good until the entire university is the safe space.

Also, that entire last paragraph requires a great of assumption and stereotyping on your part.