[daxorid]

If we remove the ideological aspect of this argument entirely, what we're left with is the notion that employment is supposed to be 100% comfortable. But...

In any given employment environment: chairs may be less than form-fitting; different people will have different tolerances for the thermostat setting; some employees may heat fish and durian fruit in the microwave; one may be asked to load or unload 40 foot shipping containers; being under pressure to meet a deadline is fairly normal; a boss or coworker may have an unpleasant personality, possibly even a personality disorder.

In general, we expect that in many ways, employment will be uncomfortable. In general, we accept this as a nominal cost of earning a living.

But once various ideologies are introduced, there is a sudden expectation that a small and specific subset of workplace interactions ought to be 100% pleasant and comfortable. Why is this?

[cimmanom]

If I have the choice between working somewhere where my colleague thinks he has the right to rape me if I don't sleep with him vs a place where my colleagues are respectful and have my back, where do you think I'll choose to work? And if I don't have a choice of where to work, do you think I'll be able to do my best work with that sort of threat present?

It's not just about comfort (though personally I do think people have a right to a workplace where there coworkers would defend them against bodily harm rather than claim a right to inflict it). It's also about what's best for the business.