I dunno... as a straight hetero man, Pride has had pretty much zero impact on me. A bunch of gay people walk by in costumes and flags, and businesses add rainbows to everything. What's the big deal?

But for people who are LGBTQ, it is an expression not just of pride but also sheer survival and resilience, something that wasn't guaranteed even in recent history (and still isn't, in many places).

I think it's easier to think of something as "political" when it's different from one's own norms, because the status quo is often invisible. And most of these minority groups don't seek to convert the status quo, only to find space for them to be themselves. There's a difference between evangelism and asking for tolerance, between asking for respect and reversing the oppression.

> There are many things that "just exist", but one subset of them receives massive media attention, mandatory acknowledgments, and is shielded from a lot of criticism, while another subset is constantly being ridiculed, mocked and villified.

Isn't that just how culture works? It's not some baked-in static thing that we figure out once and then never have to discuss again.

As to why certain topics get more positive coverage than others, well, probably it's just cultural norms trying to change, but seeing friction when it meets the status quo. Change is hard on a lot of people, institutions, cultures, and religions -- and that conflict is therefore newsworthy (and inflammatory and gets all the hits on social media, sigh).

The things that are changing get more coverage because they are actually newsworthy -- they are novel. "How to raise your kids" is a very important topic, but it's not exactly newsworthy because it's not new. It's been around for hundreds of thousands of years. You're still welcome to raise your family in a heterosexual nuclear way if you'd like, but it's relatively new for LGBTQ couples to be able to openly adopt (or otherwise have children), or even to work and marry and walk around in the open. Likewise, "How to be a housewife" is also a very important topic (and a difficult job!). And frankly it would be great if we celebrated both kids and moms more, and gave kids enough schooling and shelter and care and love to be able to grow and thrive as kids, and paid the working class enough such that single-earner households become viable again. For what it's worth, all those same concerns apply to gay parents raising kids too, but it would be considered "ideological" or "political" to discuss that in some circles.

> And giving one subset of people different rights from another one (even if it's non-monetary tokenism) makes a workplace toxic and increases tension.

So... like giving health benefits to one's heterosexual spouse, before gay marriage was legal?

Or... having people take free, undocumented PTO for a personal errand, but only if they have kids to pick up?

Or... paying and promoting white hetero men more?

Or... having reproductive health covered by your health plan?

Or... having Christmas as a mandatory paid holiday and refusing to cover other religious days?

There is so much in the workplace that is already discriminatory to many people. The difference is that the status quo has the power to just invisibly normalize these things and so we don't really have to think about it day to day, but the underdogs have to use "political" messaging or advocacy just to try to reach parity with the status quo majority.

Is something only toxic and tension-causing if it's different from the status quo? What if the status quo IS the problem for some? The "non-monetary tokenism" usually applies to some historically oppressed group for whom "leave politics out of _______" has resulted in actual harm, monetary or worse, upon their lives.

> We don't argue which subcategory deserves a month of acknowledgement, and who can get by with half-a-Friday

That is only the case when your workplace is either homogenous enough (which works well), or else invisibly oppressive (which doesn't work well), or else is diverse but also well paid enough that people choose to look the other way (which also works well, but is rare). In practice the second is the most common, I think, where you don't really talk about it but there's this permanent underclass who's just otherized and neglected. The cultural movements we're seeing now are because many of them have had enough and feel the need to speak up rather than to continue being marginalized. And frankly that goes both ways: all across the ideological spectrum, people are culturally dissatisfied with the status quo, each other, their employer, their government, etc. Our companies are ultimately just reflections of the individuals who own and staff them, and they don't exist in some cultureless vacuum...

If your workplace really hasn't had any discussions about any of this stuff, um... maybe it should? It's an inevitability that it's going to affect the employees/customers/stakeholders in one way or another. And if you don't address it, it's just going to blow up on its own when the pressure builds enough. I think cultural schisms are like earthquakes: you can have many small ones that are easy to address as they come up, or you can let the pressure build and build and build until it explodes catastrophically.

> We instead focus on actual work. Like have a month of refactoring, or a month of unit tests.

People are part of the work too. Whether it's taking a new hire out to lunch, or celebrating someone's baby shower, or not offending someone with a gift of the wrong religion, or letting a dad pick up his kids from school, or treating someone's same-sex partner with the same respect you would anyone else at a +1 event. How could you expect to work well with people if you can't even show them basic human dignity and respect? "Shut up and go refactor that test" is pretty awful, no matter their sexual orientation or political ideology. IMO we're people first and employees second, and if your workplace can't even acknowledge that basic tenet of the relationship... eh... :shrug: