That depends on if your existence is political I suppose. Ask some of your LGBT colleagues, especially trans colleagues, if they feel like can just leave politics at the door.
I have worked with many LGBT colleagues who never bring up politics at work. This "existence is political" thing is just a bullshit phrase that the obnoxious people who can't go an hour without bringing that crap up use to justify it.
Correction: they never brought up politics to you. You don't know that they weren't political in their discussions with other colleagues. Perhaps it is worth considering why that might be the case.
People whose existences are deeply politicized (and they do indeed exist) are not often excited to have political conversations with people who say things like "'existence is political' thing is just a bullshit phrase."
I'm not trying to be a dick, but it took me a long time to realize that there were conversations I was not being made a part of because I was not receptive to, or dismissive of, those conversations.
You've set up an unfalsifiable belief there. No matter what evidence is brought up to the contrary, you can just blow it off by claiming said people never reveal the truth to whoever is arguing with you. It's a fallacious way to shut other people down and that is, kind of, a little bit dickish.
I don't think that's the case here, though. The parent admitted that they fell into the exact same trap: assuming that certain conversations didn't go on because they weren't a part of those conversations, but later learning that wasn't the case, and it was their attitude that kept them out of those conversations.
It's of course not universally true that's the case for everyone, but I think it's worth thinking about. If your attitude is dismissive of someone's lived experience, it's not likely that they're going to go out of their way to include you in conversations about it; on the contrary, I'd expect them to explicitly exclude you in order to protect themselves.
>People whose existences are deeply politicized (and they do indeed exist) are not often excited to have political conversations with people who say things like "'existence is political' thing is just a bullshit phrase."
It is a bullshit phrase though. They don't want to bring it up because any skepticism is viewed as a direct attack on their ideology, and their ideology is the core of their existence/identity, so, calling out the illogic of their ideology is a political attack on their existence.
They want to TELL you, they don't want a discussion.
Kind of irrelevant as the implication of the parent is that it is impossible for the person not to bring up politics. But I have discussed politics extensively, outside of work, with a gay former co worker. Most of his political beliefs have nothing to do with being gay. The loud activist types represent only themselves and not the people they claim to.
How confident are you that the root cause of that political silence is a shared belief that politics shouldn't come up in the workplace rather than potential concern about the effects of openly discussing the issues that affect them?
Remember there are multiple supreme court cases just this year about trans people's right to both be trans and employed. That's part of what is meant by "existence being political".
In some cases perhaps it isn't, in others it is. Who are you to decide for them? Grow a little empathy and compassion, perhaps. No one is asking you to use particular pronouns in order to piss you off; they're doing it in order to feel comfortable in their own skin. It's petty, selfish, and inhuman to deny someone that.
What's next, if I'm not handing over $100/week then I'm damaging their existence? No. If you want me to do something to accommodate you then ask nicely. If you demand the right to put words in my mouth and control what I think, you can fuck off.
If your very existence is so wrapped up in political and gender/sexuality issues that you can't stand not talking about them at work, maybe you're not emotionally prepared to join the workforce.
