This overtly critical response to a theoretical piece deserves a response. The first question of which was

Is it reasonable to demand that business, workplaces, and schools dedicate themselves to ‘looking like us’? Or that society as a whole should somehow participate in ‘advancing our cause’?

I don’t understand what is unreasonable about this, businesses, workplaces and schools are within communities. To not have a representation of that surrounding community would be odd. Why would a coffee shop only have straight employees? White employees? Why would schools, or should schools be redistricted to move away students of colors? Additionally society is a collection of people and ideas, it is not asking society to advance a cause, but to realize the diversity in the society that surrounds you. For example, heternormative Christianity is not the only worldview on society, so to exclude others voices is again discriminatory because it is highlighting one society over and above another. It is not vague, it is simply asking the reader to understand reality of the world around them. America is not straight, white and Christian. It is therefore not reasonable to ask people participating in the US society to understand their view, and worldview is not the only one. As we live in America currently elected leaders do not give voice to the pluralism of America. We have seen removals of protections, and laws that continue to attack diverse groups. One is not asking for society to advance my cause when one is simply asking not be discriminated against in the hiring process, or when ordering a cake. We are asking for inclusion to participate fully in our community where we are qualified to work, and where we have a right to shop.

Secondly this response critiques of my definition of a space space as

detached from reality.

This is not my own definition either. It comes directly from Google Dictionary.

More importantly I want to address the criticism from the Google definition. The response does not want to speak of critical theory, but regular old detailed analysis. Unfortunately I would ask has this person been asked if they are a man or woman while in public? Have they been heckled in a bathroom? Do they live in a state that has sought to critique the biology of a trans person with no basis on scientific research? The criticism of a safe space is related to those people who feel they have the right to police identity and lifestyles. Back to the topic of my original article, a “disruptive space” would actually welcome the lively debate the respondent thinks I am so worried of. A disruptive space would make someone engage with their own perspective and broaden their understanding.

For example, what could a white Republican learn from a socialist person of color. What could a Christian learn from a gay couple at their local bookstore. What if these people chose to come to places to engage in life together instead of creating “safe spaces” cloistered away from divergent thought.

Additionally, this respondent goes on to say

Nobody has a right to be ‘welcomed.’

Have we fallen so far in our world that no one deserves to be welcomed? Certain people no longer have the right to be welcomed in their place of employment? No one has the right to be welcomed to a restaurant, a movie theater, a public park? We are willing to live in a world that denies entry based on opinion? The responded goes on to say

Can I claim persecution because I wouldn’t be welcomed as the captain (sic) of the Toronto Maple Leafs?

My goodness, I thought no one deserved to be welcomed, so why would you claim persecution? Two, are you indeed named the Captain of the Maple Leafs? I don’t understand why we are discussing randomly walking into a sports team of demanding a spot of recognition. That is so tangential it truly is absurd. Being welcomed is tied to inclusion in the workplace, places of worship, and public spaces.

Again the respondent continues to attack my critique by stating that what a transgender student experienced was not discrimination, and does not make a school unsafe for the minorities. Perhaps the respondent skipped over the fact this is not one single student, or the fact that parents have picketed, petitioned, and verbally assaulted these students on the premises, in board meetings, and via local media. What the respondent misses is that the government waffled on the topic and then chose to enforce a discriminatory practice.

So yes, for the hundreds of students that have faced this it does prove that what is considered a safe space, is not. Additionally, the respondent must have overlooked the article on the firing of a teacher simply because it came to light that she is a lesbian, and married. These examples prove that for those in minority groups the school is not a safe space, but if we are outed, can become discriminatory, we can face firing, and can be banned because a group of uneducated people can demand a different resolution because there are simply more of them in a given community.

Finally, the respondent continues to take my words out of context about firing and employment discrimination. When one is hired what they believe, and how they live should not be a topic of conversation. A Christian should not be leaving tracts for conversion of their Muslim co-worker, and should not be speaking out against gay rights. If a hiring manger fires you because they disagree with you being gay, that is discrimination. Have conversations in the workplace, engage with co-workers, learn from them. But do not fire them for views that differ, and do not make the workplace a place where a certain political viewpoint is enhanced over another.

To conclude the idea of a disruptive space encourages true diversity. It welcomes multiple identities, nationalities, viewpoints, and faiths. It allows for discussion, and engagement. As I said it asks

Those who enter to learn, and mold themselves to be better. We would finally be asking people to confront their bias.

That is the point, it requires one to see the diversity around them, not find more reasons to insulate themselves from what they don’t understand.