What I find most strange in this is that safe spaces used to be places where individuals voluntarily gathered to be insulated from something and to feel comfort

What I find most strange in this is that safe spaces used to be places where individuals voluntarily gathered to be insulated from something and to feel comfortable opening up to their peers. The classic examples are supports groups. The problem as I see is it that people who appreciate having a safe space are now trying to change the venue to one where participation is no longer consensual. Take three locations, A, B and C. A and B are empty and C is a large room with all of society. Now take two groups, a majority and a minority group. Members of the minority group wants a space where they can relate to other members of their group and avoid those who aren't members and can't relate. This is space A and what most people are calling a "safe space". Members of the majority group do the same. This is space B. Members of the majority group call this a "club/clubhouse". There really isn't much difference between a safe space and a clubhouse. Both are places where likeminded people can gather, relate to one another and conveniently ignore everything around them that they don't have to interact with. The tragedy now is that space C, the public space is crumbling because it contains people from both groups trying to "improver the public clubhouse" from their perspective, ignoring the perspectives of the others. You simply can't take a public space and make it a more comfortable/safe place for one group without likely alienating some of the people already occupying that same public space. A lecture hall on campus can be a safe space, but designating an entire campus as a safe space without enthusiastic consent from everyone already occupying that public space is oppressive to anyone that disagrees.