On the surface, your logic is "I think there are concepts which have been made taboo to discuss, and this is a good thing, therefore making topics taboo to disc

On the surface, your logic is "I think there are concepts which have been made taboo to discuss, and this is a good thing, therefore making topics taboo to discuss is a good thing." To be charitable, let's change this to mean "making _some_ topics taboo to discuss is a good thing." The obvious danger comes from who gets to decide, and why? Recent cases seem to have been arrived at not as a natural good faith progression of society, but rather as a militant assertion by certain factions. Bringing up relevant policing statistics is off the table. Bringing up relevant psychological literature on gender population preferences is off the table. In many cases the notions of individualism and universalism are off the table. The discussion regarding transgender individuals is a perfect example of an off limits conversation that has just been asserted as having been completely resolved. Understand, I am personally sympathetic to and defend most arguments made on behalf of transgender individuals, but to most advocates the discussion begins and ends with something like "trans women are women," which is an assertion that has convinced approximately 0 people to be sympathetic to the cause. In my own attempts to bring people around to the arguments on behalf of transgender people, I have only been successful when I'm willing to do all the necessary legwork to peel back the arguments, clarify the language conflicts, acknowledge any inconsistencies, etc, and only then have I had people emerge with a different opinion. But the prevailing conversation is instead "you're denying the existence of this marginalized group and exacerbating their risk of actual violence by discussing this." This is hardly a caricature of these conversations. And in the meantime, the person who has expressed their own, in many cases, perfectly reasonable objections to some of the tripwires and double standards that arise on the path to the sympathetic conclusion, they've very likely made a pariah of themselves. So basically, your point is still entirely contingent on how, when, and why things move into the territory of taboo. There is a lot of danger in the game you advocate on behalf of.