GP didn't say "end workplace sexism/racism", they said "end perceived workplace sexism/racism". The former could (arguably) have a definition of when we have ar

GP didn't say "end workplace sexism/racism", they said "end perceived workplace sexism/racism". The former could (arguably) have a definition of when we have arrived at this condition. The latter can never end, because someone can always perceive that it still exists (even if, objectively and hypothetically, it does not exist). Also, labeling the other side "divisive, hate driven" is not helpful. It's at least divisive itself, and it definitely does not invite understanding of the other side. But ultimately GP's point was that if you argue your side should be represented, you should consider whether you are okay with the other side also being represented. If not, maybe politics ought to stay out. (Or maybe the views should be moderated or rules of engagement enforced)