@inthehands I've been struggling to articulate how I perceive and react to this boundary, and this thread feels like progress, so I wonder if I could iteratively make a bit more progress with your input?
You seem secure in the assertion that displaying transphobia, racism, ableism and so forth are violations of the pact to keep each other safe while we interrogate what we believe on an intellectual level. I agree with this, and automatically shift into a defensive posture when this is questioned, but once in that posture, I find I can't describe what form of safety is being violated by someone throwing around "should" statements that anniilate people, but only theoretically. If I'm arguing with someone who, for the sake of argument, genuinely believes trans people should be excluded from public life and denied appropriate medical care, and that this doesn't cause them harm because they can just choose to be "normal", how does an observer determine whether those views are threatening? I take it as an axiom that people deserve self-determination, and that any top-down description of people without their input is flawed, exploitable, and potentially harmful. But I can't expect everyone to share that view with me, and if we do away with that, I'm not sure on what basis I can claim that forcing people into assigned genders constitutes harm, especially if what we're immediately dealing with isn't physical grab-someone-by-the-arm forcing.
If it takes the form of philosophizing about the nature of gender, there are shapes and forms of that kind of discussion that feel safe, if not necessarily comfortable, and others that feel unsafe. It feels unsafe when I have to explain what civil and human rights are and why they extend to trans people, why it doesn't solve the problem to declare we don't actually exist, and so on. But I don't know how to explain where that shift happens or why my experience of it should carry any weight.