Focusing on race, gender and sexuality makes minorities feel exposed and unwelcome

Welcome to the world of identity politics, where some have decided the best way to create power for themselves is to promote division amongst communities, in order that they can claim to be the solution to the division they just created.

If the company wants to create a safe, welcoming community, they have to create a single, unified community to which anyone and everyone can be admitted by focussing on the common features of those involved. So rather than say "you're a black programmer, I'm a white programmer" say "we're two people who like programming".

Focus on race, gender and sexuality makes minorities feel exposed and unwelcome

When you focus on any one group of people, regardless of how your categorize them, you are most likely making another group feel unwelcome or exposed.

Here's a thought. How about we be good human beings to all?

People have said this repeatedly, in comments, questions and answers. And when not being a member of the relevant¹ minorities, this always felt like walking on eggshells: Imagine someone asked "Can the company stop focusing on minorities so much?", but without emphasizing that one belongs to one of the relevant¹ minorities. Being called a (non-welcoming) "*ist" or "*phobic" would be inevitable.

As such, the most problematic form of discrimination on Stack Exchange started roughly with Welcomminggate: It is a problem when discrimination happens based on a personal attribute that is not relevant to the competence in a particular field. When a person claims to have the right to speak about a certain topic ""because"" the person is a member of a minority, and denies others the right to speak about this because they are not members of that minority, then this is basically the definition of discrimination.

One could argue that most of the topics that we've been discussing here recently are not relevant for a site about programming (and I think this is true, obviously). But when politics² are dragged into the site and the surrounding discussion, then everybody should have the right to participate in that, on equal terms.

(To be clear: I'd strongly prefer to not have certain discussions here, and focus on creating a high-quality archive of programming Q/As. But that ship has sailed...)

¹: I thought about an alternative for the term "relevant" here. But that's the point: The attributes are completely arbitrary. Race, gender, and sexuality are currently relevant here. Other possible attributes that could be considered are religion, weight, height, wealth, age, attractiveness,... - none of which is actually relevant when answering a programming question. In doubt, everybody can have a look at the Demographics of the world and come up with a dozen "minorities" that one belongs to.

²: Another answer already used the term "identity politics". According to the comments there, this is a loaded term, and not being a native English speaker and not living in the US, I hesitate to use it. But I think that everybody can observe the problems that are caused by dividing people into groups based on arbitrary attributes (and more often than not, this problem is amplified by inciting enmity between the groups - for example, by using a certain language and way of speaking).

I hope that, at some point, people will notice that the limit case of dividing people into groups based on arbitrary, personal attributes is individuality. We could focus on that - even though that means that we should ignore everything about a person except for the ability to write good answers.

Disclaimer: this is a "philosophical" answer. It isn't really about you/me interacting with SE Inc., it is more about how you go about your own expectations and feelings.

You may say that I don't have to do this.

Up to this point, you don't have to disclose any such information.

Nobody forces us take "the loop", nobody forced me to continue to the end when I answered the very first version of that f...-up survey where I could only go "Other" for the mandatory race question. I did go to the end, just so that I could address my frustration towards the people who put together that cluster.....

But thing is: (so far), nobody is telling you what information must sit on your profile. Maybe SE Inc. is stupid enough to change that at some point. But we aren't there yet.

Meaning:

But if I don't, my posts will be flagged as offensive and removed by moderators.

That is a misconception on your end.

The "worst" that can happen to you is that people consider you in violation regarding the code of conduct, by willingly, repeatedly ignoring the whole pronoun thing.

But that only for situations where you reach out to others. Sure, many argue: "that is bad enough".

But things are definitely more complicated than that misconception you expressed in your question.

Therefore, my answer: albeit it is really hard at this point: look at things as they are. Don't allow "peer pressure" and unreflected impulses to gain control over you. You are the master of your destiny, nobody else is.

Or to say it in the words of today's "calm" I just listened to:

We have little power to choose what happens, 
but we have complete power over how we respond. (Arianna Huffington)

And to clarify: "responding" doesn't refer to doing something that can observed "on the outside". It is about how you feel/react on the inside.

As in: assume SE Inc. really comes and throws out users complaining too much about "the new way". Of course, when they delete or suspend your account, you can't respond to SE Inc. that way. But you can step back, and decide for yourself what their action mentions to you, to then make conscious decisions about your next steps. Instead of "just being angry", and unloading that anger on some random person you walk into later that day.