The mention of “white, heteronormative, cisgender” at the end seems so shoehorned in that you’d think the author had a gun to their head to include it.
Edit: I say this because pretending it’s the “white, heteronormative, cisgender” crowd in the Bay Area oppressing everyone unlike them in… rural America of all places is hilarious. If anything this entire article is evidence of the opposite given the relative demographics of each.
So you're just mad that they said the evil gender words? Because in the literal next sentence they qualify the mention with realistic examples. Hardly the definition of "shoe-horning".
Don't hate the player, hate the game. The social incentives are arranged such that individuals are encouraged to use shibboleths and loaded language of this nature lest they be branded as an enemy. Such is the consequence of rhetoric such as "silence is violence" or "if you're not with us, you're against us," that forces nonbinary folks to declare binary allegiance as either an Ally or an undesirable. Absence of such loaded language that clearly identifies one as an ally thus implies that they are an enemy, and rejects the possibility of a spectrum of views that exists between two extremes. Those who fail to declare or abstain are excommunicated and identified as hostile actors (irrespective of their own self-identification).
Perhaps this says more about you than the author. At the very least not imaginative enough to picture someone being genuine. Or perhaps this just isn’t the right sort of thing to discuss on hn?
Edit: I say this because pretending it’s the “white, heteronormative, cisgender” crowd in the Bay Area oppressing everyone unlike them in… rural America of all places is hilarious. If anything this entire article is evidence of the opposite given the relative demographics of each.