Conversation almost never describes these implicit assumptions. As a result, each side ends up thinking that the other side is stupid, obtuse, biased, etc.
Getting to the underlying biases is hard.
As evidence, see any number of newspaper headlines, including this one:
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/donald-t...
Ignoring the Trump bit, the headline says "kills 30 civilians, including 10 women and children"
Now, try to prove that the male / female victims were treated equally. And, that there is no implicit bias in male / female relationships.
I'm not saying that such bias is good, bad, or ugly. I'm saying it exists. And it underlies a lot of conversations, without anyone realizing it.
Which goes a long way to explaining why things end up as you pointed out.
1: We know the assumptions.
2: We know the differences are often intractable (I will never relent on full LGBTQ equality, for example)
3: We can't just split off and do our own thing because we need each other for civilization to function, so we have to deal with them.
Some of us can avoid dealing with it by moving to the city/suburbs/exurbs where there's more unity, but that just postpones dealing with the problems we ran from. Eventually, elections happen, and you realize putting 50-5000 miles between you and that person who finally motivated you to leave didn't actually resolve your conflicts.
This is a terrible analogy. We're talking about one group's lived experiences, not a political issue where there are equally valid opposing viewpoints.
Not a bad idea in and of itself. But that'll just lead to a bunch of armchair psychologists "discovering" what they already wanted to be true. Undoubtedly a complete net-negative unless there are also some heavy hitters here on HN. Which I doubt, because I rarely even see pop-psych analysis posted beyond the current NorCal memes about what constitute a "healthy" temperament.