> Isn't that the issue though? I healthy society should be able to challenge, object and argue (within reason), without losing jobs or being exiled?

When you're in parliamentary/house sessions (or whatever your democracy/society/state has), sure, argue and object to everything. There you have what Americans are so crazy about, "Freedom of Speech" and all that.

But outside of that, in private life, most people would find you very cumbersome to deal with if you challenge, object or argue with things that people state about themselves. If I say I'm 32 years old and you try to argue against me, I'll eventually just ignore and shun you, because who has the time to deal with such inconsequential stuff?

If someone is named Jimmy and you keep referring to him as Jimbo despite them politely asking you not to, what do you think will happen?

If you go to work and deliberately call "Bob" by the wrong name "Joe" all the time, and it upsets them and they ask you to stop, you'll get fired eventually if you continue.

I think people may disagree on what "within reason" means. There are some red lines established by Title VII that cause "just asking questions" to cross into "hostile work environment." Is it reasonable to keep asking those questions?

Reasonable people can disagree on that question, but the law will protect a company that fires an individual for crossing that line while the rest of society is arguing over where the line should be. That's just how law works in general.