Nope, I think you may have missed the point. I never actually stated my position on ANY of these issues. I stated many positions. I never actually stated which IF ANY of these positions were ones held by myself.

I was using you in the hypothetical, like a synonym for one. I need to stop doing that as it is indeed confusing.

There is a difference between disagreeing with what someone is saying, and restricting them or physically attacking them to prevent them from being able to say it.

There is, that is indeed part of what I was saying. But physical attacks are extremely rare and most free countries around the world have very little restriction on what you can say (though some of the supposedly free world unfortunately has). The vastly overwhelming majority of what you are seeing against those unpopular positions you are talking about is vocal disagreement and nothing else which is and should be treated as protected free speech.

Furthermore, my main point through the entire article was the trend to immediately label someone because they disagree. I also was illustrating how the labels are so often totally inappropriate when applied to the person. They are typically a false dichotomy.

Oh, that falls squarely in the part I agree with.

Yet, people use the false dichotomy to try to force people into camps and groups.

I'm not sure if this is predominantly forced and taken advantage of or simply human nature, but I guess it's both. Turing issues into us vs. them conflicts is quite unproductive and does indeed stifle productive debate and allows each side to vilify the other one. Labels are quite useful in designating the teams and I agree that some of them come in bundles and one is expected by both sides to not pick and chose based on evidence and logic but on team preference.