And that is the problem, isn't it? If the majority had been left to make decisions, things wouldn't have changed. Things only changed because the minorities spoke up and convinced the majority that change was needed. This is why discussion, debate and dissent are necessary, because opinions should percolate and attitudes should be exposed to contrary influences.

I think a large majority of the arguments here are folks looking at this through an engineering lens, trying to optimize the workplace at the cost of minorities or discriminated groups, but shouldn't this be the other way around? Workplaces should instead be optimized for everyone to be able to work there, and inclusion is an important part of that goal.

The ideologue does what the ideologue does, and campaigns for change. That's as you said, their role is to believe that change is possible, and that their efforts will contribute to bringing it about. And the whole point of theirs is to reach out to the non ideologues. The fact that there's some bad actors out there that either die to incompetence or maliciousness make a mess of it doesn't mean that the ideology is flawed.