The argument that opinion should be equally protected, or that conversely race and gender should not be protected seems very surprising coming from a gay black trans person, which makes me assume I probably don’t understand what you mean. I’m curious to hear why you say the sensitivity to race and gender is artificial and irrational, given the history of physical atrocities that have occurred.
All that said, this particular case isn’t about protected categories at all, is it? The issue was not the existence of a dissenting opinion, the issue was that it was handled unilaterally without consensus, against the stated mores and procedures of the organization. They had a codified process for “protecting” dissenting opinions, and someone ignored and broke that process. This isn’t to be confused or conflated with US (or any other country’s) labor law’s notion of a “protected class”, we’re talking about two completely different kinds of protection.
You never stated the logical reason for why gender and race is different from technical opinions.
If I say gender dysphoria is an actual disease and defect in human biology and that gender reassignment only causes more problems then it fixes. Then that is an aspect of the truth. It is uncomfortable, but it is the truth.
Why should my comfort have extraordinary protection in this area but not in technical opinions?
I'll tell you why. Because neither should have protection. Discomfort shouldn't be protected. Only truth should be protected.
I agree with you in everything discomfort should have no protections at all, but the problem here is you're having a hard time separating truth and discomfort in the areas of gender and race. But you have an easy time of doing it with technical opinions. That is your bias.