Discovering the truth of these questions is not really worth ruining your life.
Look at James Watson, even if you win a Nobel Prize, your career can still be ruined if you say the wrong thing.
Somehow I think some group(s) of people have gotten it in their head that they are the only ones who have to self-censor and that they are a victim for it, but I think if you challenge yourself you can come up with hundreds of times self-censoring in social situations is the obviously correct choice (political or not).
Think about it, from disallowing words like "hell", to talking about death, to discussing sex, to oversharing, there actually is a very small percentage of combinations of words that are appropriate conversation.
"Did Giordano Bruno die for his astronomical discoveries or his atheism? False dichotomy: you can’t have a mind that questions the stars but never thinks to question the Bible. The best you can do is have a Bruno who questions both, but is savvy enough to know which questions he can get away with saying out loud. And the real Bruno wasn’t that savvy."
There are consequences in every choice.
But in a professional setting, particularly amongst scientists and academics, it seems essential that difficult conversations can be had openly.