I liked this article. I felt like you made an effort to present both sides relatively well. However, your final paragraph was lacking the nuance of the rest of the article.
“I find it difficult to truly understand the need for safety on an emotional level, and maybe you do too. But I see where that need is coming from. Skipping over this concept and believing it’s “just politics” means you missed the point, as I believe Zuckerberg and Altman both did. If you want women and minorities to feel safe at Y Combinator and Facebook, then Thiel’s presence works against that.”
You fail to ask if people’s feelings (of safety or really anything) are the most important variable in making decisions. Is it reasonable that someone would feel unsafe by another person coming out supporting a candidate that won the Republican nomination? Usually the question of “is it reasonable” is irrelevant for supporting someone’s emotions. But when “supporting” someone’s emotions means someone should lose their job, the reasonableness of those feelings needs to be assessed to see if, in this case, there is a true risk of a threat.
Unless your assessment concludes that anyone supporting Trump must themselves be racist or sexist or supportive of racist/sex people in terms of how they operate in their professional lives, the answer must be no. There is no actual threat to women or minorities from people who support the Republican nominee and losing one’s job over giving money to a political candidate, no matter “feelings”, is a dangerous rather bigoted way of dealing with people who disagree with you.