Matters of what it "is" and what it "should be"
One aspect that often derails well-intentioned discussions is a confusion about two kinds of claims: the first kind being “what things are”; the second being “what things should be”. This is often a subtle but important distinction.
Matters of what things are concern observations that, in principle, are independent of who observed. Here is a cliche example:
“The sky is blue.”
If we break down how one may arrive at this claim, we can untangle a few subtle assumptions:
"My sensorial experience, when looking up at the sky, corresponds to (what I call) the color blue. Furthermore, I expect any individual looking at the sky to experience the same color (or, at least, what they'd call the color blue). Thus, I claim that “blueness” (as in, the ability to produce the “color blue” experience on observers) is something intrinsic to the sky."
In short, that's a factual claim about an observer-independent reality, about how things are. In this case, who is making the claim is -- very crucially -- not a relevant or intrinsic component to establish whether the claim is true or accurate.
Now for the second kind of claims: claims of how things “should be” or “ought to be”.
These are called normative claims. Normative claims establish a direction that, while it may or may not be materially the case, the statement claims that it ought to be pursued.
An example of normative claim is: “Everyone should be treated equally”.
This is a statement about how society and the individuals within it should behave toward each other. Maybe everyone is already being treated equally, maybe they aren't, the statement takes no position on that. What the statement takes a position is how people ought to behave.
Note how these are matters which are dependent on the individual making the claim, not universal observer-independent truths about natural reality.
Also note how normative claims are often not so simple as “true” or “false”. Even someone who may agree wholeheartedly with the claim above will also agree that, say, someone who commits a murder should be punished or jailed. So should we rephrase it?
“Everyone should be treated equally, except murderers who should be punished”.
Okay, what about people who commit other lesser crimes that still damage society and cause harm? Should we treat those people who commit those crime equally to someone who didn't commit them? The details and exceptions can go on and on...
Don't take my example too literally, my point is not in particular about equality or even crimes. The point is: normative claims carry a huge amount of implicit detail and nuance that are often hard to systematize and lay bare.
For normative “ought to” or “should be” claims reasonable well-meaning people can -- and often will -- disagree on strongly particulars even when they agree on broad strokes and discuss in good-faith.
In short, if you allow me to be repetitive, normative claims are matters that pertain to the individual making the claim; and are not a part of the material reality we all inhabit.