Boss
Take a Memo:
And, will do so like a Boss! 
First let me say, I am a libertarian constitutionalist. I believe in letting people pretty much do as they please as long as what they are doing isn't detrimental to others. I don't generally favor courts or government getting involved any more than they must in order to protect fundamental rights of individuals.
I've watched this LGBTQAAIGWXYZ+&et.all;etc. Movement evolve from it's humble beginnings. It really took off in the late 70s and early 80s with a raising of social consciousness about the bullying of pansies. 'Pansy' was the name commonly applied to boys who displayed homosexual behavioral stereotypes. Other more graphic pejoratives were "queer" and "homo". In any event, a lot of people could sympathize with these underdogs being bullied by society and it was relatively easy to build public support to protect these poor souls from the relentless attacks. It became more widely accepted in the 80s to be a male homosexual. The term "gay" became in vogue. Then came the AIDS epidemic. A social polarization happened as a result and in order to turn around the damage done to all the headway, the adoption of lesbian women and bisexuals stepped up to claim victimhood and appeal to public sympathies.
This begs my first question, how did "L" leapfrog over "G" in the acronym? I believe it was because of the negative stigma from AIDS. The Lesbian could be the new "front-man" of the movement, pardon the pun, and this could avoid direct connection with the negative stigma. But why not the Bisexual? Surely, these people are the most all-encompassing of sexuality as a whole, you'd think they would be the obvious leading face for the movement. I think the reason for this not being the case, and indeed, the reason they are relegated to a place behind the Gay, is because Bisexuality sort of has an illegitimacy about it. Like it's not really serious with regard to homosexuality, it's often just confused young people experimenting. Such a huge movement couldn't be trusted to the Bisexual who may or may not be homosexual tomorrow. It was far too risky, so they took the backseat to Lesbians and then Gays. We had the LGB movement.
At this point, we're well into the 90s and most places have implemented hate crime laws and protections against the gay community in general, which now included lesbians and bisexuals. So the movement was beginning to fade because there was a lack of "victims" on the news... enter the lowly transsexual. They had always been loosely associated with homosexuals but also had that same air of illegitimacy as the bisexual. But they were targeted victims of bullying and that served the needs of the movement, so they completed the acronym... LGBT and it became one big happy "community" to lobby for our social sympathies.
As the movement grew and obtained more social protections and influenced laws against discrimination, we see they continue to add letters to the acronym. This snowball effect is a direct result of trying to keep the social justice monster alive. In creating a paradigm where "gender" is no longer simply "male" or "female" you create a never-ending supply of victims to exploit. Last report, there are now over 63 gender identities, all of which are protected by The Movement.
This leads to my final questions: What is the logical conclusion here? Where does this thing end? At what point does this movement simply become so diluted with various gender identities that it becomes impossible to reconcile itself? What happens when a transsexual's "rights" are infringed by a bisexual's "rights" or visa versa? And what about the Lesbians, the preeminent leaders of this movement... what if one of them decides to stop being lesbian and settle down with a nice man and raise a family? Are they Forever Lesbians? Is it like being crowned Miss America, you have that title until you die? What about the transsexual who is actually heterosexual in every way, they just dig dressing up like women to get into the ladies rooms? Are we to just ignore them and pretend they pose no threat to the movement's legitimacy? And finally, what does this movement do when approached by the Pedophile? Are kiddie-diddlers deserving of a letter in the acronym?
First let me say, I am a libertarian constitutionalist. I believe in letting people pretty much do as they please as long as what they are doing isn't detrimental to others. I don't generally favor courts or government getting involved any more than they must in order to protect fundamental rights of individuals.
I've watched this LGBTQAAIGWXYZ+&et.all;etc. Movement evolve from it's humble beginnings. It really took off in the late 70s and early 80s with a raising of social consciousness about the bullying of pansies. 'Pansy' was the name commonly applied to boys who displayed homosexual behavioral stereotypes. Other more graphic pejoratives were "queer" and "homo". In any event, a lot of people could sympathize with these underdogs being bullied by society and it was relatively easy to build public support to protect these poor souls from the relentless attacks. It became more widely accepted in the 80s to be a male homosexual. The term "gay" became in vogue. Then came the AIDS epidemic. A social polarization happened as a result and in order to turn around the damage done to all the headway, the adoption of lesbian women and bisexuals stepped up to claim victimhood and appeal to public sympathies.
This begs my first question, how did "L" leapfrog over "G" in the acronym? I believe it was because of the negative stigma from AIDS. The Lesbian could be the new "front-man" of the movement, pardon the pun, and this could avoid direct connection with the negative stigma. But why not the Bisexual? Surely, these people are the most all-encompassing of sexuality as a whole, you'd think they would be the obvious leading face for the movement. I think the reason for this not being the case, and indeed, the reason they are relegated to a place behind the Gay, is because Bisexuality sort of has an illegitimacy about it. Like it's not really serious with regard to homosexuality, it's often just confused young people experimenting. Such a huge movement couldn't be trusted to the Bisexual who may or may not be homosexual tomorrow. It was far too risky, so they took the backseat to Lesbians and then Gays. We had the LGB movement.
At this point, we're well into the 90s and most places have implemented hate crime laws and protections against the gay community in general, which now included lesbians and bisexuals. So the movement was beginning to fade because there was a lack of "victims" on the news... enter the lowly transsexual. They had always been loosely associated with homosexuals but also had that same air of illegitimacy as the bisexual. But they were targeted victims of bullying and that served the needs of the movement, so they completed the acronym... LGBT and it became one big happy "community" to lobby for our social sympathies.
As the movement grew and obtained more social protections and influenced laws against discrimination, we see they continue to add letters to the acronym. This snowball effect is a direct result of trying to keep the social justice monster alive. In creating a paradigm where "gender" is no longer simply "male" or "female" you create a never-ending supply of victims to exploit. Last report, there are now over 63 gender identities, all of which are protected by The Movement.
This leads to my final questions: What is the logical conclusion here? Where does this thing end? At what point does this movement simply become so diluted with various gender identities that it becomes impossible to reconcile itself? What happens when a transsexual's "rights" are infringed by a bisexual's "rights" or visa versa? And what about the Lesbians, the preeminent leaders of this movement... what if one of them decides to stop being lesbian and settle down with a nice man and raise a family? Are they Forever Lesbians? Is it like being crowned Miss America, you have that title until you die? What about the transsexual who is actually heterosexual in every way, they just dig dressing up like women to get into the ladies rooms? Are we to just ignore them and pretend they pose no threat to the movement's legitimacy? And finally, what does this movement do when approached by the Pedophile? Are kiddie-diddlers deserving of a letter in the acronym?
