I'm kind of just repeating what everyone already said at this point, but, these groups might as well be a monolith for all political/cultural intents and purposes. While it is no doubt true that many gays don't like the activist groups and groomers or whatever, the consistent problem is that, as far as I can see, they stay relatively quiet about it. They stay in line and vote Democrat, or maybe they just don't vote at all. But they aren't willing to pull a Milo and come out and say yeah, actually I'm just going to actively go against a lot of this degenerate shit.
Now I'm not defending Milo personally, as no doubt he is a scummy character on a personal level, but if a gay person wanted me to take them seriously as "not a monolith" who isn't okay with all the degen shit, they need to take a stance along his lines as a bare minimum skin-in-the-game commitment. If you're going to claim that you realize there are problems in the LGO*BU)&$++IAQQ??++ community but then when the chips are down you just quietly cuck and keep voting for the left, then you can fuck off.
Of course, a "good gay" who actually did that is also going to end up like Milo where they have to really start questioning (publicly at least, I understand probably everything the guy did was a grift) if it's okay for them to be gay at all, if this is where they're at trying to ally with people like me who are serious conservatives and would prefer to ban homosexuality entirely. So that's why even your typical "good gay" will cuck and stay in line. But at the same time, that's also why they still deserve to be treated as a monolith, because when push comes to shove they will still back the groomer shit, or bare minimum won't really lift a finger against it. Political reality is what it is.
I think you guys are going in a different direction with this. This isn't about ideology or politics, but the actual terms gay, lesbian, and tranny being poorly defined groups.
A parallel example would be the term killer, which refers to people who have killed other people. It's a near worthless word because it lumps the likes of Kyle Rittenhouse in with Ted Bundy. Kyle and Ted are not the same thing, even if you consider Kyle a mass shooter the profile of a serial killer and mass shooter are fundamentally distinct. That's why we have separate terms like murder, serial killer, spree shooter, etc. Because we recognize that broadly categorizing these different things is pointless.
I'm suggesting something similar for lgbt types. I think there are multiple sub groups that are flat out not the same thing aside from their sexuality. Someone who has natural gay proclivities and someone who has a pathology derived from childhood trauma are as distinct as Kyle and Ted and we should have separate terms to describe them.
My whole schizo rant I just wrote still applies to this. In dealing with the political reality of everyone being forced to pick left or right, these distinctions really don't matter. Everything basically boils down to "degenerate" or "anti-degenerate." If you're any flavor of LGB whatever, you're in the former group, so you go left. The specific flavor is pretty much irrelevant.
This is the same point someone tried to raise in the abortion thread, with the same response, trying to say well ackchyually we should distinguish between people who think abortion is okay up to 15 weeks vs okay up til point of birth. But for all practical intents and purposes, those two are the same, because they will end up on the same side supporting the same policy. The 15 weeks person will be forced to choose between me who wants a full ban from point of conception or the other extreme of up til point of birth, so they'll probably just quietly cuck and go for the leftoid extreme.
