Some of the researchers used to believe that only men have paraphilias and it's impossible for women too, but I think that's pretty ridiculous. (It almost reminds me of benevolent sexism, like a "women are too pure for that / men are way more gross than women" kind of thing.)

I really do think there's a benevolent sexist angle in it. Looking at you, Richard von Kraft-Ebing. (Who, of course, kept all the interesting bits in Psychopathia Sexualis in Latin. Gives some academic air to it.)

I think GatitoMalo's concern is that the AGP crowd might still try to hijack LGB communities through the B.

More or less, that's the idea. Now that my tangents are ended on this thread, (I think a few people are sick of me, too. Oh well, no hard feelings. I appreciate those who took the time to discuss,) I think I can give a concise summary. It was this idea that I wanted to discuss in the first place, but we mostly went down the rabbit hole of GAMP, which admittedly I may have furthered, because I'm a total sucker for that topic.

It's an idea that I haven't yet been able to explore via discussion, partly because I think it takes a fair bit of ground work, and GAMP is probably a terrible lens to look through. AGP is better. For maximum conceptual understanding, I'd choose something else. I guess I'm just on higher alert than usual, seeing how T bolted itself to LGB. Next time, it could be the back door (and I think to some extent this is already the case; non-heterosexual orientations are hugely over represented in paraphilic sexual subcultures, usually greater than 50%. Why?) Other paraphilias as well. I'm not certain if it's an issue, or could become one. It's conjecture.

Seeing how it's not a concrete thing yet, what follows isn't necessarily immediately practical. However, if we knew 30 years ago where T was going to end up...

I think that the insistence of only using a gender model of sexual orientation may inadvertently do some of the things that the typical LGB crowd is concerned about--adding letters to the initialism--but instead of explicitly K for Kink or F for Fetish or P for Paraphilia, those same people will be B's instead. Roughly because when a dominant to exclusive sexual interest is in something other than the sex of a person, and for that activity of genital sex, the paraphile tends to care less about sexes, because it's the paraphilia they're after. This can create an LGB identity.

LGB sexualities and paraphilic sexualities, when looked at holistically, well, I can't really sit these two types down at the same table. They won't start a drunken brawl or anything, they just are sufficiently different that they really won't get on well. They have some things in common, other things in parallel, and some things that are just tangential, but still largely different, and putting them together may just hinder the objectives of both.

I also think that perhaps recognizing some of these paraphilias as stand-alone orientations--when appropriate--will give the paraphiles who very much do want, and to some extent already have, their own rights movements. Which means they can be labeled and decoupled to varying extents from LGB. (In contradistinction to thought process that a gender only model of orientation would somehow protect LGB.) There's no law written anywhere that everything has to be part of LGBTQ+.

If people want to insist that the only orientations are LGB, then if there are hypothetically people out there who do have some atypicality they regard as an orientation--if they accept this gender-only proposition--then they're going to have an LGB identity.

I've met these people, and they're just about as perfectly average as anyone else in other regards. I don't really see the phenomena I'm describing as that hypothetical, but as to the outcome of what that means? I don't know.