While you, and other commenters here, are right in that zoophilia is really the least of our worries, this tweet was clearly in response to (as can be seen right fucking there below the tweet) Allison Bailey's tweet regarding that article about how zoophilia should be included under the queer umbrella. Anyone who looks at the tweet they're responding to, and then reads the LGB Alliance tweet, and comes to the conclusion that the LGB Alliance is coming completely out of nowhere and saying the + is all zoophiles is being deliberate in their misinterpretation.

While AGP and AAP are arguably more of a threat to young gays and lesbians, it would have been completely out of left-field for them to bring that up in response to Allison's tweet. But it's a good point to bring up, and I personally would think that it would be more of an eye-opener for people than talking about AGP/AAP. I'd venture a guess to say that the majority of people don't really know about or think about AGP/AAP, but pretty much everyone knows what bestiality is and is morally opposed to it.

So if we bring up fringe ideas like this one, from an academic journal, saying "bestiality should be considered a queer sexuality," maybe, just maybe, we'll get people to look at that and say, "Okay, wait a second, how did we get to this point where we are saying zoophiles should be validated by society?"

Personally, my biggest issue with that tweet is the replies to it. Everyone is willfully misinterpreting it and then fucking tattling on them to the UK Charity Commission. The LGB Alliance's tweet isn't even inflammatory, is making a commentary on an existing article while linking the tweet that links that article, and isn't even saying anything about trans people whatsoever. Yet, trans people read that LGB Alliance doesn't want to see bestiality be listed under the queer umbrella and they get all up in arms about it. To me, that's pretty telling.