I actually welcome the blatant homophobia, and what follows is my consideration of it.

It's a rare thing nowadays to find someone willing to voice their honest opinion. The Internet provides, and the Internet censors; more frequently. I also harbor nothing against a person experiencing what is often a visceral reaction. How could I say that homosexuality is innate, but simultaneously deny that someone else might have an innate, negative reaction to it? Innateness, of course, being the justification of the former, but not the latter. That's not a fair shake. I could also mention that heterosexual behavior can produce disapprobation, but the mechanism is justified differently. We don't let heterosexual couples have at it in the grocery store, right? Yet, the underlying mechanism--aimed at propriety--very well could be the same. I hold no double standard, and it is in this, that I think one can find common ground with the common sentiment on this site. Excesses, in any formulation, are subject to curtailment, no?

I don't think that the common Saidittor is necessarily concerning themselves with homosexuality. Rather, it is the unheard-of-here, now-common activist who is scrutinized--who wants to round up some, but not all, atypical formulations of sexuality into one big cohort--LGBTQ+--and have out their personal pathology with it. Trans of course being the hot topic. There is a curious calculus about who is included, and who is not. I'll posit that various formulations of human sexuality, uncommon as they may be, confound the popular initialism. Some are popular, others are not. What gets included, what gets excluded, and why? It is merely what is fashionable--be wary.

That trans is gay 2.0. That the constituent letters in the initialism are a "community." Nonesuch. That the Lesbians, Gays, Bisexuals, and Trans folk, nevermind what comes after the plus, all know each other, like each other, and share a common goal? Certainly not! That's not a definition of community.

More broadly, now.

Another reply indicated that... I shall provide an interpretation now--a person of the following constitution--proud, gold-star, lesbian, radfem--that thus a person so constituted could have badgered an entire philosophy into hiding? I didn't expect such cowardice. I'm ashamed on your behalf--myself being a person who is different; thought I shouldn't need mention it. Peace comes from within, not from without. I saw such strength just months ago, and now I can only formulate your objection to the trans phenomena as that of your own insecurity. Imagine achieving ones' own goals yet those that drive oneself further into isolation. This is my most important point--success means succession? You are not whole. You are shadows of what you could be. You are not you. Be more. Do more. Know more. Lead. I am thus here, and I am at peace with myself.

Can you not do the same? Can you not find it in yourself to be my bulwark? Can you not back me up?

My reaction follows:

Oh come off it. How many times have I thus heard that transsexualism has been decided in a smoke-filled backroom by men drinking expensive whiskey? If there is any patriarchal conspiracy, it is thus: men have put rather tasty morsels of food in glass jars with the lids on so tight that only males can extricate the contents. A rather simple, but effective conspiracy, if I were to engage in such a thing. Women, obviously, can be fascinated by a piece of ripe food.

I've never been invited to these meetings, I'll have you know. Perhaps I don't have sufficient misogyny, to deprive them of tasty foods, sans my testosterone-grown muscles.

When all else fails to make the math come out, that a conspiracy is required, I suggest that you don't have full grasp of the subject matter.