I don't think this exists because it "needs" to, it exists because people want to read it. I think it's healthy to question why the audience is so responsive. It could be altruism, but people don't usually read articles out of altruism.

Why do LGBT movements still exist in cultures that were/are very accepting of LBTQ individuals then?

Alternatively: why are they completely absent in the countries that need them the most?

Why do scarecrows still exist in fields with no birds?

Why are there no scarecrows in fields full of birds, where they would be needed the most?

I love this analogy and I'm stealing it unabashedly.

Thanks; this is a great perspective. It's similar to the idea of survivorship bias.

You can see them in more accepting countries, but many of those countries were far from accepting before.

The US wouldn’t need Black Lives Matter if they actually did. Skin color wouldn’t matter and wouldn’t be part of people’s identity if people weren’t racist.

That's interesting as I see BLM in it's current form increasing the racial divide.

Seems to me that they are exacerbating the left/right divide (with the neoliberal center-right facing some internal divides), but not so much the racial divide.

They do for now but that’s just because of history, and the fact that the more esoteric parts of lgbt+ still aren’t fully accepted. As more generations pass it won’t be needed (hopefully)

> Why do LGBT movements still exist in cultures that were/are very accepting of LBTQ individuals then?

Do you have examples in mind? I can't think of a single culture that accepts LGBT as much as non-LGBT. Even ones that are somewhat close only became that way in the past decade or two.

> Alternatively: why are they completely absent in the countries that need them the most?

Because being identified as LGBT could literally endanger your life in those countries.