> The agenda for LGBT rights movement? Marriage equality in law. You’ve got a clear goal.

I think a lot of people wish it was that simple. Instead, the progressive trans movement has crept into sports, prisons, spas, toy aisles, etc. which far fewer people agree on a straightforward answer to. It's unlikely the LGBT agenda will ever focus on something as simple as marriage equality and then be "done", since far too many people are making money on finding new issues to push for.

There was never one singular push for gay marriage over all other things. If anything the aids crisis was the most unifying phenomenon in the lgbtq community, because it perfectly encapsulated that society at large can and will unequivocally kill lgbtq people via the intentional withholding of basic consideration for life. And even that had multiple fractures in the community of what to do about it (such as whether or not to protest in churches).

Lgbtq people are not some isolated commune where their problems don’t affect the rest of society, and treating them that way is precisely society at large killing lgbtq people by simply considering that their deaths aren’t worth preventing (this was the attitude during the aids crisis).

The existence of trans people is not an "issue", or a question to be decided. The fact of that existence is certainly very inconvenient to a great many people who are used to ignoring it.

The left is big tent. Being on the left I don’t agree with any of the trans or any of the runaway feminism nonsense, but what choice do I have. Vote for the racist, sexist republicans instead?

> groomer democrats

Like Foley, Hastert, Gaetz, Trump, Roy Moore and Jim Jordan [1]? Or Tucker Carlson's defense of child abuse by cult leader Warren Jeffs [2]?

"Grooming" as used by Republicans today is nothing more than transphobia and homophobia as Republicans try to equate LGBTQ+ people as pedophiles (eg [3]).

If you truly believe that Democrats are tied to grooming and not simply arguing in bad faith (as Ben Shapiro, Tucker Carlson, Matt Walsh or Stephen Crowder routinely do) then I would encourage you to question the propaganda that has so effectively been communicated to you.

[1]: https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2022/04/from-hastert-to-...

[2]: https://www.mediamatters.org/tucker-carlson/unearthed-audio-...

[3]:https://eu.tallahassee.com/story/news/education/2022/06/29/l...

Sort of agree, at least I did at the time, but in retrospect and looking at what has happened since, and especially who has pushed for it, endorsed it, and continues to be instrumental in expanding the scope and reach, I don't think that's the full story.

In what way are the goals of identity politics any more clear? Most of the time the only obvious objective is "winning on Twitter".

Occupy didn't have clear goal, but it was dangerous in theory. Letting it simmer could have lead to something more dangerous, a popular movement demanding significant reforms, for example, setting capital gains tax to match income tax. Identity politics in contrast is not dangerous and has no potential to become so.