> In a world where everyone wants to wear a non-conformist uniform, Trads are the new counter-culture.

They're non-conformists because they wear conformist clothing?

I'm not even going to address this "shoved" nonsense. No one shoved Tucker Carlson to go crazy about woke M&Ms.

Because people are finally willing to speak up for their rights and let them be visible members of society?

That's a little disingenuous. A lot of people are pushing for trans rights that goes well beyond being recognized as an equal member of society. There are 100% legitimate discussions to be had which get shouted down with accusations of bigotry.

What goes beyond being recognized as an equal member? What discussions are being shouted down?

An easy example is insisting that trans people be allowed to play in sports based only on their identified gender. We have separation between mens' and women's teams because in many cases men have a biological advantage that would mean women did not ever win.

Insisting that an MTF woman be permitted to compete on equal footing somehow feels like offering equality to the trans person, but it does so at the expense of everyone else she competes against.

A perfect example is the MMF fighter who as a man was decidedly mediocre, but absolutely dominated when fighting as a woman. That is grossly unfair to the women she was competing against.

Trans supporters are fond of loudly, but falsely proclaiming anybody that holds this position is some kind of bigot. Except that biology is real and it is distinct from gender identification. Conflating them isn't helpful.

An even more harrowing example is prisons. Women have been sexually assaulted, raped and even impregnated by some of these men who have been incarcerated in the female prison estate based on their self-declared 'female gender identity'.

I'm sorry you are having to see people allowed to be whole and who they want to be in public, that must be upsetting.

'Flamboyant' people were ALWAYS in mainstream entertainment, they just previously were required to have 'beards' in public or be called 'flamboyant' so that people like you wouldn't have to see them. When I was a kid, Liberace, Little Richard, Richard Simon's were all visible celebrities that I can name off the top of my head. Were they being shoved onto people? Now people don't have to make their sexuality a running joke in order to be themselves and that is somehow crossing a line? They don't have to hide like mainstream film star Rock Hudson. It's like my ex-girlfriend from eastern Europe who didn't think gay people actually existed and were some kind of agenda until her best male friend came out. I don't think more gay people are in the media eye, it's just they can be themselves visibly without having to do it Liberace style. And most people are OK with that.

I would argue LGBTQ stuff is being shoved into the mainstream because trying to fit in didn't work for them. If we just granted gay people gay marriage when they asked politely for it then they wouldn't have needed to build such an in-your-face political movement. We can see this in early documents during the gay equality movement and the AIDS crisis. There were gay people trying to say "we're just like you, but gay, please help us, we're dying", and nothing got done about the mass death and suffering until they started protesting en-masse and throwing the ashes of their community members on white house grounds.

Obviously, if an entire community needed to be loud to survive, that community is going to retain its loudness into the next generation. The "original sin" as it were was ignoring their suffering in the first place.