> The "strongest plausible interpretation" is that the author believes LGBT issues should be talked about less. I disagree. I think the strongest plausable in

> The "strongest plausible interpretation" is that the author believes LGBT issues should be talked about less. I disagree. I think the strongest plausable interpretation is that the author believes that the specific LGBT issues getting the most airtime are less important and more trite and divisive than things that are being largely ignored. That the issues themselves are not the focus, but the goal of making corporations more powerful and wrist-slapping individuals for the most mundane slights. The way I read it has little to do with the issues themselves, but rather that the extreme focus on identity is a powerful tool for keeping the common people fighting with each other while wealth inequality very quietly gets much more and more extreme. Personally, I am queer and I would like LGBT issues talked about less. They should get some focus for sure, but it's hard for me to see a constant flow of sexuality and gender permeating every facet of discussion and think it isn't excessive. I don't think that my queerness is more important than a lot of other issues, and I don't want my queerness used as a tool by the powerful to turn people against each other and amass even more power, unchecked. In short, LGBT issues are important, but that does not justify every single pro-LGBT conclusion, talking point, or moralization, and it doesn't justify the amount of constant attention it gets.