I'd say the large majority of people had never even heard of the term 'transgender' or thought about the people the term represents before the T was added to the end of LGB. If that T hadn't been appended to LGB, then perhaps people wouldn't be so prone to conflate the terms.
Someone mentioned "Rocky Horror" (which, BTW, I've never seen, and have no plans to.) What's the song in that movie? A transvestite transsexual from Transylvania? I know they were going for alliteration there.
More than just the T has been added to LGB. And even then there are questions as to what the T and the other letters stand for. Is T "transvestite," "transgender," "transsexual," or something else? I've heard it applied to "transitioning" as well. And then there's "QIA+" The Q is said to stand for "queer," which used to be a derogatory term just slightly less offensive than the three-letter f-word. But is it now acceptable, just as the n-word that ends with "a" is OK but the one that ends with "er" isn't? Or does Q stand for "questioning?" And the I and the A? Does A stand for "allies" or "asexual?" And the I? "Interested," "intersexual," or perhaps even "incel?" (
Possible definition here, which cautions against saying that "Q" stands for "queer.")
I've always been one that questioned the lumping of all these different demographics, particularly the LGB and the T groups, together in one whole group. It would be like grouping all Hispanics together, when they have very different priorities and beliefs (thinking specifically about Mexican nationals and Cuban nationals.) There may be some shared pigmentation tendencies and a shared language, but there's otherwise very little in common between Mexican Hispanics and Cuban Hispanics other than both Mexico and Cuba are south of the United States.
Ditto for those who lump supporters of medicinal marijuana, recreational marijuana, and industrial hemp into one group. The goals of each of those three groups are different, yet they often are included together to the point where it appears that those supporting industrial hemp or medicinal marijuana (which many support) are being joined by those who support recreational use so they can use those unrelated issues as a Trojan horse to get the door open for eventual full legalization.
But to comment directly on some of the things brought up in posts such as this one:
I guess this was my obtuse way of saying a person's 'identity' isn't going to make me any more or less likely to enjoy their discussion of road-related things on an internet forum. And, really, I think it's strange that it would for anybody.
And the original post in the thread:
Hi. Trans gay female just wondering if there are any other LGBT roadgeeks on this thread. I only knew of three myself that are open about it--me, vtk (nb), and DJParticle (cis lesbian).
This is intended to be a support/alliance group. We do not welcome homophobes, transphobes, or other anti-LGBT people here.
I'm more likely to look upon you adversely and judgmentally if you like and support roundabouts as opposed to this other stuff!
Or if you are bigoted against Clearview for irrational reasons!
Or if you prefer those OAPL (or APL, if you prefer) monstrosities over older diagrammatic or pull-through overheads.
(And to address the naming of names, there are a number of others I know of besides the names that were apparently mentioned, deleted, and then re-added; some of whom are on the forum and others who aren't but are active in other roadgeek channels or were on MTR back in the day. But it's up to each individual to disclose how much or how little of their personal details they want to make known. I don't believe in involuntary outing. Some participants are hesitant to even make their real names known on this forum, to the point where some people get upset if you use someone's real name to refer to them instead of their forum user name.)