I think THAT is the last addition to LGBQT that I would include. After that, it gets burdensome for me.
It will never be the last, because that's the nature of wokeism.
Once someone comes up with a new letter, or combination of letters and/or numbers, then those who wish to be woke and right-on are duty-bound to include it. If you ignore the newly invented oppressed group, then someone somewhere is going to claim their virtue-signalling points by calling you out for ignoring that group. At best, you might be publicly accused on Twitter of being phobic about the newly invented group. At worst, a twitter pile on might occur, and then you'll have to issue a grovelling apology, and make a mental note to be more careful next time.
I'm glad I don't use Twitter and Facebook. The potential opportunities for slipping up and incurring the wrath of the mob seem endless. It must feel absolutely exhausting if you're trying really hard to be woke, and then you make a mistake because you didn't give full acknowledgement to some oppressed group.
What we really need is a blanket term to cover gender identity/sexuality without having to resort to alphabet soup.
Some joker commenting below the line at the Mail has already suggested a term to cover all of the oppressed groups:
NWNS (Not White Not Straight)
They do...LBTQIA+ the plus is for anything and everything. This makes as much sense as Latinx. Latin is gender neutral already, whereas Latina is feminine and Latino is masculine.
Yeah, but progressives love coming up with new terms. It helps them filter people. If you're not using their new term, you're probably not one of them, and you probably don't meet their minimum standard of wokeness.
I find the new trend for using the term 'People of Colour' rather odd. It's not so long since people considered the term 'Coloured People' to be racist. But as I said, I just can't keep up with the latest woke terms and descriptors, and the reasons given for creating them.
