That's Not How Any of This Works: Debunking the "Forced Identity" Myth

A response to Jason's "It's Not Possible to Be an 'LGBTQ2I+ Person'"

Photo by Raphael Renter | @raphi_rawr on Unsplash

CW: This post quotes some transmisic LGB Alliance “LGB without the TQ” crap.

Look, folks. I've read a lot of arguments against LGBTQ+ community solidarity in my time, but this one takes the whole bakery, not just the cake. Our friend Jason seems to believe they've uncovered some grand conspiracy where queer folks are being forcibly drafted (or indoctrinated) into an "ideological army" against their will. Let's take a moment to examine and address this post, shall we?

The Community That Doesn't Force Anyone to Join

The central claim in Jason's article is that the LGBTQ+ acronym is some kind of "marketing construct" that forces people into ideological conformity. Yet nowhere in the LGBTQ+ community bylaws (which don't exist, because that's not how communities work) does it say you must surrender your individuality to join.

When folks come together under the LGBTQ+ umbrella, they're not signing away their personal autonomy. They're recognizing shared experiences of marginalization while acknowledging their differences. Community doesn't mean uniformity – it means finding common ground despite our differences.

I think we can all reasonably agree that identity politics has been enormously effective in legitimating and furthering claims of excluded groups. The solidarity of marginalized people has historically been essential for gaining recognition and rights. But solidarity doesn't require erasing individual differences. It seems to me that this is the foundation of the LGBTQIA+ community, and though imperfect and definitely has room for improvement and introspection, it works - we are family.

"I'm Not Like Other Queers" Isn't the Hot Take You Think It Is

There's something almost comically predictable about someone beginning with "For transparency, I am a bisexual man" before launching into a tirade against LGBTQ+ solidarity. It's giving strong "I'm not like other girls" energy, but make it rainbow.

What Jason might not realize is that their argument for individuality is already baked into how modern LGBTQ+ communities function. The whole point of expanding beyond "gay and lesbian" to include more letters was to recognize the diversity within the community.

And here's the kicker – no one is forcing Jason to identify as part of the LGBTQ+ community. If they don't want to, that's entirely their prerogative! But pretending that other queer folks who do find value, support, and meaning in community are somehow deluded or coerced? That's not liberty; that's just being condescending.

So let’s examine his post in a section-by-section approach, because there is a lot to unpack there.

The Title & Introduction

It's Not Possible to Be an "LGBTQ2I+ Person"
The Illusion of Forced Identity

Right out of the gate, we've got a straw man argument so flimsy it wouldn't scare a crow with depth perception issues. No one has ever claimed that any individual person embodies the entire LGBTQ+ spectrum. The acronym represents a coalition, not a singular identity. This is like saying "It's not possible to be a United Nations person" – no kidding, that's not what the term means.

For transparency, I am a bisexual man. That's it. Not part of a collective, not a letter in an ever-expanding acronym, not a member of an identity-based voting bloc. My orientation is not my identity. It is a part of me—no more, no less than being a father, an entrepreneur, a thinker, or a man.

Ah, the classic "I'm one of you" shield before launching into anti-LGBTQ+ rhetoric. A rhetorical move so predictable it should come with its own countdown timer. Note how Jason can safely declare his bisexuality in a public forum without fear of significant repercussions in 2025. This freedom wasn't bestowed by the Bisexuality Fairy who sprinkles acceptance dust while riding a magical two-sided unicorn – it was won through decades of collective action by the very community he's rejecting.

Also, no one is forcing Jason to make his orientation his "identity." This is like complaining that Big Alphabet is forcing you to spell words their way. Some people find their orientation central to their sense of self; others don't. Both approaches are valid and respected within the community.

Yet, despite this, my sexual orientation is being used—without my consent—to promote political movements, ideologies, and corporate agendas that have nothing to do with me. The expectation is clear: If you are not fully on board with the packaged narrative of "LGBTQ2I+," you are a problem.

Who exactly is using Jason's orientation without consent? Is there a shadowy cabal of activists breaking into his home and forcing him to march in Pride parades? Is there a queer conspiracy meeting in the basement of a Whole Foods where they're using his bisexual energy to power their agenda? "Breaking news: Local bisexual man's orientation harvested to fuel rainbow capitalism without his knowledge. More at 11!"

What Jason describes as a "packaged narrative" is actually just the baseline recognition that LGBTQ+ people deserve equal rights and protection from discrimination. If that's too radical for him, perhaps he should try another country where the concept of basic dignity is optional.

But here's the truth: It's not possible to be an "LGBTQ2I+ person." That's a marketing construct, not an identity. You can be gay, bisexual, trans, intersex—those are distinct, individual realities. But slapping an acronym over disparate groups and pretending they have the same needs, the same struggles, or the same desires is both disingenuous and deeply misleading.

No one has ever claimed all LGBTQ+ people have identical needs or experiences. No one is forced to wear and identify with the label “LGBTQ2I+ person” in its entirety. This is another straw man so massive it could be seen from space and mistaken for a low-budget remake of The Wicker Man.

The acronym isn't about "sameness" – it's about recognizing shared interests in fighting discrimination while acknowledging our differences. It's like complaining that the Justice League shouldn't exist because Batman doesn't have superpowers and Wonder Woman can't breathe underwater. "Sorry Aquaman, we can't team up because our struggles are too different!" Yes, and yet they still recognize common cause against Lex Luthor and his brand of bald villainy.

If this movement truly stood for diversity and inclusion, how is it that everyone under its umbrella is expected to have exactly the same political, social, and cultural stance? How can people with fundamentally different experiences be pressured to conform to a single ideology?

Show me where this mythical enforced ideological conformity document exists. Is it filed next to the Gay Agenda and the Trans Conspiracy in a folder labeled "Things That Exist Only In Conservative Nightmares"? The LGBTQ+ community contains the full spectrum of political perspectives, from Log Cabin Republicans to literal anarchists.

What unites the community is not identical ideology but the shared recognition that LGBTQ+ people deserve dignity and equality. That's literally it. If Jason considers that "ideological conformity," then he probably thinks vanilla is too spicy and beige is a bold color choice.

The "Illusion of Unity" Section

At first glance, the LGBTQ2I+ umbrella appears to be about inclusivity. A banner under which people of different orientations and identities can find solidarity. But solidarity is not sameness, and the deeper one looks, the more obvious it becomes: This is not a movement designed to uplift individuals. It is a system designed to erase them.

Ah yes, the sinister plot to... checks notes... fight for equal rights and protection from discrimination is actually a system designed to erase individuals. Makes perfect sense! It's like claiming firefighters are actually a conspiracy to eliminate oxygen from the planet. The logic is breathtaking – literally, because it makes no sense.

This paranoid framing betrays a profound misunderstanding of how community works. Solidarity doesn't erase individuality – it provides the collective strength that allows individuality to flourish safely.

This movement does not celebrate the diversity of thought. It demands uniformity. It does not allow for individuality. It enforces ideological alignment. You must think a certain way. Vote a certain way. Speak a certain way. Or you are an outsider—cast out from the very community that claims to support you.

This is a fantasy version of LGBTQ+ communities that exists primarily in anti-LGBTQ+ propaganda and the imagination of people who've never actually participated in queer spaces. It's like someone writing a travel guide to New York City based entirely on watching "Home Alone 2" and thinking that's comprehensive research.

And let's be honest – if you actively work against the basic rights and dignity of LGBTQ+ people, why would you expect the community to embrace you? That's like showing up to a vegan potluck with a rack of ribs and a "Plants Have Feelings Too" t-shirt and being surprised when you're not hailed as a culinary visionary and welcomed with open arms.

This reads less like a logical argument based on fact, and more like “my local LGBTQ+ community doesn’t like me anymore because I not only voted for trump, but believe that the DOMA should have succeeded.” Pretty sure it is normal and ok for a coalition of people forming a movement for equality and dignity for all to exclude folks who actively work against those goals.

The notion that sexuality must define the entirety of one's experience is juvenile at best. That is where we first learn about it, but for too many, that is also where it stays. But sexuality is one of the most sacred and profoundly awakening experiences we can have as human beings. And yet, it has now been tainted and distorted—a shadow of what it was meant to be.

No credible LGBTQ+ organization or activist has ever claimed "sexuality must define the entirety of one's experience." This is yet another straw man so enormous it could feature in a Burning Man installation.

The vague poetry about sexuality being "tainted and distorted" is meaningless emotional language that does nothing to further serious discussion about community politics. What exactly has been tainted, and by whom? This is like complaining that music isn't what it used to be without specifying which music, when it used to be that way, or how it's changed. It's the argumentative equivalent of yelling at clouds.

The Trans Panic Section: A Masterclass in Misinformation

What's happening today under the LGBTQ2I+ banner is not just about advocacy. It is about a forced redefinition of truth—one that erases the lived experiences of many in favour of a single, ever-changing ideological framework.

And here we get to the real agenda. All the "individualism" rhetoric was just a smokescreen to deliver standard anti-trans talking points.

What "forced redefinition of truth" is occurring? The recognition that gender is complex and not perfectly binary? That's not ideology – it's supported by decades of research in biology, anthropology, psychology, and neuroscience.

When Jason pivots to discussing trans issues, they abandon even the pretense of factual accuracy.

Gender dysphoria is a real and complex experience, and those who suffer from it deserve compassion, respect, and the ability to make informed choices about their lives. But what is happening now is not about supporting trans individuals—it is about compelling the world to accept an ideology that overrides biological reality, undermines women's rights, and, in many ways, erases same-sex attraction itself.

Ah, the classic "I support trans people, BUT..." followed by recycled anti-trans talking points. That's like saying "I love dogs, BUT I think they're plotting to overthrow human civilization and should all be registered as potential terrorists." The "but" is doing Olympic-level heavy lifting in that sentence.

Let's clean this mess up:

1. The claim that gender-affirming care is being pushed on children without proper consideration is demonstrably false. The actual standards of care require extensive evaluation, therapy, and staged interventions appropriate to age. Minors typically only receive puberty blockers (which are reversible) and counseling support, with more permanent interventions reserved for adults who can provide informed consent.

2. The "erasing biological reality" argument ignores decades of scientific research showing that sex and gender are complex biological, psychological, and social phenomena – not simple binaries. Biological sex itself includes chromosomal, hormonal, gonadal, and morphological aspects that don't always align.

3. The fearmongering about women's spaces relies on debunked claims. Multiple studies show that inclusive policies for trans people have not led to increased safety incidents in bathrooms, locker rooms, or other gender-segregated facilities.

4. The "medicalization" panic misrepresents the reality that accessing gender-affirming care is typically a lengthy, carefully evaluated process – not the checkout counter candy impulse buy that Jason describes.

Gay and lesbian identities are being rewritten to accommodate trans narratives. If a lesbian does not want to date a trans woman, she is labelled a bigot. If a gay man expresses attraction to biological males exclusively, he is shamed. The result? A movement that claims to support same-sex attraction is now actively dismantling it.

This is a gross distortion of actual discourse in LGBTQ+ communities that's about as accurate as claiming that hippos are excellent hang gliders. The mainstream position is that everyone has the right to their own preferences and boundaries in dating and sex. What gets critiqued is not personal preference but blanket statements that categorically deny the gender of trans people – and there's a difference wider than the Grand Canyon between "I'm not personally attracted to certain physical characteristics" and "Trans women aren't women."

Women who speak up about the loss of their spaces—sports, shelters, changing rooms—are vilified. Their safety concerns are dismissed, and their boundaries are erased.

Multiple studies show that inclusive policies for trans people have NOT led to increased safety incidents in women's spaces. This fear-based argument ignores existing evidence while perpetuating harmful stereotypes about trans women faster than a gossip columnist on a deadline.

Trans women face extraordinarily high rates of violence and harassment, which is why they need access to women's shelters in the first place. Excluding them often means condemning them to dangerous situations, which is about as compassionate as offering swimming lessons to someone who's already drowning.

Furthermore, excluding trans women from these spaces undermines the safety of said spaces. It creates an environemtn where any gender-nonconforming person who enters them risks the same harassment, humiliation, and harm.
We are stronger together!

The medicalization of gender identity has led to an explosion of children and teens being placed on hormones and puberty blockers—many of whom would naturally grow out of their dysphoria. The irreversible damage being done in the name of "progress" will have generational consequences.

This paragraph is packed with more misinformation than a forwarded email from your conspiracy-theory uncle. Let's break it down:

1. Minors typically only receive puberty blockers (which are reversible) and counseling support, with more permanent interventions reserved for adults. It's not like there's a drive-thru hormone clinic where teenagers can pick up estrogen and surgeries like it's a Happy Meal.

2. The "many would naturally grow out of their dysphoria" claim intentionally misrepresents research. The studies often cited for this claim were methodologically flawed and included many children who showed gender non-conformity but not actual gender dysphoria.

3. The standards of care require extensive evaluation over time before any medical interventions. It's a process more thorough than the standard background checks for Supreme Court justices.

This entire framing ignores the well-documented mental health benefits of appropriate gender-affirming care and the harm caused by withholding such care. It's like focusing exclusively on the risk of water damage while ignoring the fact that your house is actively on fire.

The "Think of the Children" Section

As a biological male—and I hate to have to use those terms because I have earned my right through decades of being such since birth—I also recognize the growing unease many of us feel in spaces that once had clear boundaries. This isn't about exclusion—it's about respect for the reality that men and women, regardless of identity, have long sought spaces of their own for safety, comfort, and personal well-being.

The phrase "earned my right through decades of being such since birth" is so meaningless it could win an award for Most Words Used to Say Nothing. No one "earns" their sex assigned at birth – it's assigned based on external genitalia, which is just one aspect of biological sex. That's like saying "I've earned my eye color by having it for decades." What an achievement!

The "growing unease" Jason describes is largely manufactured by sustained campaigns of misinformation about trans people, not based on actual incidents or evidence. It's about as genuine as those emails from Nigerian princes offering to share their fortune with you.

I do not shower in co-ed spaces naked, because I believe in the sanctity of our bodies. And I will not allow my daughter to attend spaces where this happens. Nor my sons.

Who is forcing Jason or his children to shower naked in co-ed spaces? This is a complete non-sequitur that has nothing to do with trans inclusion policies. It's like suddenly declaring "I will not allow my children to juggle chainsaws while riding unicycles" in the middle of a discussion about school lunch programs. Okay? No one was suggesting that?

We need to protect our children. They are the most psychologically vulnerable, the most malleable, and the most influenced by this ideology.

"Protect the children" has been the rallying cry of every moral panic throughout history, from comic books to rock music to video games. It's the argumentative equivalent of claiming your tax-dodging scheme is "for the troops." It was used against gay and lesbian people for decades. Now it's being recycled against trans people with all the creativity of a Hollywood reboot.

What's particularly ironic is that the actual evidence shows LGBTQ+ youth are at significantly higher risk of self-harm and suicide when they lack support. So the real protection would be creating more accepting environments, not fewer. But why look at evidence when you can just wave the "Think of the Children" flag like it's the last helicopter out of Saigon?

Many parents are being placed in an impossible position. It's like standing at a checkout aisle, your child throwing a tantrum, and the cashier insisting that you must buy the candy—except in this case, the candy is irreversible medical intervention, and refusing to comply could mean being labelled as harmful, losing your credibility as a parent, or worse, your child.

This candy counter analogy is so disconnected from reality that it's almost impressive in its absurdity. No one is pressuring parents to rush their children into medical interventions. That's like claiming librarians are forcing children to get tattoos of their favorite book covers. The actual standards of care involve extensive evaluation, therapy, and staged interventions over time.

The reality is almost the exact opposite of what Jason describes – parents often face significant barriers when seeking appropriate care for children with gender dysphoria.

One of our fundamental rights is to make decisions for our children until they are mature enough to make them for themselves. Yet, under the guise of 'affirmative care,' parents are being denied that right. Boundaries—the very structures that keep children safe, that allow them time to grow and understand themselves—are now seen as oppressive rather than protective. This is not empowerment. This is coercion masquerading as compassion.

This fundamentally misrepresents affirmative care, which emphasizes thorough psychological evaluation and staged, age-appropriate support. Most youth interventions involve only social transition and supportive therapy, with puberty blockers considered only after extensive evaluation.

Parents are not "denied rights" – they are involved in every step of the process. No child is treated without a guardian’s consent (with the exception of an emancipated minor, I suppose - but that is extremely rare). What Jason seems to want is the right to deny scientifically-supported care even when healthcare professionals deem it necessary. That somehow his perception of gender-affirming care supercedes the science and data to the contrary; that supercedes the rights and freedoms of the parents and children that require this care.

The "Spiritual Sovereignty" Section

At its core, this is a spiritual issue. The more people are forced into ideological boxes, the further they are pulled from their inner truth. True sovereignty is not found in collective identity but in the deep, personal knowing of who you are beyond labels, beyond expectations, beyond groupthink.

Who knew our sexuality or gender identity was really all about a spiritual issue. So if I convert from Catholicism to Judaism, can I also convert from gay to bi? Cis to Trans? No. Because this analogy, like Jason’s entire article, is flawed and built upon logical fallacies.

And if we do take his position here, and pull from it what we can believe he meant in the kindest light, it counters his own arguments because of course who we are at our core is going to transcend all those things.

Those labels? Those are shorthand so as to not spend hours explaining who we are or what we are about to others when we can just provide a handy reference. Expectations? There are societal expectations we should keep - like the expectation to not be axe murdered when I leave my house, or for my child to not be shot while attending classes. Seems reasonable to me.

Beyond groupthink? Nice to see that wedged in there, an attempt to insunuate that there is some Big Brother watching you, and if you go against the party line, you will become an “unperson”. We make the statement as if this is undisputed fact when, in reality, this is likely just the projection of his own experiences as an LGB with a red hat, being asked to leave the gay bar.

The LGBTQ2I+ movement, in its current form, does not allow for spiritual sovereignty. It demands that individuals conform to an external script rather than listen to their own intuition. It operates like a religious orthodoxy, with rigid dogmas, sacred terminology, and the ever-present threat of excommunication for heretics.

This is pure projection so transparent you could use it as a window. Jason is the one creating dogmatic declarations about how everyone should relate to their sexual orientation and gender identity.

LGBTQ+ communities are incredibly diverse in pretty much every way. Religious beliefs, spiritual practices, and philosophical frameworks alike. The idea that there's a single "orthodoxy" is laughable to anyone who's spent time in these communities – it's like claiming there's complete agreement on anything, even whether iced coffee is better than hot coffee.

Real freedom does not come from an acronym. It does not come from a movement that tells you who you must be, how you must think, and what you must accept without question. Real freedom is found in the ability to walk your own path—to explore your identity on your own terms, without coercion, without fear.

No one is claiming "freedom comes from an acronym." I am pretty sure you are the only one who has made that argument. The acronym is simply a tool for recognizing shared interests in fighting discrimination. That's like saying "Real nutrition doesn't come from a food pyramid" – no kidding, it comes from the actual food, the pyramid is just a way to talk about it.

And here's the kicker: Jason can only "walk his own path" and "explore his identity without fear" because of the collective action of LGBTQ+ communities over decades. The freedom he takes for granted was won through solidarity - a solidarity that recognizes our individuality. This does not come at the cost of one’s individuality, but in recognition and celebration of it.

The Freedom to Define Ourselves

The irony is palpable when Jason argues for "spiritual sovereignty" while simultaneously telling others how they should view their identities. True freedom includes the right to find meaning in community and shared identity if that's what works for someone.

Some folks do find that their sexual orientation or gender identity is a core part of who they are. Others, like Jason, might not. Both approaches are valid! The problem isn't with either choice – it's with presuming to dictate how others should relate to their identities or that it must be an either/or choice to begin with.

Guess what? It doesn’t.

More and more people are realizing that this movement no longer serves them. That what once fought for freedom now enforces submission. That what once challenged dogma has now become dogma.

[Citation needed] for this claim that "more and more people" are leaving LGBTQ+ communities. This is a standard rhetorical trick to make a fringe position seem mainstream. It's like saying "More and more scientists believe the earth is actually flat" without naming a single credible scientist who believes this. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, and that which can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence.

It is not just possible to walk away—it is necessary. Not from one's identity, but from the illusion that it must be dictated by a movement that no longer represents truth.

Jason is free to walk away. No one is stopping him. No one from the Gay Illuminati is going to show up at his door with a cease and desist letter for his bisexuality. But he doesn't get to claim the benefits of LGBTQ+ solidarity while simultaneously undermining it.

I do question taking a position like Jason’s and then advocating for people to act against their own self interest. This is like trying to convince the turkey that Thanksgiving is a great holiday they should totally vote and suport.

I am not an LGBTQ2I+ person.

I am me. An individual.

And it is time to reclaim our individuality, our voices, and our spiritual sovereignty.

Being part of a community and being an individual are not mutually exclusive. This false binary is the fundamental flaw in Jason's entire argument. It's like claiming you can either have ice cream OR happiness, when in reality, ice cream often leads directly to happiness. BTW, I love ice cream! I love sharing ice cream with others - particularly if they never tried a flavor I like.

MMMmmmmm…..ice cream :P

Jason ends by saying, "I am me. An individual." I don’t think anyone in the LGBTQ+ community would disagree with that. But many might add: "And sometimes, being an individual is easier when you're not fighting alone."

The Bottom Line

What Jason has produced is not a bold declaration of individuality but a familiar script that serves to divide communities that have historically needed to stand together. His arguments recycle the same talking points that have been used against LGBTQ+ people for decades, now aimed specifically at trans people. I think the LGB Alliance called and would like their notebook back.

True freedom isn't in walking away from community – it's in having the option to engage with it on your own terms, to help shape it, to critique it from within, or to maintain distance if that's your preference.

The freedom Jason enjoys to publicly declare his bisexuality without significant repercussions was won through collective action by the very community he rejects. His ability to "walk his own path" exists because others fought together to clear that path.

That's not independence. That's benefiting from solidarity while rejecting it. And there's a word for that: hypocrisy.

Take heart,
PITT