[throwaway22032]

No, it is an attack on much of the trans community.

"The LGBT community" is in and of itself a part of this weird usage of group terminology to muddy the waters. It's pretty much a political device invented for that purpose - if you don't support all you support none, which is clearly ridiculous.

For example, trans women not being permitted to compete in women's sports has exactly zero bearing on the life of gay men, and is actually in the interest of gay women.

[Tagbert]

And yet, gay men can be sympathetic to the needs and experiences of trans women.

The LGBT community is, in part, built on bonds of similar experiences of ostracism by the larger society.

[anusuyaceg]

Why not add other marginalized group to LGBT if being marginalized is the only criteria?

[Tagbert]

I said part of the reason for association was a shared experience of ostracism. Another is being outside the mainstream in a sexual and gender sense.

In recent years, there have been some efforts to tie racial justice into the LGBT identity, but that has been controversial as there is less alignment around issues. Black and brown bands were added to the rainbow flag as part of this, and that was also controversial. The feeling was that that flag was not originally racially focused.

[nathan_compton]

This is what you often see LGBTQ+ (the plus means anyone marginalized). Yes, it typically has to do with gender or sexual differences but that is pretty much marketing. It is easier to organize if you have a relatively clear community.

[Tagbert]

Groups have always had ways to define who was part of the group whether that group was political, religious, or a group of gamers. Calling it "marketing" sounds a little dismissive.