Going off on unprompted rambling about 'woke ideology' and the Taliban in response to a random pun makes you appear, to observers, deeply mentally unwell.
Maybe I could have left out the final remark. But I was quite astonished by the large amount of identity-focused language. The English Heritage Stonehenge job description (and the website) should use more neutral language.
This is what neutral language sounds like. It sounds to me like you'd prefer to pretend these people don't exist. I'd like to remind you that male homosexuality was illegal in UK as recently as 1967. Section 28 was in force up until 2003. Same sex marriage was illegal until 2014. The ideology you are seeing in this job ad is liberal democracy. The ideology you are defending is something else entirely, and very much not a form of neutrality.
I disagree with the neutral language, this is what some people (including me) would call "woke agenda".
Not all LGB people support the expansion to include TQ+ issues. Nor some of the side-effects e.g. women athletes forced to compete against men. Or a women-owned gym in Germany that was fined because the owner didn't want to allow males in the women-only space.
There is no disdain for "these people" (or groups, as a poster above suggested) and some of this people exist in my own live too, but disagreement about what is appropriate and neutral in a job ad, particularly of a charity which receives?/received public funding.
Genuinely curious: what makes you think the moral panic around trans people is structurally different to the moral panic around gay people decades ago? All the arguments you've made here are more or less identical to arguments made to keep homosexuality illegal previously.