@BiBabbles
Whether it's 'hijacking' depends on how it's used. Either can quickly become erasure when they're used to just treat us all as a lump.
While at times a handy shorthand when discussing multiple groups, I dislike either acronym when it's used without any clarification or acceptance of how limiting it is - even within one 'letter', there are dozens of communities and obviously many individuals with a wide variety of opinions so questions like "Don't LGB community feel" erases we're not and have never been one community and each one has people who aren't going to agree. I hate how we're treated as if it means we're meant to be one politically or of one mind.
It's one thing when either have been used by people who are working in solidarity and are choosing to identify together (much as POC started as) or in some demographic data analysis when it's open how limiting that kind of lumping is, but that's rarely how it's used, especially in the media where it's more used as a marketing ploy or used to beat how we should feel or act about something.
And trans has become a catch-all for so many different groups, that it's meaningless to make any sort of generalization whether it's in the shared history of homosexual and bisexual what we would now call trans people or how they feel and act or want to be seen. The random teenager who identifies as trans doesn't have the social power to 'hijack' anything. That's not where my ire on these changes lie. I do think Stonewall and other groups with more political sway have a lot to answer for in their attempts to remain relevant as society has changed.
This is true of most groups. It's not like all women think the same thing, people with hearing loss, Asians, whatever.
A group like SW is primarily a political lobby organization. And political lobby that represents a group is going to have to tread around the fact that they will have diverse views in many areas, so the lobbying will have to be very focused on what is acutely important to whatever thing unites the group. Do Douglas Murray and Julie Bindle have the same political views? No, of course not.
I think a huge part of the problem is that these groupings are now considered "identities" and the lobby organizations see themselves as in some sense defining the identities. It's not that SW represents certain areas of concern for a variety of people who just happen to all be attracted to people of the same sex. They represent a class of persons, an identity.
My local Pride organization is hugely politically active on all sorts of things, but the fact is lots of homosexual people do not agree with some of the things it supports. (My good friend, a gay man, was apoplectic recently when they were boycotting the library for having books the organization didn't approve of, for example.) Most of those people just remain totally uninvolved, which would be fine except that the organization claims to speak on their behalf.
I tend to think that some of this is a power grab, but also maybe the natural result because people who are less inclined to see being gay as central to their sense of self may be less inclined to spend a lot of time within those kinds of organizations?
But in any case, identity groups are a problem, politically speaking, in large part because they do reduce people to these cardboard cut-outs.