The term “LGBTQ+” did not exist as a unified cultural or political identity in the 1970s and 1980s. Applying it retrospectively is both anachronistic and analytically sloppy. Lesbian, bisexual, and gay male communities often occupied distinct—and at times oppositional—social and political spaces. Many lesbian and gay male venues were single-sex, and while drag culture played a vibrant role in queer nightlife, it was largely understood as performance art, not as an expression of trans identity. This is not to deny moments of profound cross-group solidarity—such as the countless lesbians who cared for gay men dying of AIDS when no one else would—but to recognise that such acts arose despite, not because of, some cohesive “LGBTQ+” framework. The later inclusion of “TQ+” into the acronym is a relatively recent development, and projecting it backward distorts a far more complicated history.
As for the term “dolls”: referencing its origins in 70s–80s ballroom culture—where it functioned as a specific, affirming in-group term among trans women and drag performers—does not exempt it from present-day scrutiny. Language shifts, and so do the power dynamics that shape its usage. When a niche, subcultural term is lifted out of context and applied broadly—especially by those disconnected from its roots—it risks becoming patronising, infantilising, or objectifying. Unlike terms such as “twink” or “butch”, which maintain relatively stable meanings tied to particular identities, “dolls” today often circulates as a vague, stylised shorthand for queerness (read: transness, and specifically, transwomanness) writ large. If we are to invoke history, we must do so with both precision and humility—rather than as a rhetorical shield against legitimate discomfort or dissent.