Oh, I definitely took that from it. That was his main message - so perhaps my use of the word "crux" was not ideal in hindsight.
But on a few occasions he acknowledged that some activism within the "LGBTQ+" (I can't remember which variant of the acronym he used) went too far. He seemed to hand wave that away though, each time he said it, as if it really didn't matter because without it (going too far) he wouldn't be able to live freely as he can today.
It all seemed rather muddled, because the freedom to live as he can today didn't require an overreach of activism at all. So my takeaway was that if only he had thought a little harder (and listened to the many people who had patiently explained the overreach to him - I know he's not new to this) he would recognise that he really didn't need any trans rights activism at all.... and if he thought harder still he would realise that under such activism, he would be called transphobic if he didn't accept a female (who identifies as a man) as a gay man. Instead, he just played the old man card and handed the baton over to the younger gay men to continue the "fight".... which was gladly taken by Sammy the Twerp, who gave a tedious speech about hate, which was (ironically) a hate-filled rant with no substance.
In other words, I felt he was a whisker away from agreeing with the motion but couldn't be bothered to think hard enough to get there.