Eh I mostly agree with you but if you really expand the scale of it all I think it starts to at least make a little more sense why some smaller groups pop up now and then raising awareness for one specific proclivity or the other. Actually it has a lot to do with what you just expressed I think.

It sounds like your opinion about preference and rejection comes from a place of self confidence. That’s a good thing but I’m sure you can imagine how that could be harder for people who don’t understand themselves and their own feelings as well.

For many people, sexual preferences are not a big personal issue that will cause them a great deal of stress in their day to day life. For some, the very fact that they do not align with their peers can make things really uncomfortable and uncertain especially around the more formitive years of establishing who they are as a person even just in their own mind.

Even heterosexual people have to achieve that introspection but we get the benefit of having lots of personal relationships with similar leaning people to build our frames of references.

Sometimes that is also an optuion for the more common non-heterosexual variations but that is mostly thanks to the greatly increased social presence which has the simultaneous effect of reducing the general stigma around such topics.

The more successful these groups oh like minded people become in projecting their influence the less they need to do so but most of the groups who championed these causes over the last decade or so realized how powerful an impact just growing awareness had for so many people that would otherwise have no support from their peers and while it’s not quite as necessary to raise awareness as much for the most common members (the L-esbians, G-ay, B-isexuals…) the rest are still trying to catch up with the leading edge of the awareness movement.

TLDR, the spreading of broad awareness isn’t so much about labeling themselves for people who don’t care as it is for the benefit of others who feel the same way but don’t know they have peers that can help them understand themselves.

Yeah I mean obviously all these people must be wrong. It is a masterpiece whether you vibe with it or not but I just don’t see how it comes off as repetitive to someone.

It’s the kind of short sighted strategy you always see from upper level corporate execs. They make impulse decisions on limited data and justify it with predictions based on old data.

You know, the only kind of data it’s possible for them to have at the time of their decision because they refuse to pay for external analysis or external data when they can use their own people and records!

So some jackass sets up a slicer on an excel file assigning an arbitrary value to the asset based on headcount capacity and woudknt you know it? The numbers go down when there are less people there.

Well that answers everything you need to know. Keep people in office, property retains value. Simple stuff really but they will say in their speeches and presentations that they have gone over the numbers and this is the way to go.

Never having considered that they could leverage the square footage in other equitable ways than they already do because, well, that data simply wasn’t available.

And it’s all bs anyways because real estate value is speculative and determined by the buyer. So when larger business embrace the hybrid or work from home model they give themselves a market advantage and can purchase or lease smaller office space at lower costs than they would have previously so really the only way this grift works is if all they big players keep overpaying for property.

Sooner or later it gets solved by the market whether that want it to be or not. The genie of work from home is already out of the bottle it’s just a bunch of “boomer” businesses death gripping and smoking copium as much as they can until they are forced to adapt