I've considered writing publicly, but most of the things I have to say would resulting in doxxing/harassment at best and more severe pushback at worst. (I want to say some things that all 'sides' of American power holders wouldn't like). I currently lack the emotional resilience and financial resources to withstand that, so I need to build those first. I have every intention of entering the arena somehow, but since nobody knows I exist, I have the benefit of getting to prepare myself first.

> I think I'm about to present as the traditional logical-to-the-point-of absurdity HN nerd here...

An overreliance on logic in my HN? It's more likely than you think! ;)

Logically, you would be correct, but there's specific social history and context that makes the break a very bad idea. I'd compare it to the feasibility of a nationally competitive third party in the US: It's possible in theory but in practice, extremely unlikely. (I apologize that most of my analogies rely on US specific cases; there are a few other countries I could use instead but I don't know which one you're from so I'm not sure how to adapt my content to your situation.)

In this case, the problem is that the people who are currently agitating for a separation of the two are mostly homosexuals (and a smattering of bisexuals) who are actively hostile to trans peoples' issues. This results in a situation where there can be no neutral discussion of the separation. In addition, since the queer community runs on vibes, that means that the leaders of each 'side' tend to be the loudest and most extreme, because they care the most and have the most time to devote to these feuds. Plus, pretty much all decisions/opinions in left-leaning American spaces tend to be viewed from solely a moral lens: Discussion of action from a strategic lens is almost seen as immoral. (For instance, my objection to bisexual women who are mostly attracted to women claiming the lesbian label + my objection to neopronouns are seen as moral judgements rather than a reflection of my Linguistics background meaning I prefer us to adapt our terms to what we know of how language works. This is from people who both agree and disagree with me.) Interestingly, I do see this changing slowly and I feel hopeful about that - the moral shaming and self righteousness is very online-Millennial coded and we're (I'm 36) aging out of youth culture, which means the kids are starting to push back on our stupid ideas. We seem more like busybodies than people speaking truth to power. Good.

Because of the social context behind who is leading both the 'LGB drop the T' movement as well as their enemies, instead of a clean break, we'd get a messy circular firing squad that likely would greatly damage both sides in the eyes of larger society. It would also result in both sides being used as proxies in political disputes, whereas together we're a strong enough band to stand on our own merit/advocate for our own interests. It's kind of similar to how Black Americans will never break away from the Democrats despite having a substantial religious, socially conservative contingent: There's too much benefit in getting to exercise power as a voting bloc and it's more advantageous to play along in public while socially policing/arguing among themselves in more private arenas.

tl;dr: Separating would be a Pyrrhic victory for everyone involved. So nobody will do it.

> BTW, have you ever run across the concept of a purity spiral? I'm not a fan of the source, but I think the concept is a good spanner to add to the mental toolkit. I think it would appeal to you: https://unherd.com/2020/01/cast-out-how-knitting-fell-into-a...

I'm very familiar. One of my more feminine traits is that I'm an irredeemably nosey gossip. I'm an aficionado of stupid Internet drama. I think purity spirals are a huge problem because they strip all resilience and principles away from people, which makes them fragile and vulnerable to outside influence and disruption. I'd much rather have a community where everybody can defend their principles rather than one that crumples upon first contact with someone who disagrees. Not to mention other types of values and moral rankings. I can make most of my arguments from a place of practicality, religious morality, tolerance/diversity, and social stability. Knowing what different audiences value is key to effective communication and defense of ideas and principles, and good Lord do most people fail on that point, right and left.

Interestingly, one of the things I greatly object to is the American-centric viewpoint/America specific social situations being extrapolated to other regions of the world and other countries. (I mention this because you said you aren't American). It's deeply offputting to me to see people who go on and on about how they're standing up for the marginalized but who also enforce American norms/ideas everywhere - it's deeply revealing of a lack of actual thought/principle and I find empty parroting repulsive.