• Identity politics, conceptual disparities, and the debate on inclusion

Over the past several decades, the acronym LGBT – lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender – has become the symbolic foundation for a broad-based movement advocating for the rights of individuals who challenge dominant norms regarding sexuality and gender. It represents both a strategic coalition and a cultural identity, encompassing diverse experiences of marginalisation, resistance, and self-determination. 

However, the continued cohesion of this alliance has increasingly come under scrutiny. In particular, voices within and outside the queer community have begun questioning whether the inclusion of ‘T’ alongside LGB remains conceptually coherent and politically effective.

At the heart of this debate is a foundational distinction between sexual orientation and gender identity. While LGB identities are anchored in the direction of one’s romantic or sexual attraction, transgender identity concerns how individuals experience and express their gender, often independently of their sexual orientation. Critics argue that combining these categories conflates two fundamentally different concepts, obscures specific legal and social needs, and complicates public understanding. Moreover, transgender rights have become the subject of intense political controversy, attracting media scrutiny and societal resistance at a level not equally encountered by the broader LGB community. For some, these tensions raise the question of whether the inclusion of transgender concerns under the LGBT umbrella may hinder, rather than help, the advancement of sexual orientation-based rights.

Distinct conceptual foundations

The most fundamental argument for rethinking the structure of the LGBT acronym lies in the conceptual disparity between sexual orientation and gender identity. Sexual orientation describes the pattern of emotional, romantic, or sexual attraction an individual feels toward others. LGB people identify themselves based on whom they are attracted to, whether to the same sex, the opposite sex, or both. These identities are thus externally oriented, defined in relation to others, and typically emerge during adolescence as individuals become aware of their desires.

Gender identity, in contrast, is an internal construct of one’s deeply felt sense of being male, female, both, neither, or somewhere along the gender spectrum. A transgender individual is someone whose gender identity does not align with the sex assigned to them at birth. This incongruence may lead to varying forms of gender expression and, for some, a desire for medical transition. However, a transgender person’s sexual orientation may be heterosexual, homosexual, bisexual, or otherwise. Gender identity and sexual orientation therefore occupy different dimensions of personal identity: one focused on self-perception, the other on relational desire.

This conceptual distinction has important implications for the public discourse and legal reform. While protections based on sexual orientation often involve workplace discrimination, relationship recognition, and equal treatment under the law, transgender advocacy frequently centres on issues such as access to gender-affirming healthcare, the legal recognition of gender markers, and bodily autonomy. The complexity and specificity of these needs make it difficult to design a one-size-fits-all policy framework that encompasses both groups without overlooking key differences. As a result, critics argue that conflating the two under a single movement can undermine clarity in legal definitions and advocacy priorities.

Political and social tensions

Although the LGBT coalition emerged from a shared experience of societal marginalisation, the political paths of its constituent groups have not been uniform. In many parts of the world, LBG individuals have made significant legal and cultural gains. Marriage equality, anti-discrimination laws, and increased social acceptance have led to a normalisation of LGB identities in liberal democracies. This trajectory, however, has not been mirrored in the experience of many transgender individuals, who continue to face disproportionate rates of violence, unemployment, medical neglect, and legal uncertainty.

These diverging experiences have led some within the LGB community to question the political consequences of associating too closely with transgender activism. For them, the inclusion of transgender concerns introduces ideological and legal complexities that may alienate potential allies or dilute the clarity of LGB political messaging. While same-sex marriage or non-discrimination protections based on sexual orientation are now widely accepted in some societies, issues surrounding gender identity, particularly those involving youth transition, access to single-sex spaces, or pronoun legislation remain deeply contested.

In addition, conflicts have emerged over the boundaries of identity itself. Some lesbians and gay men have expressed discomfort with the demand to include trans individuals in sexual or social spaces defined around same-sex attraction. This has led to accusations of transphobia and has fractured longstanding relationships within the queer community. Such tensions are not always resolved by appeals to solidarity, especially when one group perceives its rights or identity as being compromised by another. These internal disagreements, though often suppressed in public discourse, speak to a deeper unease about whether the LGBT umbrella can continue to accommodate increasingly divergent interests without significant internal strain.

Transgender rights and public policy

Unlike the legal reforms sought by LGB advocacy, many of which involve extending existing rights to same-sex couples or individuals, transgender rights often require a rethinking of fundamental legal and institutional structures. Issues such as gender recognition laws, access to gender-affirming healthcare, and participation in sex-segregated sports and spaces demand complex and, at times, controversial policy changes. These changes are not easily reconciled with existing legal frameworks that are grounded in binary notions of sex and gender.

This level of complexity makes transgender advocacy particularly vulnerable to public misunderstanding and political backlash. The legal recognition of gender identity may involve altering official documents, revising prison placement policies, restructuring healthcare systems, and introducing gender-neutral facilities. These changes frequently provoke public concern, especially in contexts where biological sex is viewed as an immutable legal and social category. Debates around children’s access to puberty blockers, the use of gendered pronouns in schools, and the eligibility of trans women in female sports categories have ignited broader cultural conflicts and drawn the attention of populist and conservative political actors.

From a strategic standpoint, such controversy can hinder broader queer advocacy. For some LGB individuals and organisations, the alignment with transgender issues has brought increased scrutiny and resistance that might otherwise have been avoided. The political cost of defending contentious trans rights initiatives can outweigh the perceived benefits, particularly in conservative or transitional societies. This has led to calls for creating separate advocacy channels, allowing transgender rights to be pursued independent of LGB activism, thereby preserving political capital and clarity of messaging for both sides.

Ethical and strategic risks of exclusion

Despite the conceptual and strategic arguments for separation, removing the ‘T’ from LGBT raises serious ethical concerns. Transgender individuals continue to face some of the most acute forms of discrimination and violence within the queer spectrum. To exclude them from the collective platform would not only weaken their political support base but also signal a betrayal of the principles of inclusion, solidarity, and shared resistance that have historically defined queer movements.

Furthermore, the lines between sexual orientation and gender identity are not always clear-cut in the lived experience. Many people exist at the intersection of these categories and face layered forms of marginalisation. A transgender person may also be LGB; similarly, intersex or non-binary individuals may fall outside both LGB and T definitions, yet rely on similar legal and social protections. Movements that insist on strict categorical boundaries risk reproducing the very exclusions that they were formed to resist.

Strategically, fragmentation may also prove counterproductive. In many jurisdictions, anti-LGBT legislation makes no meaningful distinction between sexual orientation and gender identity. Governments, institutions, and extremist actors often target queer communities in their entirety. A divided movement becomes more vulnerable to political manipulation and social backlash. Maintaining a unified front while difficult offers greater resilience against shared threats.

Conclusion

The proposition to remove the ‘T’ from LGBT arises from legitimate concerns about conceptual clarity, strategic coherence, and political risk. Sexual orientation and gender identity are distinct, and their legal and social implications often diverge in significant ways. Yet, the idea of division carries substantial risks both for transgender individuals who may lose critical support, and for LGB communities who may weaken their broader legitimacy and ethical consistency.

A more productive approach lies not in exclusion but in structural pluralism. The LGBT movement must evolve to acknowledge its internal diversity while preserving its foundational commitment to collective liberation. This requires more than symbolic unity; it demands mutual respect, honest dialogue, and a willingness to adapt to the growing complexity of identity politics in the 21st Century. In doing so, the movement can remain a powerful force for justice – one that resists both assimilation and fragmentation, and continues to challenge the systems that marginalise all those who defy the norms of sexuality and gender.

(Writers are lecturers of Law attached to the Colombo University)

…………

The views and opinions expressed in this article are those of the author, and do not necessarily reflect those of this publication