The problem is the people who object to LGBT would see a wildcard expression in the same way that "black lives matter" folks see "all lives matter": as an attempt by an oppressive majority to erase their minority identity. For me the problem is how these things come up in a professional context. The culture of "bring your whole self to work" seems good at first reading but what it really means is bringing a lot of irrelevant things to work, none of which are contributing to the well-being of the workplace. I don't want anyone on my team to feel excluded at work but I also don't want anyone on my team to feel like that one non-binary activist from the adjacent team is going to report them to HR because they overheard them saying "LGBT" and "LGBT" is exclusionary to nonbinary people. That stuff belongs at the cafe or library or the debate salon, not in the workplace.
I've literally never seen a LGBTQ+ person object to LGBTQ+. Some folks prefer other formulations (e.g. QUILTBAG), but I've never seen objections or offense at LGBTQ+.
I've seen folks object to LGB, or LGBT as exclusionary for sure though.
The "black lives matter" movement is a protest against the fact that black people are killed by police officers at alarming rates. The phrase "all lives matter" is a deliberate attempt to draw attention away from this fact and undermine the goals of the protest.
Thanks, I'm aware of the etymology. This is the exact way that people with particular self-expression view attempts to claim that "*" or "people" is as inclusionary as LGBTQIAGNC.
Accepted by some people, yes, but how will you know in advance whether it is acceptable to your audience? You could be treading on someone's preferences just the same as if you use the term "themself" in reference to a person who turns out to prefer "zirself".
