Full disclosure: as a Christian I believe the bible speaks against homosexuality (along with thousands of other sins) and that there are two genders. That being said, I am a firm believer that people should live how the please as long as they are not hurting anyone and if an adult wants to "change their gender" more power to them. I'll support your right to live how you want, and I hope they can respect my right to worship how I choose.
The other day I saw a commercial with a black "transwoman" talking about how when he was growing up he didn't see anyone that represented him. I almost started screaming at the TV. There is a very tiny amount of men who have gender dysphoria, and black men with gender dysphoria is an even smaller number. He was talking about how he wanted to make movies and I rolled my eyes because I am sure he will win an oscar someday by making some garbage movie that the critics will gush over.
Why do you think there seems to be an agenda to make it seem like LGBT people make up a large portion of the population? Of course anyone who asks this question gets told "gay people exist" or something about how heterosexuals shove their "heteronormative" lifestyle down everyone's throats. No point in responding to it because they will just screech louder if I say heterosexuality is the norm.
And of course with the representation comes the overhype like you see if there is a female, black, or hispanic person in a movie or TV Show. I can remember seeing articles about that one lady on Stranger Things who is a lesbian talking about how she was the best character in the whole series and to me that made no sense for a show paying homage to the 80s with a reformed jock and the nerdy girl, but gotta subvert expectations. Or the San Junipero episode of Black Mirror. The episode about ranking people via social media was a much better look at our society and raised some interesting questions but of course San Junipero was treated like the second coming of Citizen Kane.
So why do you think there is so much over-representation? I also saw a poll about LGBT being very high in younger groups but I have to believe at least some of that is due to being trendy and a lot of women who are married to men seem to love to say they are queer.
Like I said there are gay people who have the "don't bother me and I won't bother you" mentality. I'm mainly referring to the radical movement that considers it oppression if you don't enthusiastically celebrate and affirm their lifestyle.
Going to go with a different thought route than the others here:
It's a positive feedback loop of power.
Let's say you suck at acting, and your blowjob skills are only meh at best, so you don't get big roles like the ones who suck in the right way. How are you to succeed? You see a cult fetishizing weakness, so much so that it inverts the stack: The most horrifically mangled and fucked-up in the head person gets a throne and prizes. Well, you can't change much, but you CAN change what you say. You're an actor: you're already whoring yourself out to producers and directors regardless of gender. AND as an actor, you're used to pretending to be something you're not.
So now you're bidemiqueeracrosexual. And it's really oppressing you. So you get scads of attention from the cult. Actors with attention get jobs. You then represent the self-destruction cult, increasing their own reach and power. Leading to more actors leaning into the cult's ideologies in order to bypass their lack of ability to suck properly as well.
As soon as there's no profit in it, either in the form of market saturation and stability, or in the form of complete collapse, you'll see the feedback loop burst, and the over-representation would cease. But until that point, it is a mutually beneficial symbiotic relationship: The actor raises social power for the cult, and the cult raises star power for the actor.
There was never any profit in it. If you actually look at the finances of companies jettisoning their own main demographic for the Rainbow Reich, they haven't been profiting. Not one game company is moving more product now than before by adding more gays to their games. Not one comic book brand retconning their characters to being gay have profited more now than before. None of the movies pushing this stuff does better at the box office than comparative films without the nonsense.
You're absolutely right that part of this is about a feedback loop of power; absolutely. But that's just part of it.
As others mentioned above, this is also about promoting a message -- a unified message. It's identical to all those companies who came out in support of BLM in 2020 even while BLM were burning down and looting their stores and costing them billions of dollars; there was zero profit in that yet those companies kept pushing the message, kept promoting the vandalism and looting. I believe it was Sony who even made a daft tweet about how you could rebuild stores but not lives.
No for-profit corporation who actually cared about money would gleefully sign off on millions of dollars worth of their own merchandise being destroyed by looters so they could virtue signal to several thousand mentally ill people on Twitter with only net losses to gain.
There is profit for it. Just not for those particular corporations.
Much like there is profit for a mosquito sucking your blood. To the mosquito. A horsefly biting off a chunk of your flesh. To the horsefly. But a swarm of them kills the horse, and then they briefly thrive, but their food gone, they die off.
The company is failing. But the people are not. They just keep getting promoted upwards. A diversity consultant for a failed company can easily find work at any other company, yelling "racism" the whole way.
A Theoretical Entity makes a shit CYOA, and gets accolades from the propagandists. The game fails, the company fails. But SHE then gets to go on to consulting on a new big name video game company project. Which fails. But SHE then becomes a top writer for Marvel. And the propagandists always have something to write about. The parasite and the propagandist both profit off the arrangement, even if each host suffers.
If you look at it from the perspective that the employee, even if the employee happens to be a C-suite, is a parasite aiming to make a quick buck and either retire or golden trampoline up to a new spot, it does work.
You're right in that regard.
From the individualist perspective, opportunists are absolutely profiting at the expense of the host (i.e., the corporation(s)). But for people still claiming the corporations profit as a whole? No... they aren't.