Even as a bisexual, the absolute worst way you can pander to me is to appeal to the Stonewall riots. I don't care how persecuted "we" were at the time, I hate rioting and have no sympathy for people who think engaging in it makes them look anything other than criminally insane. And journalism predates Stonewall (or literally any person outside of ancient Rome giving a flip about gay people) by quite some time. LGBT is perfectly fine without the J.

Edit: You know what's even worse about this attempt to inject a J into the LGBT acronym because "journalists reported the Stonewall riots"? I have a hunch that the mentality of those journalists was less, "Oh boy, I get to make gay history! People sure will remember me when gay marriage becomes legal!" and more, "Oh no, these mentally ill sexual deviants are destroying stuff! I'd better protect all the perfectly normal straight people by reporting this!" Nobody liked gay people back then. I repeat: nobody. This was back when short films warned us that all homosexuals existed for the express purpose of molesting boys. People watch those films today and usually cringe at the blatant homophobia, but back then, this was the norm for all of society. So no, merely reporting that the Stonewall riots happened does not magically make journalists LGBT allies.

Even as a bisexual, the absolute worst way you can pander to me is to appeal to the Stonewall riots. I don't care how persecuted "we" were at the time, I hate rioting and have no sympathy for people who think engaging in it makes them look anything other than criminally insane. And journalism predates Stonewall (or literally any person outside of ancient Rome giving a flip about gay people) by quite some time. LGBT is perfectly fine without the J.