You don't seem to be responding to my reaction to your call for insularity;I guess that what I was referring to wasn't clear.

So I don't think your reply is to what I meant to convey.

But since I'm a stickler for accuracy, I feel compelled to point out that your claim in your reply is highly dubious. Assurances aside, as written, your article applies widely because you did not bother to qualify that the only "buts" that you're talking about are the ones that are removals of human rights.

You specifically used the term "queer rights" in your title and subtitle. These of course include civil rights that are or would be afforded to queer people independent of whether they are considered human rights or not. It's not hard to write "I support human rights for queer people" when that's what you mean. (For anyone who is unclear on the distinction: the right to see the evidence against me in court is a civil right; the right to bear arms in the United States is a civil right; neither is generally considered a human right.)

You furthermore, in your second example, call out a complaint of advocates being "loud and mean" as unacceptable, so it stretches credulity that you're talking only about human rights here. Nobody construes immunity from criticism of perceived behavior as a human right.

Anyway, I'm not sure what you thought I was talking about, but your response is not convincing regardless of what you thought I meant because it contradicts the content of your article.

I will edit my comment to manually include the quote from your article to make it clear what I actually was talking about.