Please feel free to push back on this. My immediate feelings after reading this article are that it is poorly argued, judgmental, overlooks/conflates a number of important points, and clearly written by someone with a lot of privilege.
A few points in the article I would like to respond to: Point 1: After clawing our way to equality, it is enormously frustrating for the queer community to face assimilation into invisibility. Me: Since when have all queer people achieved equality? I must have missed that. Or maybe this person is only speaking for some, very privileged white queer people, like herself. Did this writer consider that, for some people, visibility is a curse, not a source of empowerment? Take LGBTQ+ and gender non-conforming children or adults living in countries or communities where their identity, when visible, can and does result in them being targets of violence. I can understand the frustration of feeling that your identity is being erased by someone who does not understand or respect it, but speak for yourself, not all queer people.
Point 2: Being queer means being into, but not necessarily only into the same gender and/or gender non-conforming. Me: IMO, this is a massive oversimplification. Asexual people, for example, do not necessarily experience attraction to their same gender, but may identify as queer.
Point 3: Straight people who identify as queer, like white women who identify as black, are not self-aware. Me: A straight person identifying as queer is NOT the same as a white woman identifying as black. Check your privilege.
Point 4: Words have meanings. These meanings are real. You can’t just say “words can mean whatever I want WOOHOO KITTENS ARE SHARKS AND HABERDASHERY MEANS DEATH. Me: Ew. This, to me, is just plain bad argumentation. Just because a law exists, doesn't inherently make it right or eternally immune to change. The meanings of words are, at any given point in time and over time, multifarious and fluid. Queer is no exception. Additionally, part of what makes queer appealing and liberating as an identifier for so many people is that it is broad and allows the option not to give specifics about sexual/gender identity. What gives any person, queer-identified or otherwise, the right to police other people's identities? I'm not saying I like the idea of someone who is, by their own admission, cis and heterosexual identifying as queer (I don't), nor would I defend someone appropriating the term with mocking intentions, but also you don't know what everyone is going through, whether they are questioning, etc.
Point 5: Queer has meaning. It once meant something ugly and cruel. We made it lovely and special. Me: Again, this is just ignoring reality. Yes, some people have subjectively reclaimed words like queer and bitch as a means of empowerment, but that is by no means universal. There are plenty of kids in schools all across the country getting called those terms and for them it certainly does not have a lovely connotation, just as there are plenty of older LGBTQ+ folk for whom those words carried (and still carry) the bite of a dehumanizing slur.
Just some thoughts. Again, would be interested to hear pushback / thoughts on what about this article went well.