Your post is not a good example of nuanced speech. The obvious implication is that people who disagree with the current political climate and "wokeness" are LGBT hating bigots.
By taking this stance, you only increase the political division, make these topics the cleaving issues and do a very large disservice to the people you claim to care about.
When you hate on gay people and call people who disagree with your bigotry "woke" then it has everything to do with your "stance", not mine. And I'm not the one 'cleaving' people apart. You are.
For the sake of discussion I'll assume you mean the general "you" since I clearly haven't done any of the things you're talking about, but that's also a problem because you're arguing with a bigot who's not here and ignoring what I actually said.
I can understand that LGBT issues are important to someone who's gay. But the people who define "wokeness" as a pattern of hateful and exclusive behaviours are not entirely, or I believe even mostly, comprised of bigots who hate people based on their sexual orientation. If you bring up LGBT issues in a discussion about free speech, for example, and claim anyone who believes one thing about free speech is automatically prejudiced against gay people, you redefine the political landscape to put LGBT issues at the center of every political issue and therefore in opposition with half the people who care about those issues entirely unrelated to LGBT rights. That is very counter productive, and not just for you personally.
I know discrimination, I suffer through it daily, and I really wish people would actually discuss the many important, contentious modern issues that affect everybody without forcing people into trenches and putting them in opposition to my personal identity even though they are completely unrelated.
Do you think that there was "nuance" in the racism of the 18th and 20th centuries?