Do I Need To Know This Much About Your Personal Life?

I guess it's union election time in my district, and even though I'm not a union member, my mailbox at school gets flooded with their flyers.  One caught my eye.

We're all probably familiar with the LGBT acronym.  If you're a little more advanced, you've heard of LGBTQ.  And when describing a group of people, that acronym is as good as any.  When you start adding letters, though, then it becomes an exercise in silliness.

The flyer was written by two women, one who identified "her pronouns" as she/her and the other who identified hers as they/her/she/them.  At this point you know you're in for a treat.  The latter wrote a few paragraphs in favor of Candidate A, and began her contribution this way:

As someone who identifies as a member of the LGBTQI2S+ (Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender, Queer, Intersex, Two-Spirit, Plus) community...

Yes, there were more descriptions, including two that were Native American.  Were those part of the "plus"?  And why have the acronym if you're going to tell us what the letters mean anyway?

Why do I need to know this much about this person's sexual orientation or gender identification?  To me it's more important to know what you think than what you are--perhaps this individual spends all her time being hyperfocused about her sexuality, and I guess that tells me something, but I'd like to believe that people have more to offer than their sexual orientation, their skin color, or their bloodlines.

I have to make an aside about this silliness of telling people your "pronouns".  In English, the only pronoun we use when speaking to a person is "you", which is devoid of sex/gender.  The sex/gender pronouns are only used when speaking to one person about another.  You don't get to tell me how I refer to you when I speak to others.  If you can invent pronouns like xe/xer, I can choose the "pronoun" Excellency.  That is how you must refer to me, even when I'm not around.  Excellency.  Silly, isn't it?

OK, back to the flyer.  These two women are not just praising Candidate A, they're running on a slate with Candidate A.  What are these people's qualifications?  What are their goals?  In what direction do they want to take the union?  We're told none of this; all we're told is that Candidate A is a good person, one of the women wants your vote, and the other spends an inordinate amount of time thinking about her sexual identity.  

The future of my pay, benefits, and working conditions do not seem to be in good hands.