...At the risk of going off topic...
I've been thinking about it, and I'm not sure there's any reason to exclude non LGBT people from the acronym. While I know LGBT is meant to help give people an identification that isn't straight, I feel the whole fight for LGBT rights is largely about humanity as a whole, not just us. If LGBT is about sexuality and gender identity, why can't straight people be included (ally's or not) in it? After all, they do have a sexuality and gender identity. It just happens that they like people of the same gender, and are happy with the gender they themselves where assigned at birth.
Even still regardless of what it stands for, ... I use just "LGBT". I know it leaves out things like androgyny, non binaries, and many more, but ... LGBT has the advantage of being easier to say than LGBTNQQIAAASC, (Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender, Non Binary, Queer, Questioning, Intersex, Androgyny, Asexual, Ally, Straight, Cisgender) ... and I'm pretty darn sure even that leaves things out. To me, LGBT regardless of what is officially included in the acronym and what is in it simply by virtue of implication ... it really should be about being human more than anything else now. We're trying to gain equal rights ... and I think in order for us to do so, we really need to start showing people who don't understand that we are simply part of humanity just like them.
But even if it's used to mean "Not heterosexual normative" ... we need to try to keep it fairly simple. People are starting to mock the ever increasing acronym as "The ever expanding alphabet soup of sexuality", and with good reason, as conversations like this show that the acronym is becoming too complicated past 4 or 5 letters for most people to remember what all the different letters stand for.
If, as we are fond of pointing out, the T is silent ... what sound does the I make in the mix?
I think we need to keep sight of the fact that we as a whole, want to be taken seriously even by those who oppose us, and just keep it simple.