It’s simple: the more items you pile on the less meaning there is. Adding more doesn’t make a claim more true, it makes it less so.

A row has broken out after a council rejected a motion to support the county’s LGBTQIA+ community.

Wiltshire Council’s councillor Helen Belcher, who transitioned several years ago, said rejecting the motion that would have ensured LGBTQIA+ people felt represented was “disgraceful”.

But there are no LGBTQIA+ people. Obviously. People can’t be both lesbian and gay male. What is Q supposed to mean? I is a medical condition, not a sexual orientation. A is just nothing – we don’t talk about disliking books or Portugal or horses as an idenniny so why pretend not liking sex is an idenniny? The LGBTQIA+ label cancels itself out by being so overloaded.

The original motion, which was presented before a full council meeting at County Hall in Trowbridge on Tuesday, stated: “[It] has been introduced to clearly affirm that, under the new administration, Wiltshire Council remains fully supportive of our LGBTQIA+ community and the diverse nature of our population.”

Well which is it? Diversity or communniny? You do realize they pull in opposite directions, right? Don’t you?

The Beeb unwisely includes a photo of Belcher, which failed to persuade me that he’s a woman.

Councillor Belcher said changing the proposals to a “bland, everyone matters” motion was “disgraceful”. “One of the speeches started talking about how we’re all the same, nobody’s different, we’re all human beings and my response to that was ‘I don’t get attacked because I’m a human being, I get attacked because I’m trans because some people don’t think trans people like me should exist’.”

More sloppy (and pathetically effective) catastrophizing. It’s not that people think Belcher shouldn’t exist, it’s that they know he’s not a woman. Those are two quite different things.