I think that more and more people are included in an effort by corpo types to make money via creating some semblance of community with a low barrier to entry (doesn't get more basic than sexuality and gender) then making it taboo within that community not to buy merchandise based of your sexuality/gender from the previously mentioned corpo types. Maybe I'm way off there. I don't know.
By buying into the identity politics grift, corpo types are faced with a dilemma and an ever worsening situation that needs to be constantly resolved.
There's good money to be made appealing to victims (either real or fake, since it's possible to convince anyone they are a victim of something), because victims are mentally vulnerable and open to manipulation. If they feel everyone is against them except you, they will feel a rapport, which will make them far more likely to buy your cheap crap (like your rainbow iphone case), and even better, they will overpay for it because they feel supported, which has intangible value to consumers.
However, there's a problem. Identity Politics inherently appeals to minorities, which limits your marketplace. Even if you can sell your rainbow iphone case for double what your competition can sell their generic ones for, you're still only appealing to ~10-15% of the population at most, plus a few strong supporters. Eventually, your minority market will be filled.
The standard tactic is to move on to a different minority. Pride month is over? That's okay, our Black History Month merch will be in soon! This is naturally a good fit because as political situations arise (maybe someone gets gay bashed, maybe some people riot over a shooting), you can simply bring out the merchandise to suit whatever minority was affected, and watch the money roll in. You can profit off everyone while not actually supporting anyone directly or tangibly.
However, constantly changing your designs to appeal to whatever the current victimisation trend is requires a lot of upfront costs. New machining, paying for new art, etc etc. Even worse, every time you engage with a new minority, you risk saying the wrong thing and alienating them, which will backfire spectacularly and could permanently set people against your business. At the same time, by constantly switching support, you attract the ire of anti-woke conservatives, who will also hate your constant politicisation. Even some level-headed liberals will see through your constant virtue signalling and the tactic will start to lose it's effectiveness. Wouldn't it be nicer if there was a more effective way to capture more and more people without changing anything, essentially gaining support in the background without the risk?
This is the genius of corpos that appeal to the ever-expanding gay community. Why make something new when you can keep selling the same rainbow iphone case to more and more people. You don't want to be too inclusive all at once, though, otherwise people won't feel victimised anymore - if you try and suddenly classify 3/4 of the population as part of the LGBTQIABCD+ community, you won't get very far. Instead, you need to slowly introduce more and more "victims" so you can get them all to pay the premium rate. Even better, you can get lots of positive press and loyal diehard fans because it looks like you're getting more and more "gay friendly" and inclusive year by year, whereas going all-in in one go will only get you positive publicity and praise once before everyone moves onto the next thing.
This also benefits the LGBTQIAETC+ community as well, because they can maintain permanent victim status and remain relevant in the public eye. Had they just remained LGBT, the whole thing would have fizzled out pretty quickly once gay marriage and trans name-changing rights became pretty much standard over the western world (which has happened over the last decade). Now, they can continue to find more and more niche issues to talk about, or things that aren't related to sexuality at all (like abortion rights) and maintain relevance by adapting their image.
As far as I'm concerned, if you weren't at Stonewall, and you haven't had to actually clash with law enforcement to facilitate your basic rights, you don't get a say. I am too young to have been at Stonewall, so I guess that makes me hypocritical, but I am at least a member of the group that was majority affected by much of the anti-gay sentiment of the time. Lesbians hardly had issues, and trans people weren't even at Stonewall. Most of the people speaking for the community now are over-privileged spoilt middle-class hacks who want to feel special. All the people fighting for their rights have left (including me) because there's no point in community anymore - we already have everything we want.