I agree entirely. It's true that some newly added groups will be more privileged than some older groups. But so what? Playing oppression olympics and insisting on a certain level of pain in order for someones minority-status to "count" is a slippery slope towards all kinds of horrible gatekeeping.

Where I live we had a big fight in our largest queer organization decades ago about the inclusion of bi people. Some argued that many bi people have a differently-gendered partner, are thus straight-passing and therefore do not suffer the same level of discrimination as gay and lesbian people do. The fight was so big that the entire organizatio ended up being split in two. And for a while we thus had two competing queer organizations; one that included bi people and one that did not.

Eventually the "bi people count" fraction won, and the two organizations were fused back into one.

Then we almost repeated the failure over the inclusion or not of trans people.

I don't know how many times we'll have to do this until people start noticing the pattern.

If it was a requirement for a given group to count as queer that all of the members of the group must be comfortable with all the things that comes with queerness, then I don't think any group would qualify as queer.

For example lesbians would not qualify as queer on account of transphobic lesbians existing.