>>18141106 (OP)
>why?
Up until the 60s, socialism was about giving freedom to everyone and not just the bourgeoisie (which, by virtue of owning the means of production, didn't have to sell themselves to other people). Historically, this coincided with strong communist parties in Europe, strong labor-union etc. Starting in the 60s, the economic situation started deteriorating. There wasn't as many jobs, some factories were getting outsourced, and communist/socialist parties were tainted by the atrocities of Stalinism in the USSR. This created 2 issues.
First, the idea that working for someone else was coerced slavery started dissipating in the public's mind because unemployment, comfortable wages, and overall progression in labor's comfortability all converged towards the idea that working was great and that the bourgeoisie simply gave us occasions to work. In essence, it was hard to pitch to a white-collar office worker that he needed to unionize to protect his interests.
Secondly, as the USSR became unenticing, people shifted from labor politics and worldwide proletariat revolution to other subjects. This coincides with the rise of the New Left (often funded by the CIA and other pro-liberal institutes). Workers were happy to sell their labor, and intellectual leftists focused on post-material grievances such as the war, immigration, gender politics etc.
In this context, the rise of the New Left is not to be interpreted as something which replaced the old labor-focused left, but as something which filled in the void created by the economy transitionning to white-collar service jobs and by the abhorrence of so-called """worker's states""".
>they made it trans and gay
If you go to local communist rallies (not the ones held by youth groups, the ones held by unions and long-time supporters), you'd realize that a lot of them can be quite chuddish and don't give a shit about trans black immigrants.