you could look at this intersectionally. perhaps their hindu nationalist chauvinism outweighs their queer identity, and they emphasize their more socially accepted identities as a way to gather support (i.e. assimilation). here in the states, white cis women (including queers) love using white women tears to defend their positions when feeling threatened by transfemmes and/or people of color (look at tumblr).

there is also something to be said about petty bourgeois queers in cities having more visibility and social/economic capital than their closeted counterparts in poorer regions, so a nation’s queerness ends up represented by its most bourgeois elements (just as national cultures tend to overrepresent their bourgeois elements in general). regrettably, left chauvinists used to take this as pretext to repress LGBTQ culture on the spurious grounds that it is bourgeois, which makes as much sense as banning the English language because Britain is imperialist.

any proletarian who supports conservative parties is a class traitor

Tbf, sometimes their class interests trump their queer interests (e.g. one could imagine a gay landlord). Whether you want to call the latter community a “class” I feel like is a semantic argument traps you in a silly conversation.

(I know a trans tech business owner who is very pro-israel and seems to be a libertarian. She seems lost mostly, but her economic interests seem to outweigh her trans solidarity. Idk if calling her a class traitor specifically would really change anything)

Edit: not to be class reductionist