I fully agree. And this group as well as others like it feel that “people are people” and the Dhamma should be for everybody and therefore everybody who feels that way is welcome, regardless of their sex and gender. So it sounds to me that this is exactly the place where you should be.
This is however very much in contrast with the more accepted “highly-politicized special interest groups” of men and women, that exclude part of the population, especially within the monastic Sangha.
The mission statement of this group reads:
“We support the implementation of Human Rights, equality and individual responsibility for all,
regardless of ethnicity, gender, sexual orientation, language, religion, nationality, social origins,
birth status or any other distinction.”
Sounds pretty wholesome to me and not at all “suspicious”.
I think you are misinformed on this issue. There certainly is no clear cut policy on this at all. The case against the ordination of LGBTIQ+ is based on far less material then that against the ordination of women and even that could be disputed succesfully. As I have pointed out in some of my other articles, I believe that the introduction of words like ‘pandaka’ into the Vinaya come from the influence of the Jains and wider society after the Buddha’s passing away. More research is needed to really establish it’s origins but there are indications that point in that direction. And even without that, nobody really knows what the word really meant in the first place and there are many different opinions on that.
What you are saying also goes against the reality. Most monasteries will allow homosexuals to be ordained. With regards to transpeople there are less known cases but there are some. And all monastics wear the same robes regardless of sex and gender.
In any case, this is very far from a “clear cut policy”.