This NYT analysis
is not bad. It is certainly correct to observe that this represents a new generation rising up to replace an older generation of leaders who have failed to provide a suitable organizing strategy. This has replicated itself in other movements to varying degrees.
Frank is both right and wrong in his analysis that this march represents merely "emotional satisfaction" for the marchers. Generating and harnessing the enthusiasm of a new generation of activists is a sine qua non
of a successful movement. But I think Adam Bink and others are right to worry that the movement is lurching without coordination or regard to anything strategic. And this is where Frank's criticism has merit. The entire movement seems to be lurching from one feel good thing to the next without any sense of strategy. This is always a challenge for a movement, especially one that is undergoing reinvention. But there appears (at least to this outsider) little analysis within the movement of what is actually effective for achieving goals, or even what those goals should be.
The difference between a movement and a mob is coordination and intent. There is no serious debate about how to prioritize goals or what strategy to use. Fight for federal changes in law? Fight to hold on to state victories like in Maine? The response of many in the "Stonewall 2.0 movement" appears to be "we can do it all." Maybe. But there is cost to trying to do it all and failing.