Actually, among the first recorded usages of “queer” as applied to same-sex-attracted people was in the 1910s, as a term of self-identification among same-sex attracted men in the north-eastern United States. As per George Chauncey’s “Christian Brotherhood or Sexual Perversion?: Homosexual Identities and the Construction of the Sexual Boundaries in the World War I Era”:
The [gang of] inverts [within the US Navy in 1919 Newport, Rhode Island] grouped themselves together as “queers” on the basis of their effeminate gender behavior, and they all played roles culturally defined as feminine in sexual contacts [sic]. But they distinguished among themselves on the basis of the “feminine” sexual behavior they preferred, categorizing themselves as “fairies” (also called cocksuckers), “pogues” (men who liked to be “browned,” or anally penetrated), and “two-way artists” (who enjoyed both). The ubiquity of these distinctions and their importance to personal self-identification cannot be overemphasized. Witnesses at the naval inquiries explicitly drew the distinctions as a matter of course and incorporated them into their descriptions of the gay subculture.
Both straight-identified and queer-identified servicemen who testified at these hearings used “queer” and its associated sub-categories, but the gradations of terminology seem very much to have originated with the male-same-sex-attracted community to describe the subtleties of social expectation among them, rather than with the mainstream straight establishment putting them on trial. Similarly, the punctuation of OED citations like this 1914 one cited in the Journal of the History of Sexuality imply that the mainstream academic press, when using queer, was quoting a term that had originated outside their purview, a sociological adaptation more than a derogatory weapon wielded by the straight establishment: “Fourteen young men were invited..with the premise that they would have the opportunity of meeting some of the prominent ‘queers’.” All of this is evidence of a nearly century-long history, among the same-sex-attracted community and independent of the straights, of using this word to self-identify.
This is not to say that the word wasn’t also or later used as a harmful slur against same-sex-attracted people; merely that history didn’t start during the late 1960s. If we’re going to talk about historical context, the origin of terms, and political reclamation (truly, in this case, reclamation), I think it’s pretty relevant that men as far back as the Great War and even the late Victorian period were using this word to self-identify.
I personally, as a queer person, am pretty much never ever going to use any acronym to describe myself when I have at my disposal an actual word, with resonances and power of its own and a history as outlined. When I use it to describe myself and my historical context I am not using it “in place of” LGBT; I am using my deliberately-chosen, preferred term.