That's so gay!
Why you shouldn't be using this and other microagressions toward the queer community
Why you shouldn't be using this and other microagressions toward the queer community
Assuming someone's gender pronouns, not asking about their pronouns, and continuing to use the wrong pronouns after the correct ones have been shared is one very common example of microaggression that deny the personal experience, emotions, or thoughts of a person. Start browsing to learn more about microagressions and their impact.
This statement is dismissive and offensive. It implies that learning the definition of the acronym is too much work or that it isn’t important. Not making an effort to fully understand communicates a tokenized effort at inclusion as opposed to a genuine effort to understand how to represent and include the community..
This question discredits one’s sexuality and implies that heterosexual relationships are inherently normal. A reverse question is hardly ever asked of heterosexual individuals and how they knew they were straight if they have never engaged in a relationship with someone of the same sex.
This statement is often said in reply to people who say that efforts for diversity, equity, and inclusion are a personal preference (e.g. assuming that ensuring accessibility is a personal preference)
This type of question about someone’s previous identity is intrusive and offensive. A transgender individual should not be asked about their past identity as it may be irrelevant to who they are now. Doing so can also bring up painful memories.
This comment is a form of microinvalidation and is often made by individuals in reference to learning about a tragic event that happened in another country or an instance of discrimination that has happened to an individual. Not only is this statement insensitive to the individuals harmed, it implies that this “could never happen here” when it could and potentially already has. It invalidates people’s experiences and, when used to speak about other countries, can perpetuate negative stereotypes.
Queerness is not something we become or decide to be. We do decide to come out and share it with the world, but that doesn’t mean it’s something we’ve suddenly become. That is, most trans people always felt that way, but they haven’t always had the words, resources, and courage to describe themselves and their identity to others.
Being LGBTQ+ is almost never a phase. People are not gay or trans or bi because ”it’s cool.” Being LGBTQ+ in this world is often very difficult and many queer folks I know spent years trying desperately to be straight or cis to avoid the pain and discrimination we experience. We don’t come out because it’s trendy or a phase, we declare our identities as survival. Note: even if it was a phase or just trendy, you should still affirm someone’s declared identity. It does NO harm to affirm them.
If you are truly NOT homophobic or transphobic, you’ll never need to add a “but.”
Our identities do not depend on others’ opinions of our identities. It does not matter if you agree with it, if you understand it, if it makes sense to you or if you like it. It only matters who we know ourselves to be. That is, you don’t get to disagree with someone’s identity. You can disagree with someone’s choice of restaurant or if pineapple belongs on pizza, but you don’t get to disagree with someone’s gender, sexuality, race, ability, or any other facet of their identity.
This comment assumes that a person must identify as only one part of their ancestry, ethnicity, culture, gender, etc. and attempts to dictate the way people experience forms of their identity. It assumes that people who do not fit neatly into defined categories are abnormal. It privileges some identities above others and perpetuates harmful stereotypes. It discourages people from being their whole selves and can erode self-acceptance and self-worth as well as acceptance by others. An example of this is when it’s asked of a mixed-race individual.
Lesbian, homosexual and bisexual people are individuals and can't be lumped together in one group. This phrase implies that there is one way for non-heterosexual people to appear and behave. This is harmful because it denies one's individuality an imposes false stereotypes.