[krapp]

When society doesn't believe you exist, or that your existence is simply an expression of mental illness or moral degradation, then such labels are useful to establish an identity around which to build a cultural and political movement, particularly to counteract and attempt to replace the typically negative or hostile labels provided by that society.

But yes, it is also useful to be able to abandon those labels altogether, or not have them define one's identity.

[BorRagnarok]

> such labels are useful to establish an identity around which to build a cultural and political movement, particularly to counteract and attempt to replace the typically negative or hostile labels

Ehm, does that actually work however? I see what you say happening, but does it bring the desired goal?

I also kind of find it stroking with a way to broad of a brush to say that "society" puts "hostile labels" on groups. This isn't always the case. I'm part of society, but I for sure aint doing that, and I don't really want to be put in the same box with people who do.

[krapp]

>Ehm, does that actually work however? I see what you say happening, but does it bring the desired goal?

I think it does, albeit slowly and not necessarily without backlash. The alternative to having LGBT people assert their own identity is to have their identity asserted for them, by people who may not understand them or who may be hostile to them, and that sort of thing never goes well.

And the desired goal is to remove the stigma of LGBT existence and have it be accepted as being normal. One way to facilitate that normalization is for LGBT people to simply not be hidden, and to participate in society, and the most obvious way to do that is as part of a culture that can be easily recognized by an outgroup.

It's progress for people to simply complain about there being too much gay representation in the media, rather than for it to be illegal to represent it as anything but an illness (as was the case under the Hayes code.)

>I'm part of society, but I for sure aint doing that, and I don't really want to be put in the same box with people who do.

This seems to trip a lot of people up when discussions about the intersections of race, gender and culture come up. It's difficult to argue that, for instance, toxic aspects of masculinity can exist without people interpreting that as a claim that all masculinity is toxic and that, therefore, all men are toxic. Likewise, discussing rape culture leads to people dismissing the concept entirely because they, themselves, are not rapists. Yet both are criticisms of group dynamics, systems of power and identity politics, not of individuals or of all members of a class.

Individuals can differ in the way they respond to the influences of society, but its influence still exists. Speaking at the level of abstractions rather than individuals is important because those abstractions are what form people's concepts of normality, decency and justice, and because people act both as individuals and as conformist (or non-conformist) members of a group. Men who don't display toxic masculinity are still participants in the culture of masculinity, and men who don't rape are still participants in rape culture. Women participate in both as well.

Likewise, it's entirely possible to correctly claim that society puts hostile labels on LGBT groups, and for that not to apply to you personally. If so, that's fine, but not relevant, and there's no need to be defensive about the premise.