LGBTQ+ Gatekeeping and Harassment:

When LGBTQ+ people police each other

by Sean Watkin, 28 January 2026.

I can’t help but notice a recurring tension between support and judgement within the LGBTQ+ community. While our community exists to provide safety, solidarity, and visibility, we are not immune to internal policing. Online, in particular, LGBTQ+ people sometimes tell other LGBTQ+ people that their experiences, choices, or identities are wrong, invalid, or even opposed to advocacy. I say: mind your own fucking business.

This policing takes many forms, from questioning someone’s identity to criticising how they express their sexuality and shaming them for the media they consume or the spaces they occupy. These behaviours are deeply harmful, fostering shame, exclusion, and anxiety among the very people they should support. Sound familiar? That’s because it’s exactly how straight people have treated LGBTQ+ individuals for centuries.

This article seeks to examine the dynamic of internal gatekeeping within LGBTQ+ spaces and communities, the ways it manifests online and in cultural spaces, and its broader consequences.

Gatekeeping occurs when LGBTQ+ people impose standards or judgements about what it means to be lesbian, gay, bisexual, or otherwise part of the community. It is called “gatekeeping” because, like a gatekeeper, someone decides who is “allowed in”; who is considered authentic, and who is not; and what is a good representation of being LGBTQ+. This policing can be subtle or overt, but the effect is the same: people feel less legitimate or are excluded entirely. Common forms of gatekeeping include:

• Questioning identities by suggesting someone isn’t really part of the community because of who they date or how they express themselves artistically, or in everyday life.
• Imposing behavioural norms by criticising the spaces someone occupies, how they participate socially, or their cultural engagement.
• Policing lifestyle choices by implying that certain hobbies, media, or friendships are incompatible with being LGBTQ+.

Even when intentions are positive, gatekeeping is harmful. One major reason is that it privileges some ways of being LGBTQ+ over others, creating hierarchies within a community where there should be none because:

• Certain expressions of identity, social participation, or cultural tastes are treated as more valid or authentic.
• Those who don’t conform to these expectations may be excluded, dismissed, or belittled, even when their experiences are genuine and meaningful.
• This hierarchy reinforces systemic pressures. The shame and judgement used against LGBTQ+ people by those outside of the community is now wielded from within the community itself against people who don’t “toe the line”.

By privileging some ways of being over a more diverse approach, gatekeeping narrows the view of what it means to be LGBTQ+, undermining inclusivity and solidarity.

Gatekeeping extends beyond identity into cultural participation. A prominent example of this is the Harry Potter franchise.

Some LGBTQ+ people assume that anyone who buys, reads, or engages with Harry Potter products must hold anti-LGBTQ+ beliefs or align with problematic ideologies. In fact, the entire series is about eradicating those views. That is literally the point of the novels, and someone isn’t problematic simply because they’re reading or watching something you think they shouldn’t.

This assumption has led to harassment, public shaming, and social exclusion, despite the fact that enjoyment is more likely based on nostalgia, entertainment, or personal interest over any alignment with the author’s harmful, personal views.

This type of gatekeeping behaviour is problematic because:

• Guilt by association ignores nuance. Engaging with a book, film, or merchandise does not imply endorsement of the creator’s personal beliefs.
• It divides communities by targeting fellow LGBTQ+ members for their interests, eroding trust and solidarity.
• It mirrors identity policing by reinforcing those hierarchies of “goodness” (here, read virtue signalling) and judgement within the community.

Another example of the extension of gatekeeping beyond individual identity, would be how some LGBTQ+ people choose to travel to countries where being part of the community is illegal and punishable by death, serious harm, or prison time. I wouldn’t choose to visit these countries, but that is a personal standard. One I do not, and should not, expect others to follow. Choices like these, just like the media we consume, are personal and do not determine someone’s legitimacy within the LGBTQ+ community.

It’s important to focus on behaviours, not interests. Sharing anti-LGBTQ+ views online and on our streets should be challenged. But not with death threats, harassment, or attempts to destroy someone’s life and livelihood. Education is an option for those receptive to it; for others, leave them to their ignorance. Bullying in response makes the LGBTQ+ community itself part of the problem.

The rise of social media and online forums has amplified internal policing and harassment in an almost anonymous way, because we can be anyone and say anything behind a keyboard. Certain factions of the LGBTQ+ community use platforms like TikTok, Reddit, and X to criticise, shame, or ostracise fellow members. The result is often a mob mentality, where judgement spreads rapidly, creating collective harassment.

This behaviour frequently emerges from groups who perceive themselves as authorities on what is acceptable within the community. They may coalesce around ideology, activism, or perceived moral purity, mirroring the very societal policing that the LGBTQ+ community resists. Consequences of this include:

• Emotional distress for targets, including anxiety, shame, and isolation. Whatever happened to “be kind always”? I suppose it only applies when everyone agrees with you.
• Erosion of trust and solidarity within communities.
• Reinforces internal hierarches and exclusionary practices as the norm.

LGBTQ+ communities are inherently diverse, encompassing a wide range of experiences, preferences, and ways of being. There is no single standard, and there is not a template. Holding others to our personal standards of authenticity and advocacy is neither fair nor productive.

Similarly, bullying and harassment, whether online or offline, from within the community or outside of it, should never be tolerated. It creates fear, shame, and exclusion instead of safety and support. Fostering inclusive LGBTQ+ spaces requires a self-awareness and sense of empathy so many lack in 2026. We should all seek to recognise that our perspective is not universal because others may experience and express themselves differently. We should challenge harmful behaviours, prioritising dialogue, education, and compassion over judgement and ostracism. And we should focus on actions rather than personal preferences or interests. One person’s choices do not invalidate another’s identity.

I implore our community to respect differences, reject bullying, and contribute to a community that lives up to its promise of solidarity and support.