As I’m sure most LGBTQ-identifying people have, I made a dating account on a website called Wing Ma’am when I was about 13. It was purely out of curiosity, just to see what I could expect as I got older. I can only assume that straight people do this type of thing too.
The app, along with a ton of lesbian Facebook pages honestly upset pre-teen me quite a bit. There seemed to be a divide in the community itself. Plenty of queer people identify as masculine, feminine or gold star (which means that you’ve never been with anyone of the opposite gender, sexually or otherwise.) In addition, many people who identify as masculine only date feminine identifying individuals, and don’t even get me started on lesbians who won’t date bi girls.
Now, there’s no issue with having a preference in who you date, but I personally don’t think that the LGBTQ community, which is already discriminated against, should have discrimination within itself. There's almost a competition sometimes on who can be “most gay.” If you’ve ever been with a guy, you can’t identify as a lesbian. If you wear makeup, god forbid you call yourself butch.
The issue with these labels is that it almost forces us into such small boxes that it’s like coming out of the closet all over again. Even in a community where we should feel safe, we’re dividing ourselves instead of looking out for each other. Not to mention the gay or lesbian members of the community who refuse to date bisexuals. When it comes to being bi, your dating choices are essentially guys who think it’s sexy and girls who refuse to date bisexuals. Not exactly a very welcoming situation.
My girlfriend pointed out to me that some people find labeling themselves comforting, and, while that can be true, I don’t think that we should pressure others so much to label themselves. Instead of creating rifts in the community, we should be looking out for each other and helping younger teens who are questioning their sexuality see that there’s no wrong way to express yourself.
The conclusion here is that you shouldn’t feel any stress to label yourself, but it’s okay if it’s comforting to you as well. There’s no right or wrong way to be queer. If you want to wear dresses but identify as butch, that’s fine. If you’ve dated a girl before but consider yourself a gay male, that’s fine. If you wear makeup but you’re transitioning to male, that’s fine. We as a community shouldn’t judge our family - we instead should make others feel welcome.
Recommended for you
The Illusion of Creativity
AI-generated music is often marketed as “artistic” or “educational.” But what does it really teach?
- That style can be replicated without understanding.
- That emotion can be simulated without feeling.
- That effort can be bypassed with a prompt.
For young creators, this sets a dangerous precedent. Why learn to play guitar when an algorithm can do it faster? Why study harmony when AI can generate chord progressions in seconds? The risk isn’t just laziness — it’s the loss of depth, discipline, and the tactile joy of creation.
I have listened to several AI-generated music covers. My initial reaction was one of considerable impressiveness, particularly regarding the reimagining of classic pop hits in diverse genres with novel arrangements. Here is one good example a-ha — Take On Me
However, after engaging with several such Ai generated song covers, a sense of emotional detachment emerged, attributable to the perceived absence of human artistry and genuine sentiment, resulting in a technically flawless yet ultimately soulless auditory experience.
Copyright in Crisis
What does the copyright law say about AI generated music, especially in field of music covers. Who is liable for copyright in this case, AI developers, people who used AI to generate music or people who published it on music platforms?
Recent lawsuits show that the music industry is pushing back hard:
- Universal, Sony, and Warner sued AI music platforms Suno and Udio in 2024 for allegedly training their models on copyrighted songs without permission Ars Technica The Lyon Firm.
- They’re seeking up to $150,000 per infringed song, arguing that the AI outputs resemble famous tracks and voices (e.g., Mariah Carey, Michael Jackson).
- These lawsuits target the developers of the AI tools — but they raise broader questions:The legal gray area is training data. Courts haven’t yet ruled definitively on whether using copyrighted songs to train AI counts as infringement or fair use Sites at USC.
But who’s liable?
Role | Legal Risk | Why |
AI Developers | ✅ High | For training on copyrighted material without licenses. |
Users | ⚠️ Moderate | If they intentionally recreate protected works. |
Publishers/Platforms | ✅ High | For distributing infringing content. |
The grey area lies in training data. Courts haven’t yet ruled definitively on whether using copyrighted songs to train AI counts as infringement or fair use. Meanwhile, AI-generated works themselves aren’t eligible for copyright unless a human provides substantial creative input — leaving them in legal limbo.
The Educational Mirage
Some argue that AI music helps people learn genres, production styles, or vocal techniques. But this “education” often lacks context. It’s like learning to paint by watching a printer — technically impressive, but creatively hollow.
True musical education involves:
- Struggle and iteration: Learning through mistakes.
- Emotional connection: Expressing what words can’t.
- Cultural lineage: Understanding the roots of sound.
AI shortcuts bypass all of this. And in doing so, they risk flattening the rich terrain of human creativity into a sterile landscape of algorithmic mimicry.
Why This Fight Matters
This isn’t just about music. It’s about the future of art, storytelling, and human expression. If we allow machines to dominate creative spaces, we risk turning culture into content — optimized, monetized, and devoid of soul.
We must ask: Do we want a world where art is made by machines, or one where machines help humans make better art?
5 Key Takeaways
- AI-generated music blurs the line between innovation and erosion in the creative arts
- AI-generated music raises questions about copyright, culture, education, and artistic expression
- AI-generated music can replicate style without understanding, simulate emotion without feeling, and bypass effort with a prompt
- AI-generated music sets a dangerous precedent for young creators by potentially leading to a loss of depth, discipline, and joy of creation
Trending Topics
Trending Stories
Best of Politics and Activism![Jenna Pizzi and her mom smiling by a waterfront with a historic ship in the background.]()
![Cristina Yang and Meredith Grey in scrubs sit against a wall, smiling and enjoying a break.]()
![Woman in field with a red heart-shaped balloon under a colorful sky.]()
