Assigning Sexuality to a Love Island Contestant Isn’t Progressive—It’s Invasive

We exist within a strange social contradiction. On the one hand, we’ve become far more accepting of different sexual orientations. Yet people still seem to feel entitled to assign one to someone else.

In another example of this contradiction playing out online, people have taken to the internet to speculate about Love Island USA contestant Beatriz Hatz’s sexual orientation. Since the season began airing, users across social platforms began claiming that Hatz is either a closeted lesbian or a lesbian who simply hasn’t realized it yet. The speculation appears to stem from her athletic build and tone of voice.

Mind you, she’s an American Paralympic athlete.

What’s particularly frustrating is that this conversation has continued even after Hatz opened up on the show about how others perceive her. In a conversation with fellow Islander Melanie, Hatz spoke about feeling overlooked and misunderstood because she doesn’t fit conventional expectations of femininity. Yet instead of listening to what she was actually saying, many viewers have continued speculating about her sexuality.

The internet discourse surrounding Hatz’s sexual orientation says a lot about how far we still have to go when it comes to basic human decency and respect. People continue to feel entitled to treat other people’s identities as puzzles to be solved.

By 2026, we should know better. We should understand that social media is an incredibly public space where speculation can spread rapidly and go viral, and be more thoughtful about how we talk about and treat other people online.

What’s troubling is that there are still people who don’t understand that the only person who gets to define someone’s sexuality is that person themselves.

It’s also ironic that some of the same people who identify as queer-friendly and supportive seem to think they can get away online with behavior they know would be inappropriate in real life. I would think that, by this point, people would have the wisdom to understand that even if Hatz were a queer woman, it’s still inappropriate to tell someone how they should identify sexually.

At its core, this conversation is about respect. No one gets to decide someone else’s sexuality for them. Insisting that Hatz is queer, or that she simply hasn’t figured it out yet, assumes a level of certainty that strangers on the internet simply do not have.

People can speculate all they want, but assigning labels to someone you’ve never met based on their appearance, voice, or demeanor crosses a line. Doing it online doesn’t make it any more appropriate.

Regardless of intent, this isn’t exactly harmless speculation. If Hatz isn’t queer, then these assumptions feel like an attack on her identity and on narrow ideas about how a woman is supposed to look, present herself, and behave. And if she is a queer woman, then this kind of speculation amounts to forcing someone out before they’re ready.

Either way, it’s a violation of her autonomy.

Identity policing has long been a reality, but the conversation surrounding Hatz shows how quickly people still resort to assigning labels to people they don’t know. The truth is that when you assign an identity to someone who hasn’t claimed it for themselves, you’re essentially telling them that you believe you know them better than they know themselves.

But identity is personal. It’s one of the few things that should belong exclusively to the individual—and to that individual alone.