Opinion of "valid" as an adjective for people

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

This could just be because I have a tumblr, but quite often in the last several years I've seen people use the word "valid" to describe human beings, typically indicating a generalized approbation of some aspect of a person's identity. Implicit in this approbation is a recognition that disapprobation is in some sense a socially potent force, since this usage appears to be a back-formation from the verb "to invalidate". So, for example, one sees reassurances that Muslim women, or LGBT Christians, or autistic people "are valid".

I'm concerned about this usage, for a couple of different reasons.

The first is just that I find it obnoxious. The second is that in using this term so broadly--in couching any and all expressions of support or reassurance towards members of [group X] as "[group X] is/are valid"--people disempower themselves from being able to identify what, specifically, is at stake or under dispute. Is it the veracity of a truth claim? The meaningfulness of a descriptor or categorization? The morality of a behavior? Reducing all questions of, say, homophobia to whether or not gay people "are valid" would seem like it would tend to obscure potentially difficult conversations about what kinds of homophobia are out there and how they manifest; same with autistic people "being valid" and conversations about neurological/mental health bias.

[Antonio the Sixth]

I hadn't noticed it that much (not having tumblr and all), but yeah, it's yet another example of social justice language being correct yet unhelpful to political discourse.