I think it’s more about the history of this hairstyle as being rooted in a particular culture - and when the culture is then later removed from the cultural representation (really, popularity) of that style, it does a disservice to representation of the culture which developed the aesthetic. It’s not as egregious as, for example, white people and cornrows. I mean, lots of white people wear cornrows, so a white vg character w cornrows wouldn’t be fanciful, just (1)
stepping into the debate of whether adopting features common to an oppressed population is appropriation, or acceptable, or not, and how cultural transmission is supposed to work and remain sensitive to the very real pain people experience and the culture they develop to make a visible outward identity. And a lot of people don’t even think of the side-shave as originating in gay culture - they think it comes from that Hunger Games movie. xD Anyway, just some thoughts.
Except it’s not rooted in a particular culture. You can’t just point at a undercut and say, “that belongs to this culture now.” Especially given that the hairstyle was invented in the Edwardian era. Just because many people in a given culture has a hairstyle, does not mean that they are able to now turn around and say “this hairstyle is exclusively ours now.” Arguing about the undercut as it pertains to the lgbtq community in the same vein as cornrows or other intrinsically-tied hairstyles of minorities isn’t even comparing apples and oranges, it’s comparing apples and bowling balls.
So no, the hairstyle did not originate with the lgbtq community - it originated with the gentry in 1910. It was quite popular with men during that time, and stayed popular up through the 40′s. There is some evidence that it became popular with women during the 20s. It then made a come-back in the 1980s, starting with the underground scene and was used by women in those scenes as a statement that they didn’t care what people thought of their appearance (given that the status-quo appearance for women at the time was long, voluptuous hair). So while I can understand that the hairstyle has come to mean something specific to a certain portion of people, that doesn’t mean that they are allowed to point to it and say, “That’s ours now, you can’t use it unless you’re part of our group.” That’s not how it works. Especially since you’re talking about a hairstyle that has been worn by a myriad of groups, and therefore arguing that any of them hold a de facto ownership on it is basically impossible.