Starting from personal observation, I develop my argument around what I call the »right to be complex,« which is often denied to marginalised persons. I propose taking intersectionality seriously by recognising the complexity of power structures and subject positions. In my examples, debates about sexual violence often equate victims with white, non-migrant females and the demands for gender-sensitive language only represent white middle-class German speakers, leaving everybody else outside, and forcing subjects situated in ambiguous positions into a false loyalty conflict. I argue for closer attention and non-reductionist approaches to such ambiguous positions. Furthermore, I draw on Urmila Goel’s insights into the complexity of racism, and argue that a person can be positively and negatively affected by it, as it is in the case of anti-Slavic and several other forms of racism. In the last section, I briefly refer to the debate on the autonomy of migration and consider the right to be complex as a right to move or to stay. I conclude with the idea of a myriad of origins belonging to every person instead of persons belonging to one single point of origin. As a consequence, I argue for a personal right not only to decide where we want to go but also where we have come from.