The identity policing! It begins!
I know people are angry, and I know that when I'm angry, for example, I don't want to listen to counter-arguments or people telling me to be reasonable or anything like that, because I can't process logical arguments or criticism when I'm in emotion-overload brain-shortcircuiting territory. On the other hand, that's also probably one of my greatest flaws as a person, so. This post. I don't want to tell people not to be angry, not to disagree, not to be disgusted and enraged by what other people are saying, but I do want to point out this:
Just because someone disagrees with the Lambda Literary Awards new rules does not automatically mean they are straight.
Erastes, by his/her own declaration, is bisexual. Several people who comment on Erastes' post in agreement with Erastes also declare themselves to be bi or some other flavor of queer. Duskpeterson says in hir post on the subject and letter to the Lambda Literary Foundation that ze is bisexual and genderqueer. It would be inaccurate to dismiss disagreement and protest over the rules change limiting submissions to LGBT authors as nothing but straight writers throwing a hissy fit when some of the writers protesting are other LGBTQ people. I think that over-simplifies the situation and does a disservice to some of the writers involved.
There are valid arguments for making the LLA for LGBT authors only, which the LLF's letter and which comments discussion in some of the posts I linked cover (more posts here discuss it further. sparkindarkness's is particularly good as is belleweather's post). There are also some valid arguments against it -- Victor J. Banis has an very interesting post here where he discusses his own issues with the Lambda awards, which go beyond the rules change/clarification and address the gay publishing industry in general. Teddy Pig thinks they're idiots. (edit: he thinks so rather loudly and rudely, but a gay guy being loud and rude abou this is different from a straight girl being loud and rude).![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
rm's comments about identity policing and who gets to be judged "queer enough" also come to mind, and I think Erastes does make a good point about the fact that requiring people to declare their sexuality in order to submit fiction for consideration could cause problems for some writers -- basically, you have to be out in order to be considered, and not everyone is in a position where they can afford to be out. Okay, probably a lot of the people who can't afford to be out also can't afford to write and publish a book with LGTB themes, but you never know.
I've seen that last point/concern dismissed ("That some writers cannot come out is not a reason why anyone else, including the LLF, should change their course of action. It's a sad fact of life but that's all it is. It's irrelevant to the discussion" -- http://erastes.livejournal.com/449814.html?thread=6565910&format=light#t6565910) but I disagree with the dismissal. I don't think it's irrelevant. It's a part of the reality that some LGBT people face on a daily basis, so I think it's very much relevant to a wider discussion of LGBT issues and how the LLA intersects with them. The LLF don't in fact have to change the way they do anything because some people cannot safely be out, and choosing to encourage visiblity and awareness by limiting their awards to writers who are openly LGBT is a perfectly valid approach, but that doesn't mean it isn't a valid concern to bring to the discussion.
Anyway, there are some decent arguments on both sides of the divide, and I myself kind of like rm's idea of having one award category for LGBT writers and one for allies, because I think there is a place for books that deal with the LGBT experience from the outside, from the perspective of friends/spouses/children of queer people, and because some of the books and fiction that's touched me and spoken to me deeply has been by straight people, or by LGBT people who's gender did not match that of the characters they were writing about.
I think the real question is not whether the LLF should be able to change the parameters for their awards (obviously, it's their award and they can set whatever requirements for submission that they want) or whether they've bankrupted themselves as a literary organization by considering other qualities than pure literary merit (they wouldn't be the first organization to consider writing quality as only one of several requirements) but what purpose the LLA is intended to serve, and whether the new rules better serve that purpose.
Do the LLF want to celebrate LGBT authors, or do they want to celebrate LGBT stories, or do they want to increase visibility/representation of LGBT people in the realm of fiction. Or all three? And in terms of visibility, which matters more -- increasing the visibility of LGBT authors, or increasing the amount of fiction containing LGTB anything (characters, themes, whatever) that's available to readers? They don't have to be mutually exculsive goals, but I think limiting the LLA to LGBT authors is going to accomplish the first one (visibility for authors) better than it will the second (LGBT representation in fiction). That said, visibility for LGBT authors is a good goal. If that's what the LLF is trying to achieve, than I support their rules change in principle even if I do think they went about it stupidly.
I think a literary award just for LGBT authors is a good idea and a valuable thing. I also think an award for books that deal with LGBT characters and themes, regardless of the author's sexuality or gender, is a good idea and a valuable thing. Maybe a new award needs to be created to cover the big tent of all writers dealing with non-straight characters now that the LLF has narrowed their focus. [edit: As kaigou's excellent post points out, such an award already exists. The Stonewall Book Award].
Either way, the charge that only straight people oppose this change because it threatens their straight priviledge is a misleading assumption. Some straight people do oppose it, and some of them may very well do so because their privielege is threatened, but I've seen several other LGBT fans speak up in connection to this, and their/our opinion is not a monolith. Some people are every much for it and are offended or angered or irritated by the criticisms of it, and some are very much against it.
TL;DR: Think the Lambda Literary Foundation deciding that their goal is to promote LGBT authors rather than LGBT fiction in general is perfectly fine, have no problem with the new rules, but do have a problem with people declaring that people on the other side of the debate are displaying their straight priviledge if said people are, in fact, not straight. Say they're wrong all you want, but don't say they're straight or coming from a place of priviledged heterosexual entitlement if they're actually bi/lesbian/gay/genderqueer.
edit: Why did I read all the way through the discussion thread at Dear Author on this? Why? Because as annoying as "you aren't gay *enough*" or "I shall just assume you're straight because I disagree with you" is, people announcing that restricting the Lambda awards to LGBT authors only is "just like segregation" is approximately 1000x more annoying. Seriously, I'm *white* and it makes me want to punch people through the computer screen. Why isn't there a "make someone shut up and get off the internet" button on QWERTY keyboards? It could be F13, the STFU key.
I know people are angry, and I know that when I'm angry, for example, I don't want to listen to counter-arguments or people telling me to be reasonable or anything like that, because I can't process logical arguments or criticism when I'm in emotion-overload brain-shortcircuiting territory. On the other hand, that's also probably one of my greatest flaws as a person, so. This post. I don't want to tell people not to be angry, not to disagree, not to be disgusted and enraged by what other people are saying, but I do want to point out this:
Just because someone disagrees with the Lambda Literary Awards new rules does not automatically mean they are straight.
Erastes, by his/her own declaration, is bisexual. Several people who comment on Erastes' post in agreement with Erastes also declare themselves to be bi or some other flavor of queer. Duskpeterson says in hir post on the subject and letter to the Lambda Literary Foundation that ze is bisexual and genderqueer. It would be inaccurate to dismiss disagreement and protest over the rules change limiting submissions to LGBT authors as nothing but straight writers throwing a hissy fit when some of the writers protesting are other LGBTQ people. I think that over-simplifies the situation and does a disservice to some of the writers involved.
There are valid arguments for making the LLA for LGBT authors only, which the LLF's letter and which comments discussion in some of the posts I linked cover (more posts here discuss it further. sparkindarkness's is particularly good as is belleweather's post). There are also some valid arguments against it -- Victor J. Banis has an very interesting post here where he discusses his own issues with the Lambda awards, which go beyond the rules change/clarification and address the gay publishing industry in general. Teddy Pig thinks they're idiots. (edit: he thinks so rather loudly and rudely, but a gay guy being loud and rude abou this is different from a straight girl being loud and rude).
rm's comments about identity policing and who gets to be judged "queer enough" also come to mind, and I think Erastes does make a good point about the fact that requiring people to declare their sexuality in order to submit fiction for consideration could cause problems for some writers -- basically, you have to be out in order to be considered, and not everyone is in a position where they can afford to be out. Okay, probably a lot of the people who can't afford to be out also can't afford to write and publish a book with LGTB themes, but you never know.I've seen that last point/concern dismissed ("That some writers cannot come out is not a reason why anyone else, including the LLF, should change their course of action. It's a sad fact of life but that's all it is. It's irrelevant to the discussion" -- http://erastes.livejournal.com/449814.html?thread=6565910&format=light#t6565910) but I disagree with the dismissal. I don't think it's irrelevant. It's a part of the reality that some LGBT people face on a daily basis, so I think it's very much relevant to a wider discussion of LGBT issues and how the LLA intersects with them. The LLF don't in fact have to change the way they do anything because some people cannot safely be out, and choosing to encourage visiblity and awareness by limiting their awards to writers who are openly LGBT is a perfectly valid approach, but that doesn't mean it isn't a valid concern to bring to the discussion.
Anyway, there are some decent arguments on both sides of the divide, and I myself kind of like rm's idea of having one award category for LGBT writers and one for allies, because I think there is a place for books that deal with the LGBT experience from the outside, from the perspective of friends/spouses/children of queer people, and because some of the books and fiction that's touched me and spoken to me deeply has been by straight people, or by LGBT people who's gender did not match that of the characters they were writing about.
I think the real question is not whether the LLF should be able to change the parameters for their awards (obviously, it's their award and they can set whatever requirements for submission that they want) or whether they've bankrupted themselves as a literary organization by considering other qualities than pure literary merit (they wouldn't be the first organization to consider writing quality as only one of several requirements) but what purpose the LLA is intended to serve, and whether the new rules better serve that purpose.
Do the LLF want to celebrate LGBT authors, or do they want to celebrate LGBT stories, or do they want to increase visibility/representation of LGBT people in the realm of fiction. Or all three? And in terms of visibility, which matters more -- increasing the visibility of LGBT authors, or increasing the amount of fiction containing LGTB anything (characters, themes, whatever) that's available to readers? They don't have to be mutually exculsive goals, but I think limiting the LLA to LGBT authors is going to accomplish the first one (visibility for authors) better than it will the second (LGBT representation in fiction). That said, visibility for LGBT authors is a good goal. If that's what the LLF is trying to achieve, than I support their rules change in principle even if I do think they went about it stupidly.
I think a literary award just for LGBT authors is a good idea and a valuable thing. I also think an award for books that deal with LGBT characters and themes, regardless of the author's sexuality or gender, is a good idea and a valuable thing. Maybe a new award needs to be created to cover the big tent of all writers dealing with non-straight characters now that the LLF has narrowed their focus. [edit: As kaigou's excellent post points out, such an award already exists. The Stonewall Book Award].
Either way, the charge that only straight people oppose this change because it threatens their straight priviledge is a misleading assumption. Some straight people do oppose it, and some of them may very well do so because their privielege is threatened, but I've seen several other LGBT fans speak up in connection to this, and their/our opinion is not a monolith. Some people are every much for it and are offended or angered or irritated by the criticisms of it, and some are very much against it.
TL;DR: Think the Lambda Literary Foundation deciding that their goal is to promote LGBT authors rather than LGBT fiction in general is perfectly fine, have no problem with the new rules, but do have a problem with people declaring that people on the other side of the debate are displaying their straight priviledge if said people are, in fact, not straight. Say they're wrong all you want, but don't say they're straight or coming from a place of priviledged heterosexual entitlement if they're actually bi/lesbian/gay/genderqueer.
edit: Why did I read all the way through the discussion thread at Dear Author on this? Why? Because as annoying as "you aren't gay *enough*" or "I shall just assume you're straight because I disagree with you" is, people announcing that restricting the Lambda awards to LGBT authors only is "just like segregation" is approximately 1000x more annoying. Seriously, I'm *white* and it makes me want to punch people through the computer screen. Why isn't there a "make someone shut up and get off the internet" button on QWERTY keyboards? It could be F13, the STFU key.