Identity Policing and “Own Voices”
4/6: I’m removing the Twitter links at the bottom of this post because 1) they’re not displaying right for a few readers and 2) Haynes has now apparently threatened to sue one of the individuals I linked to. (This may be a barn door/escaped horses situation, but still…)
#
There’s been a lot of discussion this past week about an April 2020 essay at Dark Matter Zine, “Defining ‘Own Voices’ Authors: you can’t have it both ways”.
Full disclosure: I published an essay by DMZ’s managing editor, Nalini Haynes, in 2014. “Evil Albino Trope is Evil” appeared both on my blog and in Invisible. I asked on Twitter whether DMZ would be responding to the conversation, or if their views had changed at all since 2020. I haven’t gotten a response yet, but will update when and if I do.
The essay at DMZ begins:
“Over the years I’ve had conflict with a number of authors about whether or not they are an “own voices” author and whether or not they’re appropriating (or misappropriating) others’ stories. Many authors claim identities when it’s convenient for them, when they stand to sell books or get a publishing opportunity. These same authors will not, at other times, identify as disabled. They won’t tick the “disabled” box when it might lose them a job. They won’t tick the “disabled” box when they might miss out on opportunities. They see the identity as a “treat” box they can dip in to at will but pass by when it’s inconvenient. And yet they want to use Dark Matter Zine, my platform, to wink at audiences, implying and claiming an identity that they will shed like a coat when the weather is warm.”
Identity isn’t as simple or straightforward as checking a box. If it was, I wouldn’t have struggled with whether or not to start out by saying, “Hey, I’m disabled.” As a type 1 diabetic, I need daily meds to live. I’m protected by the Americans with Disabilities Act. I’m pretty sure that puts me in the “disabled” pool. But with my pump and meter, I’ve been able to manage my diabetes for 22 years now. It’s well-controlled, and doesn’t cause me any major problems from day to day.
And that’s part of the problem: thinking I’m not really disabled because I’m not inconvenienced enough. Because I don’t suffer enough as a result of my disease. Because I’m not thinking about it 24/7. I end up policing my own identity, thinking I’m not disabled enough to claim the label. I’ve talked to plenty of other folks who’ve had similar struggles.
The essay continues:
“They want to claim to be an “own voices” author and they want to disavow that identity when owning that identity does not suit them. I use disability as an example, but this equally applies to being LGBTQIA (aka “queer”), Muslim, a person of color, and so on. If you’re “passing” as straight, or areligious or a conforming religion, or white, then you don’t get the full technicolor violent experience of the identity you’re claiming. You are NOT an “own voices” author if you don’t own that identity ALL THE DAMNED TIME.”
Hi, my name is Jim Hines, and I’m diabetic. I’ve had a long day… First, I worked on painting my kitchen, diabetically. Then I had to drive my dog to the vet for her shot, all the while being diabetic. Then I came home and found, to my diabetic dismay, a leak in the basement ceiling beneath the dishwasher. I swore a mighty diabetic curse, then got to work trying to fix the dishwasher with my own two diabetic hands. And so on, and so forth.
I’m pretty open about my disability, but I don’t announce it to everyone I meet. I’m not “out” as a diabetic with every coworker. I’ve been out to meals folks where I deliberately don’t say anything about the diabetes, because I don’t feel like dealing with people trying to police what I can and can’t eat.
But you know what? If I decided to write a story about a diabetic protagonist, it would damn well draw on my own personal experiences. It would be “Own Voices,” in that the story is written by someone with 22 years of dealing with this damn disease. The fact that I’m not actively owning that identity all the time doesn’t make my story any less authentic or real.
That’s a relatively light example. Haynes also claims that if you’re white-passing or straight-passing, you don’t get the “full…violent experience” of the identity you’re claiming.
As if there’s only one universal full experience.
As if persecution and violence are prerequisites for being queer or non-white or disabled.
As if “passing” is a whim, like deciding whether or not to wear a windbreaker when taking the dogs for a walk this afternoon.
People are killed every day for being LGBTQIA. There are places where coming out as queer will get you arrested and killed.
Let’s say someone chooses to keep their sexuality a secret, because they have a personal preference for not being murdered. Let’s say that person writes a book about being queer. They publish under a pseudonym (see: preference for not being murdered). Are you honestly going to tell me that book isn’t “Own Voices” because the author isn’t claiming the identity “all the damned time”?
The DMZ essay talks about authors co-opting the “Own Voices” label to sell books, claiming or implying that they’re disabled in order to get a little extra publicity, or a few more sales. No examples are given, but yeah, it can happen. Author Michael Derrick Hudson used a female-sounding Asian pseudonym to sell his poetry. Marvel Comics’ C. B. Cebulski wrote “Wolverine: Soultaker” and “Kitty Pryde – Shadow & Flame,” both of which are set in Japan, using the name “Akira Yoshida.”
It reminds me of voter fraud. We know there are very few legitimate cases of voter fraud. But the solution to that problem is not to suppress thousands or millions of legitimate voters!
“It’s a con game to make money. Under this banner, any author who’s ever found someone of their gender attractive could claim to be queer while never having had a same sex relationship, never having experienced coming out, never having experienced others’ reactions to being nontraditional, nonconformist. It’s a con.”
Oh, hell, no. This is outside of my personal experience as a straight man, but as far as I know, coming out is not a prerequisite for being queer. Nor is having a same-sex relationship.
If you’re uncertain about this, flip the script. I’ve known I was straight for most of my life. I was straight years before I ever had a girlfriend. What gives you the right to tell 15-year-old me I’m not straight, just because I haven’t dated yet?
I have loved ones who identify as pansexual. Are you going to tell them they’re not — that it’s just a con — unless they can prove they’ve had a relationship with someone of every gender? Do you have a checklist they have to complete? A sexual scavenger hunt to earn their Pansexuality merit badge?
“Far better to acknowledge that you’re writing another’s story than to falsely claim it as your own.”
In and of itself, I agree with this statement. The problem is that the author is making themself the judge of whose identities are true and valid, and whose are false. And they’re trying to dump a hell of a lot of people into the “false” basket. Basically, they’re claiming the role of identity police. They’re laying out The Rules, and claiming, “This applies to all minority identities.”
Nope.
Look, we already have too many people trying to tell others who they are isn’t real. Saying things like, “Oh, asexuality isn’t a thing” or “You’re just going through a phase” or “You’re not trans; you’re just confused.” They pounce at the chance to prove someone isn’t “really” disabled. “Aha, you walked from the handicap spot to the store, so you’re not really handicapped!” or “You stood up from your wheelchair to get something from the shelf, so you’re not really disabled!” And don’t get me started on mental illness. “Depression isn’t real; you just need exercise/sunshine/yoga/a jade egg/etc…”
And then we wonder why people are hesitant to come out. Why they’re reluctant to identify as disabled.
That essay may represent Dark Matter Zine’s “official position on this matter,” but DMZ is just one magazine. They’re not the world. It’s identity policing without a badge, and without any real authority.
My official position is that DMZ’s essay is misguided, misinformed, and cruel.
I believe who you are is valid and real. It’s enough. You are who you are, regardless of whether you’ve come out publicly, regardless of whether you’ve had all the same experiences as someone else.
MadGastronomer
March 29, 2021 @ 11:16 pm
In addition to all of which, disability is not an identity. It’s just a fact about one. A fact no one is ever obligated to reveal.
hkhill
March 29, 2021 @ 11:31 pm
thank you
Laura Resnick
March 30, 2021 @ 7:50 am
Well said.
Annie V
March 30, 2021 @ 12:23 pm
Thank you.
Every single time I stop reading you/checking in around here I regret it so much.
DisabilityAnon
March 30, 2021 @ 1:50 pm
@Jim – Thank you so much for this!
@MadGastronomer – yes!!!!! I am disabled 24/7. I am also under no obligation to tell people about every type of disability I have in every situation.
Lurkertype
March 30, 2021 @ 8:45 pm
Dear Brother Jim:
PREACH!
I am disabled 24/7 myself, but I don’t “look sick”, and it doesn’t actually matter to someone I’m buying junk off eBay from. Pretty sure my vet doesn’t know either.
I hadn’t had a date at 15 either, but I knew I was a straight girl when I was about … 3? I thought boys were cute even if I didn’t know why. I knew a kid who was obviously a ladies’ man at about 18 months, and he still is.
Etc.
She’s spouting the sort of thing you’d expect from the average right-winger. “I will tell you how X you are, how you should consider yourself X, and the X ways all the X people behave and suffer. No other definitions of X apply.”
I have 2 words for her. The second is “you” and the first begins with F. Also, I’d like her to redefine herself as “clueless, bigoted, hectoring a-hole.”
Graham Darling
March 31, 2021 @ 9:19 pm
For the record, and to forestall any confusion or misattribution, Dark Matter Zine (https://www.darkmatterzine.com), an Australian fanzine that started in 2010, is a completely different enterprise than the new U.S.-incorporated prozine Dark Matter Magazine (https://darkmattermagazine.com), whose staff had nothing to do with the above editorial and even “had no knowledge of Dark Matter ZINE’s existence as a publisher prior to March 28, 2021”. See also https://darkmattermagazine.com/an-open-letter-regarding-the-ownvoices-editorial-published-by-a-non-affiliated-publication/ .
Nalini
April 5, 2021 @ 5:29 am
Hi Jim
You say “The DMZ essay talks about authors co-opting the “Own Voices” label to sell books, claiming or implying that they’re disabled in order to get a little extra publicity, or a few more sales. No examples are given, but yeah, it can happen.”
Actually, what prompted this essay was a specific book that I reviewed (I deleted the five star review before I wrote this article – a YEAR ago). So yeah. This isn’t about some fictitious maybe scenario.
Also. That bit about “some people get killed for their identity”?:
You will note that I didn’t say someone can’t write an identity with which they don’t identify. If you look through other posts I’ve written, like the series in response to the Lionel Shriver controversy https://www.darkmatterzine.com/series/lionel-shriver-is-wrong/, I explicitly stated that, when writing a voice you don’t identify with, do your research and write respectfully. One such review I wrote is here https://www.darkmatterzine.com/i-am-change/ where I talk about the author having done her research. I also interviewed her here https://www.darkmatterzine.com/suzy-zail/. Zana Fraillon is another author who does her research and writes voices with which she doesn’t identify. I love and adore her work as you can see by my reviews of her books and interviews with her https://www.darkmatterzine.com/?s=zana+fraillon.
Last year for International Women’s Day I ran a podcast panel on #MeToo characters. I believe that every woman* has either experienced rape and/or sexual harassment or knows someone who has. However, prior to that interview starting, we established that I wasn’t going to ask https://www.darkmatterzine.com/international-womens-day-2020-podcast/. I was ok with that. At no point did they “wink” at the audience claiming to be “me too” while not specifically owning it. We skirted the issue and focused on the characters NOT their experience.
(* and other people too but EVERY WOMAN. For more information try googling Christian Porter rape allegations, Brittany Higgins, Grace Tame, Canberra Bubble … and I could list a whole heap more. Australia’s government is currently in the middle of a “me too” moment and has, typically, botched its response.)
Furthermore, I’ve interviewed and reviewed authors WHO I KNOW are disabled but they do not own that identity. They establish this or establish that it’s not a question they want asked prior to the interview. I won’t point to those interviews for obvious reasons. I work with their declared identity and they are consistent.
As you are aware, I was diagnosed with my disability when I was 6 months old. I always knew I had a disability but I did not identify as DISABLED until 2005/6 when the South Australian Health dept discriminated against me and destroyed my career. Then the University of South Australia discriminated against me and effectively expelled me twice (2007 and 2008) for being disabled and asking for disability access. These issues and some of my evidence are now with the Disability Royal Commission. These events caused me to change my attitude from “I have a disability” to “I am disabled”. Also, as my eyesight deteriorated over the past 20 years, I found I could no longer “pass” as normal. I know a lot about coming out of the closet as a person with a disability and accepting and learning to live with the label “disabled”. You seem to dismiss this in your lambasting and misrepresentation of what I wrote.
The specific event that triggered that post – after years of being really pissed off – was me reviewing a specific book and recording a podcast with that author. During that interview the author claimed that identity and spoke for that group of people. Then that author accused me of outing them and requested that I change my (five star) review. I removed the review and the podcast so I could not possibly be accused of outing them. Also I was quite annoyed that this person was claiming to be an identity but hadn’t come out and was, effectively, winking at the audience. That person knows who they are. I assure you that person is not a SFWA member.
(Please note: disabled people talk about “coming out” as much as other groups so please don’t assume that author had any specific identity.)
I have personally experienced significant and ongoing disability discrimination from the speculative fiction community as well as bullying, harassment and threats that may or may not be motivated by disability discrimination. Yes I’m upset and angry. Yeah, I have “skin in the game”. But that wasn’t what specifically prompted that post.
Also, if you have a problem with something that I’ve written how about you talk to me? I’ve been really fucking clear IN THAT ARTICLE that I am not prohibiting people from writing stories that aren’t their own but what I’m objecting to is having it both ways: claiming the identity WHEN IT’S CONVENIENT and shedding that skin when it’s not.
When you’ve been assaulted for being diabetic in the refectory of a university, that university destroys the CCTV footage of the assault, expels you for being diabetic, then tries to SEND YOU TO JAIL FOR TALKING ABOUT DISABILITY DISCRIMINATION AND ASSAULT, then and only then do you have sufficient “skin in the game” to diss me and my concerns about disability discrimination. The University of Canberra did that to me from 2017-2019. I’m shaking and crying while I write this. I’m still traumatised. Like LGBTQIA+ people, disabled people are killed. In Australia. In America. Regularly. Also, like with LGBTQIA+ people, the media then goes “oh, poor murderer, look what they had to deal with”.
I am really upset and angry right now. I’m shaking and crying. I would have thought you’d have at least read THE WORDS ON THE PAGE instead of selectively taking some of them and spinning this.
BTW I wrote this post a year ago. Why now?
Jim C. Hines
April 5, 2021 @ 10:22 am
Nalini,
“Actually, what prompted this essay was a specific book that I reviewed (I deleted the five star review before I wrote this article – a YEAR ago). So yeah. This isn’t about some fictitious maybe scenario.”
I never said that it was. I simply noted that you hadn’t given any examples in your post. I also provided a couple of examples of my own.
“You will note that I didn’t say someone can’t write an identity with which they don’t identify.”
Again, I never said otherwise. Your essay was about who’s allowed to use the “Own Voices” label. I don’t believe you ever tried to say people couldn’t write characters with identities other than their own.
You say you’re upset because I didn’t read the words on the page, but your first two points here don’t seem to have anything to do with my post.
“Also, if you have a problem with something that I’ve written how about you talk to me?”
As I said in the post, I reached out on Twitter, but never got a response from you.
“BTW I wrote this post a year ago. Why now?”
I wrote my post a week ago. Why reply now? I’m guessing the answer is the same. I responded to your essay when I became aware of it.
I never questioned the discrimination and harassment you’ve experienced, and I have no intention of doing so. Nor did I dismiss your personal experiences with disability and coming out. Your experiences are your own. They’re valid. And it sucks that you were treated that way.
As I said in the post, there are parts of your essay I agree with. But there are other parts that I find hurtful, offensive, and cruel. Things like your claim that you don’t get the “full” experience of an identity if you’re ever able to pass. Your suggestion that someone can’t be queer if they haven’t come out and had a same-sex relationship. The way you’re positioning yourself as the judge of whether an author is “falsely” claiming an identity. These were the things I was responding to.
You say the essay was prompted by a specific author and a specific situation, but your essay was much broader than that. As you’ve seen, a lot of people–disabled, queer, PoC, etc–found it hurtful. Which makes me want to ask, have *you* reread the words that you wrote? Do you understand why so many people are upset? Or are you just dismissing people’s concerns?
Whatever you may have intended with that essay, many the words on the page–the words that I and many others have now read–were hurtful.
Nalini
April 5, 2021 @ 4:25 pm
Firstly, you claim you reached out on twitter. I didn’t get that tweet. Also, interestingly, Foz Meadows @ ed me on Twitter in March but I didn’t see that. I don’t know why. I check Twitter every day, multiple times a day, but didn’t see any of that.
Secondly, Yes Sophie this is about you claiming to speak for the LGBTQIA+ community in the podcast and talking about coming out in the podcast then accusing me of “outing” you in the review and asking me to change it. I behaved professionally. I removed both the podcast and the five star review because that was the only way that content on my website would not “out” you. And let’s be honest here: the alleged unpleasantness is only because you’re angry that I removed both the five star review and the podcast. Furthermore, had I known that you were not out that book would not have received 5 stars. I had concerns about how easy it was for your character to come out at the end but, then, I thought “Perhaps some families are that supportive and for some people it is that easy. The author – who’s out – would know.” So, knowing that you aren’t or weren’t out meant that my review should have discussed that concern instead of accepting on face value that you would know what it’s like to come out. And if you think that me deleting hours of work after reading and editing that podcast was unpleasant for you, imagine how pissed off I was. I at least behaved professionally and did what you requested: I removed all content on my website where you could be considered to be “outed”. I assume by your tweet that you’ve outed yourself by now or you’re trying to have it both ways again. Either way, I won’t be your target for a pile on and stay silent. I have a right to defend myself.
But also, Sophie, you’re not the only reason.
I’ve seen people who wouldn’t check a “are you disabled” box for work or in other circumstances because it would potentially cost them opportunities while they will take rare publishing and mentoring opportunities from those who are firmly barred by gatekeepers for being vulnerable minorities. There are heaps of us who have no choice but to be out, be out consistently, and suffer for it. We suffer bigotry, barring from opportunities AND WE SUFFER VIOLENCE. REGULARLY. And we’re exiled to the margins consistently.
This is NOT about telling people all the time about all the identities. Those claims are spurious vexatious bullshit from people just joining the pile on.
Jim, I responded to your article yesterday because I received an email from SFWA yesterday wanting to discuss my blog post. Then I googled it. From what I can see, Foz Meadows, Sophie and yourself are leading the pile on. Congratulations. I’m sure you’re getting lots of clicks. This seems a lot like the Scalzi-Beale conflict that generated clicks for those authors.
It’s nice for you that you get to choose whether to declare your disability. In my post I suggest that people who get to pick and choose whether to declare should not take rare opportunities from people who are disabled and don’t get a choice. Or, alternatively, the choice to take one of those opportunities should be the act of coming out. They shouldn’t get to “go back in”. Grace Tame doesn’t get to “go back in” as a sexual abuse survivor and nor does Brittany Higgins. They’re out and they’re standing for everyone who’s out and in. I applaud them. I respect others’ decisions not to come out. But those who aren’t out can’t, for example, submit to an “own voices” anthology then expect to go back into the closet where it’s safe and warm. Any other outcome defies logic.
I did not say you can’t be queer if you haven’t come out. I’m saying that a queer person who hasn’t come out can’t speak with authority for the queer community of which they’re not part because being a part of a community requires being out. Nor can they write an “own voices” coming out story because they haven’t come out. QED.
You’re hurt. And so am I. I’ve cried buckets since learning that there’s yet another internet pile on with me at the bottom. And you continue to take the words I wrote out of context.
I REPEATEDLY SAID “DON’T WINK AND THE AUDIENCE. DON’T TRY TO HAVE IT BOTH WAYS”. You’re still arguing for having it both ways. And you’ve written an offensive blogpost that deliberately takes portions of my blogpost out of context.
Jim C. Hines
April 5, 2021 @ 4:33 pm
Nalini,
Yes, I claim to have reached out on Twitter. I claim this because I did so. If you’re not seeing these Tweets, you might want to check whether you’ve muted people like me and Foz. Otherwise, I have no idea why you missed these.
If you think this is about generating clicks, then you’ve completely and utterly missed the point.
I’ve said my piece as clearly as I can. I don’t see much use in trying to reiterate things again. But I’d suggest that, if so many people have problems with the essay you wrote, it might be worth taking another look.
Nalini Haynes
April 6, 2021 @ 1:33 am
Sophie made false claims on Twitter, and thereby established the context of your accusations and this “discussion”. I only read her thread today after someone else intervened.
Sophie claimed to only want one word changed in the podcast but that’s not true: she specifically requested that I change the review because she wanted to show her family the five star review I’d written.
At the beginning of every interview conversation I ask authors if there’s anything they want to raise. She didn’t raise the fact that she wasn’t “out”. She says she made a comment on Skype that she then conveniently omitted to mention in her Twitter tirade that I didn’t see because I’m vision impaired. Will Kostakis, who was also a guest in that panel, knew I’m vision impaired and he didn’t raise it or mention the comment. Then she started ranting on Twitter last year because I didn’t know. Also, Sophie got other people involved on twitter, including Will. I defended myself then and I’m defending myself now. Now she has re-framed that to claim that I attacked her.
I had concerns about the really easy “coming out” at the end of Sophie’s novel but I gave that a free pass because I believed she had come out herself, therefore could speak to that process. Had I known that she hadn’t come out herself, I would not have given the novel 5 stars and I would have included my concerns regarding the easy coming out process. I did contemplate doing that anyway but figured there’d be a backlash for reducing the rating to 4 stars and including my concerns.
I decided years ago to never review authors with whom I’d had conflict because of the likelihood of retaliation and, extrapolating that decision and the likelihood of Sophie’s anger being expressed on Twitter, I decided to remove the review altogether.
In her twitter thread she says I refused to remove the review and/or the podcast but at the same time she’s angry that I did remove the review and her from the podcast. It’s a lose-lose for me.
She outed herself in the original podcast by speaking on behalf of the queer community. The podcast is here and has been at this link since I first published it: https://www.darkmatterzine.com/podcasts/Panel-Interview-Alison-Sophie-Will.mp3. You can compare that with the second edition here https://www.darkmatterzine.com/focus-on-butterflies-2/. You can judge for yourself if she outed herself and if she was speaking on behalf of the queer community.
Meanwhile, she repeatedly asked me not to out her in 2020. I didn’t see any alternative but to remove all the offending material before she became more irate. If she didn’t want material on DMZ to out her, then I was going to oblige.
It’s interesting that the two authors who apparently instigated this controversy a year after I published that post are both launching books around now. It seems to me that Sophie Gonzales is angry that I didn’t give her the publicity she felt she deserved. And this year I declined to read and review her new book. I’ve never heard of the other guy whose tweets SFWA sent screenshots of. This seems to be about publicity.
Kate
April 6, 2021 @ 9:36 pm
Graham Darling, Indeed DMZ just came out with some astonishing racism aimed at N. K. Jemisin, so they’re proving to be equal opportunity racist and homophobic jerks…
Nalini
April 6, 2021 @ 10:05 pm
My review – now removed – used an unfortunate phrasing that people have criticised. I was trying to reduce what would otherwise have been a convoluted sentence (because I didn’t want to use the acronym PoC for my readership) into something people could follow. And the point of that section of the review discussed how Jemisin used albino-types as weird creatures and villains. That’s ableist. But people have told me repeatedly that I’m not allowed to complain when Black people are ableist so I guess you expect me to be silent.
What do you want? What is the end goal of this pile on that is being orchestrated over social media, this website and other websites?
Do you want me to never again review any book with a significant queer character or by a queer author so I never again run the risk of inciting the ire of your community?
To never review a book with PoC or by a PoC author?
To never interview either?
To shut down Dark Matter Zine altogether?
Or would you prefer that I comply with the worst most rabid demands and just kill myself?
Genuine questions here so we can see what your real agenda is.
Jim, you are responsible for publishing the original post without taking reasonable steps to contact me first to ascertain the truth or otherwise of Sophie’s Twitter tirade. You are responsible for promoting Sophie’s lies and linking to a Twitter thread that appears to have done her best to conceal from me, presumably because she didn’t want to be held accountable for the false allegations she made. And you are responsible for allowing comments like the one above to be published on your website.
Lis Coburn
April 6, 2021 @ 10:48 pm
Nalini, as someone who’s been in this on Twitter since it arose last week:
I want you to understand why we’re all so upset and concerned, apologize for the things people are angry about, and take real actionable change to stop promoting ideas, positions, and language that are harmful to marginalized creators. I have read everything you’ve written on the topic and completely independent of Sophie’s claims, that is what you have done and are doing.
I’d completely understand if you needed to take a lot of time to think that through, work through your anger and outrage, go spend time with people who love you whatever Book Twitter says, find some people whose judgment you trust who understand both sides of the argument and talk it through with them a lot, and not come back to this until you’re emotionally ready.
But if you continue to insist that you’re right and we’re all misunderstanding you, and use ever more force to lash out and hurt the people who criticize you… I will probably still work to speak against and counter the ideas you’re promoting that I believe to be dangerous and wrong.
skaffen-amtiskaw
April 6, 2021 @ 11:04 pm
ms. hayes, will you threaten mr. hines with lawyers too – after your oh-so-very-deft darvo maneuver?
Mel
April 6, 2021 @ 11:10 pm
Nalini, Sophie’s thread never claimed she asked you to change the podcast (the opposite, she went out of her way in that thread to say the podcast didn’t bother her too much.). She stated in her thread that she asked you to change a line in the review *where you revealed that she identifies as queer*, which is in line with what you’ve said above (although you conveniently refer to it as “changing a review”, which implies she wanted you to change what you said about the book, when actually she asked you to take out the part about the author where you outed her. That’s why she says she never asked for a change to a review, but the author intro. Asking someone to remove a private piece of identity about an author is not changing a review. Asking someone to re-word their opinions on the book itself is asking someone to change a review. There’s a big difference, and you must know this. The fact that the outing was WITHIN a review is semantics). So, from what you’ve said, she hasn’t lied.
She also does not say in the thread that you refused to remove the review or the podcast. She says that at one particular point in her story (while you were talking to friends of hers) the review remained up. She very clearly states the podcast was removed and re-uploaded without her parts in it (and in the thread says “which, whatever”, which is the opposite of complaining, but actually her saying she doesn’t care that this happened). I would also be very careful calling someone a liar online, as *that* IS defamation if you’ve gotten the facts wrong, which it seems to me you have.
It’s very clear from the thread that she was not upset you removed the reviews, but that she was upset at your anger, your complaint to her publisher when she asked you to remove a line outing her, your nasty comments to her friends, your consistent tweeting about her, and the article you wrote in which you say that people who are attracted to their own gender but aren’t dating them can’t “claim to be queer”. You caused this with your unprofessional behavior — behavior you openly admit to!
And people aren’t mostly angry about Sophie’s thread, anyway, Nalini. They’re angry about the article you wrote, what they read in it, and your opinions on ownvoices and who is “disabled” enough and who is “queer” enough to “claim the identity”. If you’d stop focusing on one person and looked at the hundreds of people directly telling you they’re hurt by your article, you’d realise the only person making you look bad is you, and apologise, and LISTEN to what people are saying so you can improve your behavior and STOP HURTING PEOPLE WITH YOUR WORDS!!!!!! You can start by not having an opinion about who can call themselves ownvoices from the queer community and the BIPOC community and the Muslim community, because you don’t belong to these communities and it’s none of your goddamn business what they do and don’t call themselves.
Cyndy Aleo
April 6, 2021 @ 11:10 pm
I have absolutely not wanted to weigh in on this, but am unable to watch it unfolding on Twitter anymore. Hi, I’m an out, queer former professional reviewer. And by professional I mean paid, by a print journal, to review books.
I’m sorry, Nalini, but this isn’t how a professional reviewer behaves. Nowhere in the hundreds of books I have reviewed did I ever once question an author’s identity and then argue that identity and the veracity of it TO ME would impact my review, or change it after the fact. I also didn’t blog about it, didn’t argue about it, and didn’t take it to social media.
Where this has gone so incredibly wrong (besides the racist language in the other post, which I’m not even going to begin to address) is an outsider to a community attempting to police that community in any way, shape, or form. Quite frankly? It’s not your place. And it’s definitely not the place of a reviewer. A reviewer’s job is to read a book and attempt to put themselves in the place of others who might read that book and convey their thoughts ON THE BOOK. No book will ever meet the same reaction in every reader, so you do your best, knowing there are always going to be people who completely disagree with you. But it is NEVER your job, unless you are reviewing nonfiction with an author claiming credentials that make them an expert on the subject matter of that nonfiction book, to attempt to say the author can’t extrapolate from their experience to a related one. It’s fiction, not memoir.
Whether this happened one day ago, one week ago, or one decade ago, it doesn’t matter. Welcome to the internet, where your words hang around forever. The only thing you can do is to learn and grow from them, which you seem unwilling to do. People have told you that you’re wrong. Members of the LGBTQ+ community have told you that you are wrong. The correct thing to do is say “Damn. I messed it up. I’m sorry. I’ll try to do better.”
I’d also suggest that if you want to continue to review books, especially those that are outside your own identified life experiences, you do a lot more reading about critical theory. While I realize that the proliferation of the internet and blogging has led to a free-for-all, I will forever maintain that the best reviewers are ones who understand the basics of critical theory. I got to spend four years in undergrad learning how to write and how to deconstruct writing. I don’t think it’s asking too much for people to go out there and learn about what others bring to the table and how our own biases play into that if they’re going to act in a professional capacity critiquing others’ work.
Mel
April 6, 2021 @ 11:24 pm
Cyndy, as a professional reviewer, if you wrote a review in which you accidentally revealed something about the author’s personal life that would put them in danger if the wrong person saw it, and you were asked by the author or their team to remove or alter the line revealing this personal information about the author, would you consider this a request to “change your review”?
Just curious what an actual professional reviewer thinks about Nalini’s claim that the request to remove the words about Sophie identifying as queer from her review were boundary-crossing demands that a review be altered.
Lis Coburn
April 6, 2021 @ 11:27 pm
As a disabled person I’ll also say Nalini’s opinions are harmful and wrong within the disability world too. One of the biggest problems disability activism faces is that society conditions us to think that “disabled” is a very special, rare, and extreme condition and it is very wrong to claim it if you don’t “deserve” it. Actually, what’s important is the opposite: For people to realize that all humans have limits and needs, it’s just that society acts like only certain kinds of people deserve to be planned for and accommodated. Encouraging a wider understanding of disability allows us to gain strength in numbers and push for access and inclusion everywhere.
Yes, the disability community is very diverse and we have very different experiences from each other. Nalini and I are both massively more privileged than, say, people with intellectual disabilities who aren’t even afforded the legal rights of self-autonomy most of us take for granted. But that doesn’t mean she and I aren’t “really” disabled. It means that disability is complex. Therefore I find her insistence that her discrimination and her pain are the gold standard for “disabled enough” to be deeply out of step with the disability activism I know, and harmful to disabled people and society generally.
Jim C. Hines
April 6, 2021 @ 11:31 pm
Nalini,
It’s been a long day, and I’m a bit short on patience.
I’m going to start with this:
“My review – now removed – used an unfortunate phrasing that people have criticised. I was trying to reduce what would otherwise have been a convoluted sentence (because I didn’t want to use the acronym PoC for my readership) into something people could follow.”
Let me make sure I’m understanding you. You didn’t want to use the term PoC. So, to make sure your readership would understand, you wrote, ”I understand Jemisin’s need to write coloreds for colored audiences.”
What readership are you aiming for? Are you deliberately trying to target old-school racists?
“Unfortunate phrasing.” That’s one way to try to minimize this, I suppose. But you’re really not helping yourself here.
So yes, I allowed the comment above yours to be published. My suggestion, if you’re uncomfortable being called out for “astonishing racism,” would be to try harder to avoid saying really racist things.
Jim C. Hines
April 6, 2021 @ 11:51 pm
As for what I want? I mean, given what I’ve seen, I do think it would be good for you to take a break from reviewing books and stuff, at least long enough to hear some of what people are saying, but that’s on you. I hope you’ll at least consider why so many people are hurt and angry over the things you’ve said.
But my “agenda” in writing this post? Here’s the thing. It wasn’t about you.
Yes, obviously the post was about an essay you’d written. But I wasn’t trying to make you change or stop reviewing or cancel your podcast or whatever.
I was writing it for the people you’d hurt. For the people who’ve had their identities challenged again and again. For people who are told they can’t call themselves queer because they haven’t checked off the right boxes. For people who get told their racial identity isn’t valid because they can pass for white. For my loved ones who are struggling to figure out who they are, and don’t need to be told they can’t be queer and #ownvoices if they haven’t been in a same-sex relationship.
Your post reinforced, and in some cases explicitly laid out, a lot of harmful gatekeeping bullshit. I wanted to push back against that. To tell people that yes, who they are is real and valid. That “own voices” doesn’t belong to an editor who thinks you have to be out all the time to qualify. I wanted to offer support, and to counter the essays and attitudes like the ones you’d put forth.
Whatever you do or don’t decide to change as a result of this conversation? That’s up to you. I don’t have much hope there, and that’s fine. It wasn’t about you. Your words were simply a symptom and example of a larger problem.
Now, it’s late here, so I’m heading to bed. I’ll be adding you to the moderation queue for future comments. If you have something new or helpful to contribute, I’ll approve those. But if it’s just more defensiveness and excuses, well, I’m rather tired of it.
Nalini Haynes
April 7, 2021 @ 12:12 am
I apologise for my use of what people have now explained to me was a racist term in my review of Jemisin’s book. I do not apologise for calling her on her use of supernormative whites (albino-types according to academic literature on the subject) as villains. I have removed the offending review.
I never said you have to be out to, for example, be queer or disabled. What I said is you can’t publicly claim to be queer or disabled while also publicly staying in the closet. I understand that someone might be out to some people and not others but if they’re on my website then they’re not controlling the audience (and nor am I). Therefore, they have to decide whether they’re out or in.
Sophie made some false allegations in her Twitter thread that SFWA screenshotted and sent to me. I will not apologise for false allegations.
I could have and previously have re-recorded introductions to podcasts when authors have requested I do so. However, during the interview no one – not Sophie and not Will Kostakis who knows I’m vision impaired – verbalised Sophie’s concern despite the fact that I hadn’t responded to her text comment during the interview. in Twitter DMs, Sophie expressed distress that I outed her in the review and podcast. She brought Will Kostakis in to that conversation. I tried explaining to her that to protect her identity I’d have to take down the podcast too. I tried explaining that I couldn’t just re-record the intro because of what she had said, speaking authoritatively for the community and on the topic of queerness. I’m not sure she understood that at the time because she was so upset but I believe Will did. My understanding from him is that if that was what was necessary then that is what I should do. So I did.
My concerns about the book were valid but I dismissed them because I thought Sophie had a very specific experience. I did check myself then dismissed my concerns. Sophie being so distressed about being outed reinforced my concerns about the too-easy coming out in her novel. I contemplated alternatives but, in the end, chose to remove the review. I understand that she feels I robbed her of publicity she deserves. I’m sorry she feels that way but I stand by my decision. And, after the events of the past few days, I will not reverse that decision or review any of Sophie’s books in the future.
John Scalzi
April 7, 2021 @ 1:33 am
“This seems a lot like the Scalzi-Beale conflict that generated clicks for those authors.”
Yes, how lovely to have been the focus of a years-long harassment campaign by a fascist chucklefuck and his dimwitted party pals. I sure enjoyed those “clicks”!
Your astuteness on this subject appears to match your astuteness on other subjects currently under discussion. Bless your heart.
Cyndy Aleo
April 7, 2021 @ 7:54 am
@Mel I honestly can’t think of an instance in which I would have ever pulled any piece of an author’s bio into a review, period, public or not public.
I can tell you of one instance in which I either Smithee’d or near-Smithee’d a review: I had a thriller by an author where there were plot holes a mile wide. You could drive a truck through them. One of the PITB at the publication wanted a more friendly-to-the-author review. Having worked previously as a journalist covering the industry the author was in for the day job, I pointed out to the PITB that his bio actually inflated his qualifications. Which I knew. From having covered the company he worked for. If there was ever a time in which I might have even contemplated it, it would have been then, since it was so blatantly falsified, and the book was based in the same industry.
I’ll be honest; I never wanted to know an author’s background. I am of an age where I have been out longer than I have been in, but I would never want to out an author, no matter how inadvertently. If I had done so in a review? I’d have immediately stripped the identifying information. Being in print would have made that much more difficult, obviously, but for an online review? It’s a no-brainer. Pulling the entire review in this case is spiteful and unnecessary. The diatribe that followed is unprofessional and dangerous.
I wish more people realized that pile-ons happen when there is no remorse. You lose nothing by saying “I screwed up.”
Mel
April 7, 2021 @ 9:27 am
Nalini, you say Sophie did not understand that you wanted to remove the review and podcast because she was so upset.
Are you claiming that she did not say to you “I completely understand that you don’t want to change reviews on request, and I would never ask you to, however I feel that it’s quite different to gently remind you that I’m not publicly out. Anyway, I’m very sorry you feel like you’re in a tough position. I certainly didn’t mean to make you feel like that, and it sounds like it’s just been a case of miscommunication. If you feel you need to remove anything I completely understand and, of course, it’s your call. Have a good day!! <3" ?
Mel
April 7, 2021 @ 9:58 am
Thank you for taking the time to reply to me Cyndi it’s very much appreciated
N. K. Jemisin
April 7, 2021 @ 11:02 am
A friend pointed me here.
Nalini, I’m going to stay away from the topic of your article about identity policing, because lots of other folks have already pointed out its many flaws to you and I don’t want to pile on. I’m also not going to comment on any other point in your review of my book, especially since you say you’ve removed it anyway, but I need to point out that you keep making a statement about THE CITY WE BECAME that is either knowingly false or a gross misinterpretation: that there are “supernormative whites” in it, which you’re apparently reading as commentary on albinism.
It is not. There are no people with albinism anywhere in the book. There are white people in the story — i.e. people who identify racially as white, i.e. not “coloreds” (sic), i.e. plain old ordinary European/”Caucasian” Americans — but none of them were described to have albinism or any other disability. There’s nothing “supernormative” about them; the whole point is that they’re normal, typical white people, who do and say things that normal, typical white people do and say. The only disabled person mentioned as such in the story is a Black person, Brooklyn’s father Clyde, who is an elderly wheelchair-user. There are white non-human entities in the story, but that’s white as in the CMYK/RGB color white, not a reference to race or even skin color, really, given that many of the non-human entities didn’t have skin. I made the Woman in White and her minions white as a commentary on the prevalent use in English-language literature, especially fantasy, of “black” as a synonym for “bad.” You’re certainly welcome to call that racist if you want, though I prefer to think of it as a response to racism.
But “white people” is not ableist because it has nothing to do with ability; it’s a racial term. A lot of that book was specifically commentary on the city’s racial dynamics, and commentary on the racial dynamics of popular media set in NYC. I honestly have to wonder how much you were able to pick up on those dynamics if you misidentified an entire group of people this way. And I cannot fathom how or why you made this misidentification. There is a level of obliviousness in your insistence that “white people” = albinistic people that goes well beyond the usual white person’s attempt to center herself in conversations about race; this is active denial that whiteness as a racial concept exists. (And yet you’re okay calling the rest of us “coloreds.” [sic]) That must have led you to some really bizarre conclusions about what was happening in the story. So I don’t know if you need me to say this, but only some people with albinism are white people, and white people are not disabled by their whiteness. Referring to aliens or extrahuman entities or clouds or gear-shifts as white, when they happen to be white, is not a reference to albinism, any more than a reference to yellow taxis is somehow an attempt to call anyone a coward. Sometimes things and people are just white.
It’s telling that I actually remember this about you from the one time we’ve met in person, when I came to Continuum all those years ago; you interrupted a panel I was on to protest, again, that “white people” somehow meant people with albinism. You were so dogged about it that the moderator had to shut you down because you were derailing a conversation about race — so you’re consistent, I’ll give you that. But you’ve now repeatedly held up my supposed ableism as a way to deflect criticism from yourself, and I don’t think it’s helping you the way you think it is. Frankly it negatively impacts your credibility by revealing your ignorance/denialism wrt race, at a time when you’re trying to establish yourself as an authority on how marginalized people identify and live their lives. Like, if you can’t even get “white people” and “coloreds” (sic) right, in 2021, how can you possibly understand the nuances and limitations of “ownvoices” as it was originally intended to be used?
Anyway. I’ve certainly done ableist things before and I’m trying my best not to do them again, but I’m pretty sure this ain’t one of ’em.
MT
April 7, 2021 @ 1:14 pm
I’m amused, really.
So… I guess this never happens? When one group of people who have nothing to do with another, in a person’s life, have different levels of experience with said person?
Say when a parent doesn’t know a kid is queer and yet the kid is constantly at queer community groups and events and constantly active… There’s a disconnect here? This doesn’t happen?
There are pseudonyms and MULTIPLE ways in which people compartmentalize their identity and lives. I have been and am part of communities that *professionally*, aka my day job, I have to be cautious about discussing. But *in those spaces* I am freely able to be part of, interact with, and be a voice of. Hell I’ve been published in those communities.
The basic premise of the piece fails at the get-go for me. The rest, the personal attacks here from the author of the piece toward Jim and others, all are hugely secondary to that. Don’t care. If that main point is laughably wrong, there’s nothing else to discuss. In my opinion.
Gabby
April 7, 2021 @ 11:21 pm
Jim, as one of your pansexual loved ones who’s been consistently harassed and erased for having a cis-het hubby, thank you <3 Several of my intersections here were completely trampled on in that piece, and as always I appreciate you using your voice as you do.
"For the clicks" indeed. It's like this person has never read your blog.
Lurkertype
April 8, 2021 @ 12:37 am
Who the hell has to have it “explained to” them in 2021(!) that “colored” is a racist term? I’m as Northwestern European as they come, and even I’M insulted by that.
I believe Scalzi’s last sentence says it all — much nicer than I would.
P.S. Learn the first rule of holes.
Alexandra
April 8, 2021 @ 7:09 am
The sheer amount of ignorance and bigotry being displayed by Nalini over this issue is more than a little disappointing, as is her repeated attempts to police identities that are in no way hers.
Frankly, she needs to take a step back, stop trying to police others, stop weaponising her disability to silence criticism, and *listen* to the voices of those she’s harming.
Unfortunately I think her ego is too big and her arrogance too deep for that to ever happen.
Angeline Johnson
April 12, 2021 @ 3:40 pm
Once, I was eating my packed lunch at the tables set up on a municipal park outside my lawyer’s office building, and being approached by a panhandler. He asked me for money. I told him I was homeless, too. He told me I didn’t look homeless. I replied I worked pretty damn hard not to. He had nothing else to say, and happily allowed me to enjoy my salad.
Ellid
April 18, 2021 @ 11:47 am
“Colored” hasn’t been either polite or acceptable for *at least* the last sixty years.
Also? Anyone who thinks that Vox Day went after John Scalzi (and Mary Robinette Kowal, and the Hugos, and the Nebulas, and pretty much everyone in the SF community to the left of Attila the Hund) for clicks has not been paying attention.