#and also clearly shows that ppl still see identity as a privilege that can be taken away as soon as you misstep in their eyes

[tricktack]

y'all ever notice how quickly people will start calling a nb person a man again as soon as they're mad at them?

[unloneliest]

hi i don’t think pan ppl are transphobic, just because bi ppl can be attracted to 2+ genders and pan are attracted to all doesn’t mean pan ppl or bi ppl are transphobic. i deal w panphobic things anytime anyone mentions pansexuality and i really thought your blog would be safe from that. i'm pan and don’t use bi bc i recognize i'd be attracted to someone regardless of gender identity as long as i find them attractive (and this has nothing to do w seeing trans ppl as a dif gender), if they're 1/

this is a long post & i want ppl to have the option 2 skip it so i’m putting it under a readmore; above all else i’m so thankful that you sent me these asks and deeply sorry that i rb’d something that made you feel unsafe on my blog. i agree with you; i don’t think bi or pan people are inherently transphobic and i’m really sorry i implied that with that post!

2/ if they ID as demiboy or demigirl, or genderfluid or anything else that isn't binary, then i really don’t care. i'm not saying bi ppl can’t feel the same since i said bi people are attracted to 2+ genders or all, but pan is rooted in the emphasis of all gender identities. yes theres a lot of overlap but just... i'm hurt that you'd rb smth like that, i understand the last line of its root in transphobia but being gay/straight and so many other things have issues that clash w other LGBT+ IDs

3/ if anything, i've dealt with internalized panphobia and homophobia, i just never felt comfortable with saying i was bi, not because it was "boring" or "binary" but bc everyone would just assume i was attracted to guys and women which was never the case and saying i was pan allowed for me to show that i knew that there are more than 2 gender identities and that i was attracted to all of them

hi its the 3 pt ask anon and its like i completely get why bi ppl would be upset w pan ppl but its just so hard when both are oppressed and one of the most common arguments is like: we aren't seen so we have to be seen first before you try to get into this too. i get why biphobia exists but the same biphobia exists for pan ppl. so many ppl say you're just straight bc of a het relationship or you're just bi then. or the whole theres only two genders argument. and its like i'm as open to dating

5?/ anyone. i genuinely do not care about whichever gender they ID as since i just find ppl attractive for being attractive. and bi ppl can be the same. there is a LOT of overlap and i'm not going to dismiss any worries or concerns. all i know is that the pan community i've surrounded myself with to find love in my sexuality and community have constantly explained that theres overlap but it depends to the person and neither sexuality is transphobic so i try to never overstep or invalidate either

but thank you for listening, so many ppl just invalidate pan voices who try to put both bi and pan ppl into view while acknowledging how theres overlap but theres a difference. its hard feeling invalidating when all i (and others) do is be as inclusive as possible and try to never overstep. i listen to others worries like you do and i've learned so much from your blog and your rbs which i appreciate. it was just hard seeing panphobia & biphobia when i've tagged both to filter the words out

8?? sorry i lost count/ ty again for listening

hi and again just. thank you, for sending me these. i’ve privated the post for now, because i don’t want to hurt anybody but i also don’t want to avoid accountability 4 hurtful actions; i’d most like to delete the post but probably only will if you’re ok with that. and if i ever rb something that includes biphobia or panphobia i’ll do my best to always tag them.

and again i’m so sorry to have rb’d a hurtful post especially bc that runs so opposite to what i want to be doing with this blog & i know that when i’ve found something hurtful shared in spaces i viewed as safe it’s somehow hurt a lot worse than when i’ve encountered hurtful attitudes in places i was expecting it. 

in retrospect the phrasing on that post was Not kind, & didn’t convey the nuance i read into it. my baseline assumption of both bi and pan people is that neither group is inherently transphobic; both identities have extremely similar experiences and my perspective on different lgbtq+ identities in general is that our strength is in solidarity and isolating/separating can be really dangerous to the lgbtq+ community’s ability to thrive and work on making the world better and safer for us all. 

i’m really glad that you’ve found love and support within the pan community and i have all the respect and admiration in the world for my bi and pan siblings in the lgbtq+ community! being able to find folks who share your identity and to find pride in yourself together is so healing and important and i’m so glad for the times i’ve experienced that in my life as well. 

you’re right that all communities do have issues with transphobia, and i normally wouldn’t join in on other identity’s in-community conversations; i thought about that when reblogging the post earlier but i do my best to rb posts asking people to examine if their beliefs and identity might be formed on transphobic assumptions when it comes to all labels and that’s why i did originally rb. i do my best to rb a lot of posts asking wlw to examine potentially transphobic ideas they might hold, because i’m an afab nonbinary wlw and so regardless of the fact that i’m not cis, i have a lot more privilege than trans women do in wlw spaces and i know i need to be doing what i can to make wlw spaces safe for trans women & girls.

and the post i rb’d did just have pretty shitty & confrontational wording, which i didn’t think about when rb’ing it. i’m sorry again for that! 

my reasoning in rb’ing that post was the same as when i rb posts asking wlw to examine their views; not that everyone of the groups in question are inherently shitty in some way, but that we all could use reminders to reflect sometimes and that occasionally people will be misinformed or have a shitty view/shitty views - but that that’s not the norm. i also felt more ok rb’ing this post bc i for a very long time id’d as bi, and my attraction as a lesbian still is to women and nonbinary people who don’t feel misgendered by the attraction of a lesbian; some people would call me bi for that, but it’s a common lesbian experience. i really relate to what you said about choosing pan because it really clearly sends the message that you’re attracted to people regardless of gender, bc i chose lesbian as a label bc it sends the message that i’m Not attracted to men! it’s about how i want people to see me.

my reading of the post was connected to experiences i had with some pretty shitty transphobic ex coworkers; they didn’t know i wasn’t cis, but a number of my coworkers at the time were bi. transphobia/biphobia tw for the rest of this paragraph/ the ex coworkers were pan and they adamantly told me/other coworkers that bisexuality was attraction to men and women whereas pansexuality was attraction to men, women, and trans people. my assumption based off of them wasn’t that pan people are transphobic/that pan as an identity is inherently transphobic, but that they as individuals sucked and were transphobic & biphobic?

that experience does touch on what the post was about though, i think. since the bi manifesto written in 1990 “official” definitions of bisexuality have been stating that bi doesn’t just mean attraction to men and women, and that there are more than 2 genders; it’s society’s biphobia that causes people to think that bisexuality isn’t inherently inclusive of more than 2 genders/inherently inclusive of trans people. its clear to me that you know there’s overlap in the communities and that you’re not transphobic and again that’s my baseline assumption of pan or bi people! ik that stinkers are always the exception in communities.

i rb’d the post because i think self reflection on internalized bs is good, and i didn’t realize how confrontational & potentially shitty the post was; i’m really sorry that i rb’d it and made my blog feel unsafe & i’m going to do my best to be more thoughtful in the future. i hope that me sharing why i rb’d it doesn’t come across as an excuse, either; i’m just hoping knowing my intentions might help w/ the experience. 

(if ppl must know, link to the post here )

[arielmagicesi]

hey i hope it's ok if i ask but, i know a lot of latinx book twitter/bookblr ppl are uncomfortable and angry w/ all the crooked saints and i know its with good reason. i do have a question, do they think the way ms is handling latinx characters is shady and inappropriate or are they more upset that its a white author writing a book about latinx characters? im a writer who wants to write diverse books 1 day and i was just wondering if u know what her particular mistakes are so i don't repeat

 i thought the general rule is if you don’t belong to a culture you should still include a character of that bg in ur writing (avoid all-white trc again lmao) but don’t fetishize it/appeal to stereotypes or pretend you know the struggles that ppl of that group experience. sorry this is kind of a loaded question but i wanna make sure im informed           

OK, this definitely is a complicated question, and I’m also white so idk if I’m the best person to answer it, but I guess I’m like the authority on hating Maggie Stiefvater now lol. [I’m in a stable mood so I don’t really *hate* her, it’s just that she’s done a lot of things in her writing and online presence that bother me a lot and remind me of people that have hurt me, idk, long story]

Anyway: I’m also a white writer who wants to write diverse books. I don’t see a problem with white writers, or writers belonging to privileged groups, writing characters with identities they don’t belong to. I think it’s important, obviously, to not write a whitewashed world, like you said, avoid the all-white TRC problem again. I think Maggie is trying, which is respectable, as a response to the We Need Diverse Books movement and the backlash to how whitewashed her other books are.

Unfortunately, “just trying” isn’t enough, when you’re a person with this much privilege. Maggie is privileged as a white cishet woman, and she also holds a lot of power in the YA publishing community. The majority of YA folks really adore her, and she often appears on panels, interviews, as sort of the spokeswoman for YA, much like John Green or whoever. And she’s a popular writer, which means her books are more or less guaranteed to sell very well even if they suck at this point. Which means they’ll appear in publishing journals, in the media, get attention, be read widely by innocent young teens, show up in school libraries, etc. That is a LOT of influence.

Anyone who’s privileged is definitely gonna fuck up when handling diverse representation. You can do lots of research and get sensitivity readers and watch yourself and things, but you’re going to fuck up. That does NOT mean you should do nothing, and just stick to writing what you know, a cute whitewashed world. No, of course not- people like Maggie, who already have power in this community, should take risks, should be supporting diversity rather than just avoiding the topic out of fear of fucking up. I think that’s what she’s trying to do here, but there’s plenty of reason why I- and many readers, especially Latinx readers- don’t trust her with this task.

First off, supporting diversity doesn’t mean just writing diverse characters. It means putting in the goddamn work. It means getting- and paying- sensitivity readers, of a variety of backgrounds, and then listening to what they tell you. It means doing a hell of a lot of research. It means talking to actual, real-live members of those identity groups. It means changing who you are as a person to be an ally, to be someone who can see beyond yourself. And it also means, above all, supporting #ownvoices work- diverse books written by diverse authors. I have yet to see Maggie supporting books in this vein, with all the influence she has.

The one interview we have regarding “All The Crooked Saints” suggests that she hasn’t done any of the above. I believe she did get sensitivity readers, which is a step in the right direction, but from what I hear from Latinx bloggers, this book appears to be a hot mess of stereotypes and inaccuracies. Things like the names of the characters and the town are basically ill-researched Spanish, and the way she addresses it is in this voice that makes it sound like she picked this background for how exotic and free it is. I don’t think she did that consciously, but it feels like it to a lot of readers. Additionally, she isn’t just writing Latinx characters, she’s writing about a very particular time in history, the 1960s, and it sounds like she’s romanticizing it to be about the music, and misunderstanding the historical struggle of Latinx people at that time. This is a touchy place to go when you’re already clearly not doing your research.

I’d be more open-minded about this, and give her the benefit of the doubt, if it wasn’t for how she’s handled this sort of thing in the past. Henry Cheng in the Raven Cycle is a prime example. He was her one [1] character of color, and she managed to give him a “dragon lady” stereotype mother, have him make self-deprecating jokes about his race, and worse, have Ronan make shitty racist jokes about him that are never addressed. When readers called her out on this, she pretended that none of it happened, saying that the racist jokes weren’t actually racist and the readers were misinterpreting them.

She’s also historically been bad at taking criticism, especially about her representation. [See: literally any time LGBT readers asked about the half-ass approach to her two queer characters.] Being able to take criticism is essential if you’re a privileged writer writing about identities that are not your own. Not because “you need to have a thick skin, those mean diversity goblins are gonna come after you!” But because if a teenage reader of color criticizes Maggie online for shitty rep, and she responds by going “woe is me, being online is a constant onslaught of attack, I’m a woman you know,” all her fans are going to go after this teenager. She’s gonna get sympathy, and her critics- who are the readers, the young teens, the people she’s supposedly writing for- will be attacked by people who are most likely not going to be nice about it. And there’ll be a hundred think-pieces about how the YA community is so nasty and people need to defend the innocent white authors and this diversity trend is really leading to so many bad things. An ally, working for diversity, knowing damn well that this kind of shit happens, should not be the sort of person who lashes out against criticism. That’s not being an ally, that’s being someone who only cares for their own self-interest.

I’m a petty, vindictive bitch, but I don’t want to see Maggie crash and burn with this book and totally fuck up. Because the truth is, even if she does, she’s gonna get heaps of praise, and it’s not going to hurt her, it’s going to hurt teenage readers and actual Latinx writers. I want to see her handle this well, but I am very wary, and so are lots of people in the YA community on Twitter.Anyway, the conclusion to this essay that is longer and more thorough than any essay I’ve ever written for school is, people aren’t upset that she’s a white woman writing Latinx characters. They’re upset that she’s showing a lot of signs of being about to royally fuck it up, and that she has a history of not being great about that. Again, I’m white, so it might be better to ask a Latinx person, but this is pretty much what I know.