Tag Archives: institutional *-isms

A Disturbing Trend Post-Hugo Slate, and Why “Merits” Is Not a Valid Thing to Say

As I posted yesterday, I didn’t quite share the outrage about certain nominations on this year’s Hugo slate, mostly because I’m too jaded and cynical about the Hugos already, and intensely problematic nominations have, to be honest, felt somewhat inevitable to me.

But other people have been doing a good job making me think, and making me wonder if we can and should be better as a genre.  People like Natalie Luhrs, and Rose Lemberg, and Kameron Hurley, and Kate Nepveu.  I appreciate their criticism, and I appreciate seeing outrage from those expressing it — it’s intelligent and well-placed and it makes me reconsider my own indifference, to question why I think so little of a genre that I love so much that I expect this sort of thing out of its popular awards process.  (And combine that with the fact that there is much to love on this awards slate — I find I don’t want the Hugos to be tarnished, because people I think should be recognized are getting recognized this year.)

Anyway, as I’ve been reading and thinking, I’m becoming very, very disturbed, because the trend I’m seeing online — even from people who usually have nuanced things to say on these subjects — is to dismiss what critics of the nominations are saying, to abuse them, or to brush off the fact that there is any problem and say, “Just judge the work on its merits!”

This angers me far more than the slate itself.

Why?  Because as cynical as I am, I still want to believe that the truly horrific people are outliers and are not going to be considered, in any manner, acceptable by those I respect.  Because there are no words for how vile it is to read, say, Natalie Luhrs’ comment section and see the toxic abuse thrown her way for daring to criticize the way a person who was thrown out of SFWA on his ear got on the ballot.  Because it infuriates me that people will rally to the dialogue about problems in the genre, and thoughtfully listen even if they disagree, except the Hugos are somehow sacrosanct.  No!  If you believe the Hugos are important — especially if you believe the Hugos are important — then be a party of the conversation to fix them.

And even if you disagree with the critics in this case, how can you possibly be okay with the kinds of things that are being said to them?

Also, don’t get me started on the, “Just judge it on its merits!” exhortation that is making the rounds.  The idea that it’s somehow the ethically proper decision to give my audience to a writer I despise — to give my time, my eyes, my thoughts — just because he got his name on the Hugo ballot is ludicrous to me.

Allow me to metaphor.

Let’s say you’re hiring for a very prestigious job.  There’s a guy who’s indisputably well-known for going around punching people in the face, including you.  Every time he sees you he punches you!  You can’t even hear his name without remembering his fist flying at you and thinking, Not again.

Somehow, other people at your company passed him through the application process to the final tier of the job you’re hiring for, along with four other people.  These five are the people you’re supposed to call in to interview.

You say to your (white, straight, male) colleague, “I think we should just cut this guy without seeing him.  He punches people in the face.”

Your colleague: “Well, yeah, I know.  But what if it turns out he’d be really good for this job?”

You: “But he punches people in the face.”

Your colleague: “Maybe he won’t in this context.”

You: “It doesn’t matter!  I don’t want to hire someone who goes around punching people in any context — people including me!”

Your colleague: “But he got through the application process, right?  We really should give him a fair shake.”

And then you sit there stymied, because you know, know, that there’s almost no chance, if you call this guy in for an interview, that he isn’t going to punch you in the face.  Your colleague won’t get punched — he’s not one of the people this guy targets.  He’ll have to watch you get punched, and he’ll cringe and agree that this isn’t the right guy for the job, but hey, now you can feel good about the fact that you called him in to make sure, right?

And you’ll be sitting there with blood streaming out of your nose thinking, I was already fucking sure, you asshole.

How can you tell someone who experiences microaggressions every day, all the time, everywhere, to purposely read something they know will sicken and anger and trigger them — to give audience to an author who has publicly derided people like them as less than human — to get themselves punched in the face — because “merits?”

Personally, I am perfectly comfortable not reading the entire awards slate before voting this year.

State of the Blog 2^8

Here we are at post #256!

Things that happened between SotB 27 and now, not necessarily in this order:

  • This blog started to gain quite a bit of traction — or at least, it feels like it has.
  • I stopped checking my blog stats.  Like, pretty much completely.
  • I spoke a lot about the the SFF controversies that went on during 2013 (and the beginning of ’14).
  • I released my first book!

Some of these things are related to each other, I am sure!  To analyze a bit more closely:

Against the advice of some who tell writers not to be opinionated, it’s always been important to me to speak out on this blog, particularly about issues that matter to me.  I’ve also always been determined to blog as myself, and to be stubbornly and opinionated-ly genuine — not to be a persona, a brand, or a salesperson.  I think it’s because of this that I’ve been able to build up such wonderful relationships and friends through blogging and Twitter.  (A lovely side effect of all of this was that I realized I truly love my online interactions for themselves, and that if I’d never published my book, I wouldn’t have stopped.  I value the online relationships I’ve built too highly!)

And you know what?  I’ve already been floored by the number of people — people I didn’t know — who have expressed interest in my book because they like my blog.  And also by the number of people who do know me — who got to know me through the Internet, through my blog or through Twitter or through Absolute Write (where I am also very opinionated) — who’ve been excited about my book, or reviewed it, or helped me promote it.

It was never something I expected, and still not something I expect — I mean, I just don’t think that way, the “what can this person do for me” way (something I’m very grateful for!).[1]  It would feel like I was bending my brain in half if I tried to think about people like that, particularly people I know and respect.  I’d so much rather just talk to people I like about things I like to talk about!  But from the response my book has gotten so far, it appears that by being, I don’t know — a real person and whatnot — that I have accidentally Done Social Media Right from a business perspective.

Which makes me want to say IN YOUR FACE to those people who preach about exactly how one must construct a Social Media Promotional Persona. ;)

And the reason I’m talking about it here is to encourage authors who are just starting to blog: Be yourself.  Talk to other people, and listen.  Interact.  Have opinions.  Engage with other people about their opinions.  Be thoughtful, and sincere, and passionate, and talk to people you like about things you like, and make friends you will have such a gangbusters time laughing with on Twitter that you won’t know or care whether they bought your book or not.  In other words, you don’t have to be a one-person Promotional Machine of Social Media Blitzing — and perhaps, speaking with my own humble experience as a Twitter user, it’s entirely possible that is exactly what you don’t want to be. ;)

Incidentally, as social media began to feel much more like a conversation and much less like essays being thrown into the wind, I stopped checking my stats.  I just . . . didn’t really care anymore?  The quality of my interaction became so much more important than the quantity that I just sort of stopped thinking about it.  Which has been kind of wonderful for my sanity, and also wonderful training for my book release, because I have so far been surprisingly successful in parlaying that attitude into not checking my Amazon numbers.  (How many books have I sold so far?  I honestly don’t know.  I’ve been working on Book 3!)

Since I suspect it will interest people, however, here are the top nine most-visited posts of all time (everything that ranks higher than my “About” page):

The SFWA ones are not a surprise, and the gun guide posts always get a fair amount of love.  I honestly didn’t know the one about actor backup plans was that popular — it must have gotten linked somewhere, but I have no idea when or where!  The story about my afternoon of being hopped up on a Sudafed/Synthroid combination has always seen a slow and steady stream of search engine hits.  I wrote it for exactly that purpose, as something people could find when they searched for it, but I’m still surprised to see it ranked that high; perhaps it got linked somewhere as well.

Now, elephant in the room: I kind of have to talk about my posts regarding SFWA, don’t I?  Several of them went viral at the time, and as you can see, half the top-posts-of-all-time are related to those issues.

Thing is, if we’re talking blog stats — as far as I can tell, those posts matter, and they also don’t.

The two posts that went viral didn’t give me an uptick in overall hits or subscribers.  My blog certainly got visibility from people linking to it, and eventually the length of the ongoing discussion gave me a certain amount of name recognition, but I don’t think those links, in isolation, matter terribly much if we’re aiming the discussion at the staying power of my blog.  Instead, I think what matters to my overall traction is that I write consistently about issues of representation, and I have since I started blogging.  I didn’t write about SFWA to sensationalize; I wrote about it because it fell in the intersection of two things I care about deeply, the SFF community and problematic institutional prejudice.  And I write about both of those things a lot, independent of each other, because I do care.

In other words: I do not think that one can from two viral posts a blog make. ;)  Having a post go viral was surreal — that was back when I was still checking my stats daily — and I was glad that particular post had impact, but as far as impact on the overall blog goes, I’m extremely skeptical a viral post is something that it matters for bloggers to strive for.

Now, in checking my stats page, the really interesting thing is that my subscribers number — which had stayed pretty static for a long time — seems to be climbing since my book release a week ago.  But you’ll have to wait for State of the Blog 29 to see how being a Real Live AuthorTM is affecting my status as a Strange Mad Blogger!

  1. Yes, I did start this blog because I wrote a book, but I was vaguely thinking in terms of general . . . visibility . . . or something, not starting out of the gate surrounded by wonderful people who really do want to see me succeed.  Having the latter instead of the former is a marvelous and humbling feeling!

A Call to Stop Politicizing People’s Existence

There’s been this thing happening online the past few days.

First, Alex Dally MacFarlane wrote a column for Tor exhorting SFF authors to stop thinking of binary gender as the default.

Then this happened.

There’s been a lot of chatter all over the Internets since, of course.  Too much for me to address, even if I wanted to engage with it all.  But there’s one thing I do want to speak up about: I’m downright sick of people labeling the inclusion of PoC, women, genderqueer, or other QUILTBAG people as a political agenda.  As leftist.  As “liberal.”

People with non-binary genders aren’t an agenda. They exist. They’re reality. Same with people of nonwhite races and non-Western ethnicities and queer orientations. I don’t consider my existence to be part of some “liberal agenda”—in fact, my personal political ideology might be considered quite conservative in many respects, but my existence is neither conservative nor liberal.  And neither is anyone else’s.

(Goddammit, now I’m tempted to write some excessively message-heavy CONSERVATIVE science fiction in which all the characters are gun nut libertarians but also just happen to be non-binary gendered or PoC or women or queer, because, dammit, we exist.)

Like MacFarlane, I want an end to defaults. I want to read fiction where diversity is just part of the landscape, where there doesn’t have to be a “story reason,” where people just are different races/gender identities/orientations because people in the real world just are. We don’t have “plot reasons” in our lives that make us nonwhite or QUILTBAG or whatever—why is it somehow a “liberal agenda” if we argue that this reality should be reflected in fiction?

I don’t see why advocating a lack of default is so controversial.  After all, fiction doesn’t even come close to reflecting reality—come talk to me about “political agendas” when half of SFF main characters are women and we regularly get 60-percent-Asian casts in humanity-to-the-stars space operas.  Come talk to me when I see as many gay people in media as I interact with in daily life.

And yeah, I think it would be great if science fiction worldbuilding didn’t automatically assume two genders, if authors made the decision to invent binary-gender worlds rather than defaulting to them.  If authors regularly considered making characters genderqueer for no reason at all even if they ultimately decided against it, in the same way they might consider what hair color to choose.

SFF has always identified itself as a genre where anything is possible.  Yet as a genre, we so often automatically fall into assuming narrow representations of humanity before we even begin writing.  I would like to see SFF be a proper superset: to encompass all of humanity, and go beyond.

But first, for the love of God, can we stop calling the existence of actual, real-life people a political agenda?

Why I Chose an “Ethnic” Pen Name

I work under two different professional names that are not my own (one for film, and SL Huang for writing).  In both cases I chose surnames closely linked to my heritage, despite having, in both cases, extremely sound marketing reasons not to.

Institutional racism is a thing that exists.  I was making up my own name, my own brand.  Why wouldn’t I choose a name to be more . . . generic?  Less ethnic?

It’s a good question.  After all, I’ve deliberately chosen a genderless pen name for writing, and I like having my gender not immediately and obviously available.  Because of what I write about and what issues I care about, I’m misgendered online just about half the time, and it amuses me.

So why was it extremely important for me to choose professional names that tell people where I’m from and that I’m a person of color?  Why did choosing a name contrary to my heritage, or a name I felt belied my race, or even a made-up combination of syllables feel so wrong to me when I considered it?[1]

Revisiting my thought processes, I think I know the answer:

Because just like choosing to make a character white is a choice, whatever name I chose would be a choice.  There is no generic.  There is no default.  If I chose an Anglo-Saxon surname, that wouldn’t be saying nothing about me; it would be saying something about me.  It would be choosing to identify myself with a heritage I don’t identify with.  One that doesn’t feel like me.

Even if I made up a name, I’d be choosing phonemes that come out of language.  There would be an origin.  The sounds I chose would say something about my linguistic identity.  And I don’t think I can express even my linguistic identity without referencing the tongues of my ancestors, the tongues that I’ve lost.  The holes in that identity feel as much a part of me as my love for the English language and its Germanic and Latin roots.

So, why did I choose an “ethnic” pen name?  The answer: Because all pen names are ethnic.

There is no name that says nothing, no blank space I can put on a book to leave a question mark as to my identity.  I might be fine with leaving a mystery that people might make mistaken assumptions about, but I’m not fine with supporting the idea of a certain default kind of person.  I’m not fine with being someone else’s idea of that default.  Why is Huang any less of a generic blank of a name than Johnson or Williams or Miller?  Why should it be?  It makes me angry that it isn’t, and when I’m angry I get stubborn.  Maybe my choice of pen name is more about my own contrariness than anything else.

So, what about institutional racism?  People do judge based on names, and may pre-judge my books.  But there’s another side of that: maybe, just maybe, if my books are good enough and fun enough and enough people like them, I can be one tiny drop in the pushback against stereotyping Huangs and Wangs and Chens everywhere.[2]  For me personally, that possibility makes up for whatever initial handicap the name might give me.

Because after all, my main reason for choosing the pen name I did wasn’t a political reason in the first place: it was that I had to feel my pen name matched my identity.  And since whatever name I chose would be some ethnic choice, I chose one that fit.

(As I said in the footnotes, this blog post is about how I feel personally with regard to my own feelings on my identity only, and I completely understand why others would make a different decision.  I’d love to hear other thoughts in comments from people who have made these choices.)

  1. I want to make it clear that I’m only talking personally in this post, about my own feelings about my identity and what felt right to me.  I make no judgments against people who do choose pen names that sound less “ethnic” to American ears or ones that outright reverse gender for marketing reasons.  As I said, I did consider it myself . . . it’s a personal decision, and it’s complicated, and I’d never look down on anyone else for their choices.  This blog post is just about my own personal feelings about my pen name only. :)
  2. Yes, yes, I KNOW I’m writing a book with lots of math in it.  Cue the Asian stereotype joke here . . . (It also has lots of guns, though!)

Thoughts on the Movie “The Heat”

What you should know about me first: Action comedies rock my socks.  As long as there’s just enough plot to hang the banter and gunfights on, I am there with my popcorn.

And The Heat?  The Heat delivered like no other action comedy has in years.  Rock.  On.

Of course, I also dug it because it’s a buddy cop comedy starring two women.  How often does that happen?  It’s so rare I can’t think of another one ever, yet I can think of plenty starring two dudes.  So, was this movie Oscar material?  No, but it wasn’t trying to be.  Was it a solid addition to the action comedy genre?  Hell yeah!  And I think it’s great that women can be the madcap, wild, brawn-before-brain action stars too—just like I want to see Asian men headline dumb romantic comedies.

More thoughts (some spoilers):

Continue reading

SFF Community, Please Make It So I Can Stop Blogging Angrily About You.

Most of my posts in the month of June so far have been related to sexism and/or racism fails in the SFF community.[1]

One of the good things about these massive levels of fail is that they have been perpetrated by only a few people.

One of the bad things is that the scope of the problem isn’t only those few people.

Look at the hate mail female bloggers have been getting.  Look at the commenters on news articles who say the outrage is “an overreaction” and deride it as being “the PC Police.”  Look at the people who claim that we should engage in civil, calm discourse with those who call us fascists and subhuman.

Especially look at that last one.  (It’s gone now, but I have a saved version here.)

I’ve been steaming about that essay since I saw it.  In some ways, it’s made me far, far angrier than the Resnick/Malzberg piece or Beale’s vicious, nauseating hatred.  After all, those pieces are so wrong, so outrageous, that it’s too easy to forget they shouldn’t be surprising, that they are emblematic of a much larger, more systemic problem.  It’s easy to burn those pieces in effigy while retaining my faith in the greater SFF community.

Not so for this one.

Bryan Thomas Schmidt (again, saved version here) calls for “civility” in our reactions to some of the most sickening sexism and racism I have ever seen.  To which I say: No.  No.  A thousand times no.

Women, POC, and other marginalized people are constantly, constantly told to brush things off, to not make a stink, to be more “professional.”  To the point at which every time someone is sexist or racist or homophobic or diminishing towards us, we question whether we should speak up.  We question whether our own careers would suffer if we objected.  More often than not, we swallow hard and opt for being polite.  Ninety percent of the fucking time.

And then it takes people like Resnick and Malzberg and Theodore fucking Beale to make the community stand up in outrage and say no, no more, this is a problem, we won’t stand for it anymore—and we hear from people like Ann Aguirre and we wonder why all this hasn’t been addressed before, and a huge, huge part of the answer?  Because everyone wanted to be so wonderfully civil.

And now that people are finally rising up; now that enough light is shining on the problem for some actual change to maybe, possibly, happen; now that potential allies are becoming aware of institutional bigotry that they were blind to before; now that the people who have faced professional dismissal over and over because of their race or sex are finally seeing a rally of support on their side—now Bryan Thomas Schmidt is saying, hang on, remember to treat the racists and misogynists with respect?!

To top it off, he also edges coyly around his temptation to keep a blacklist of people he finds too rude or unmannerly, hinting that the “young writers” speaking out are going to do damage to their careers.

You know what?  I’m sick of hearing that speaking up about sexism or racism will damage someone’s career.   I’m just sick of it.  Does Schmidt not realize that women and POC live with that same Sword of Damocles every single time we open our mouths? Does it not occur to him that this threat always hovers in our minds, and when we take a public stand, we do so despite it?  Does he think he is somehow revelatory in shaking his finger at us this way?

Not to mention, does he think the female bloggers who get death threats and rape threats for it are speaking out just to win an argument or to “have the last word?”  Does he think POC engage in these issues to the point of exhaustion because we think it’s fun to act offended?  To the people who are impacted by bigotry every day, whose professional careers are impacted by prejudice at every step, these issues are not academic.  This is not debate club in the high school auditorium; this is people’s lives.

Let me tell you what this situation reminds me of:

A man sidles up to a woman, gets in her personal space, and gives her a cheesy pickup line about “lady editors.”  The woman steps away from him and reasonably politely tells him she’s not interested and she doesn’t like his word choice.  He then steps even closer, slings an arm around her, and whispers in her ear that she’s just like Barbie ’cause she’s got a “quiet dignity.”  She pulls back from him and tells him to please stop, as he’s making her uncomfortable.  He lets out a blood curdling-laugh and something about thought police, and dives at her, trying to tackle her and grab her boobs.  And she punches him in the face.

And then Bryan Thomas Schmidt comes along and tells her she should really be more polite.

You know what I think?  I think the world would be a better place if she had felt free to be less polite the first two times around.  But she had a career to think of, doncha know.  She wanted to be seen as a professional.  Hence why it took the boob-grabbing of the collective women and allies in the SFF community to break out our online fisticuffs . . . and we’re still told to be more civil.

Being “nice” isn’t an isolated concept, one existing in a vacuum with Moral Value Positive.  “Nice” isn’t always appropriate.  In the wrong circumstances, “nice” can lead far too easily to “victim.”

The Resnick/Malzberg column and Beale’s racist tirade are appalling and execrable, but the SFF community is not going to be taken down by a handful of people who say viciously horrible things.  It is easy to write off those men as outliers, as nonrepresentative—we can read what they have to say and still believe the community is generally good.

I find posts like Schmidt’s to be the far more insidious problem.  Because his attitudes are what allow others to write off our rage.  It is the people like him who would elevate bigotry to the level of discourse, who insist a situation has “two sides” to be debated when one of those sides is wearing a white hood.  And he is far harder to write off as an outlier, because, on the surface, his “call for civility” is framed to sound so deceptively reasonable.

Schmidt says he wants to be a “community builder.”  But I don’t want to live in his community.  Instead, I want to be in a community that will take one look at the kind of sexism and racism in question and shun the people responsible.  I want to see the community bury them.  I want the community to stand up as a whole and say, “This type of rhetoric is not okay and we will not have it.”  I don’t mean I’m in favor of “censorship” or that I’m trying to dictate people’s actions—what I mean by “I want this” is, This is the type of community I, personally, would want to align myself with.  The type of community who would choose to fight back.  The type of community that Does. Not. Hold. with these sorts of attacks.[2]

For what it’s worth, I agree with Schmidt that ageism and illogical fallacies have no place in discourse.  But anger does have a place—oh so much of a place.  Loudness has a place.  Incivility has a place.

Sometimes, to effect change, one cannot be well-behaved.

Edited to add: I had to take the morning to edit this, and in the meantime, Schmidt made his post private.  That’s okay, because I saved it.  I’m sure he won’t mind that I’m still linking to it, as he’s posted a rather patronizing statement saying he doesn’t regret posting it a bit.

Edited to add 2: Here’s an utterly fantastic response to Schmidt by the excellent Radish Reviews.  Well worth a read.

  1. Can this stop?  I’d much rather be blogging about math.
  2. Note that I’m talking about private communities I choose to respect and be a part of, not government legalities.  Anyone who claims I am in favor of censorship in the legal sense clearly doesn’t know me, and will also have his or her comment deleted as a red herring.

The Whole “PC Police” Thing, and Why It’s Ridiculous

I hate the term “politically correct.”

Notice how it’s never, ever used by, say, a person of color to tell someone to be less offensive.  It’s only used as a term to encapsulate, “Those silly women/POC/gay people/etc. are OVERSENSITIVE so I have to be, ew!, politically correct.

The implication is that you don’t want to express yourself in a way that is not offensive, but you HAVE to because of, y’know, those silly whiny oversensitive people.  By extension, this means that not only do you not care about the opinions of women/POC/gay people/etc. regarding how they themselves are represented in discourse, but you are dismissing all of those people as being oversensitive whiners.  Which is not only rude and patronizing as hell, but how is it possibly helpful to the larger conversation?

One of the main things I hate about the phrase “politically correct,” however, is that it’s just plain wrong.  The “politically” part of it implies that “PC” means being polite/tactful to the world in order to avoid getting people mad (which, again, patronizing).  But if you look at the way the world actually works, particularly in America, the actual politically correct thing is to be a white straight cis-gendered Christian man who doesn’t make any effort to make sure the issues of women, POC, QUILTBAG people, or anyone else are a part of his platform.

Continue reading

Diversity, Representation, and Selling Out

There’s an article over at io9 about “selling out,” and where the line should be between art and business.

By a few sentences into it, I was, of course, thinking of the social justice aspects of “selling out” and making character choices with regard to perceived marketability.  The article addresses it with one paragraph:

And of course, if you have a story that’s absolutely about a gay character or a person of color, and the publisher says they can move 1000 more copies if you make them straight or white, then you’re faced with the possibility of putting your name on something that’s less authentic or less true to what you set out to create. And if you go along with that, again you may have lost some of what originally made the story live and breathe, in your head.

Honestly, I don’t think this paragraph goes far enough.  Because, in my observation, there’s a pervasive attitude in fiction writing that if you have a gay main character, or a black main character, or anything other than a straight white cis Western able-bodied neurotypical male main character (and when I say “main character,” I mean the main character, not a main character), then you’re somehow making a statement.  That you need a “reason” to give your protagonist any other background.  That your book will become an “issue book,” that it should be shelved with LGBT lit or African-American lit even if these aspects are small parts of the characters as people.  It’s not only publishers asking people who write QUILTBAG/POC/female/etc. characters to change things—it’s authors feeling like writing such a character in the first place puts a book in a niche and makes it less marketable.

Continue reading

Post-Election 2012 Thoughts

  • The math was right.  Sam Wang and Nate Silver called the election correctly in every single state—well, if you consider that both of them had Florida as the only tossup in the final hours.  Wang ultimately thought it was leaning Republican and Silver gave it a slight Democratic edge (of less than .02 percentage points!!), and it still hasn’t been called, so we’ll see which statistician prevails.  But either way, I like to think that math was the big winner last night.  Ha!
  • Maine, Maryland, and (probably) Washington passed same-sex marriage initiatives (happiness!).  California had rejected it in 2008.
  • Colorado and Washington passed measures legalizing marijuana.  California had rejected it in 2010.
  • Seriously, Republicans think we’re some kind of bastion of liberalism? Continue reading

I’m Crossposted to Racialicious!

My post, Why is the “Normal Television Family” Always White?  has been crossposted to Racialicious today (with my enthusiastic permission, of course!).  I’ll be stopping in periodically to join the discussion.

Oh!  I should mention in the same vein that I’ve also been made a contributor at Ars Marginal, which looks at arts and entertainment from outside the straight-white-cis-male-etc narrative.  I’ll be posting some original content there, but I’ll link to it here when I do.

I’m very excited about both!  Continue reading