Post Binary Gender in SF Debate

[Nerds_feather]

EDIT: I used the wrong title. It should say "Post-Binary Gender in SF." Mods--is there a way to edit that?

Some of you may be aware of the current hubbub, some not. Here's a summary and links:

1. "I'm sick of reading straight male/female gender in SF. I'd like to see authors challenge that set of assumptions more than they do."

By Alex Dally MacFarlane.

2. "That's stupid, because of X, Y and Z, which means you want MESSAGE FICTION not STORY FICTION."

By Larry Correia.

3. "No, actually what YOU said was stupid, because of A, B and C, which show you have no idea what #1 was even talking about."

By Jim Hines.

4. "There's a good point in #2, but it's buried in the crap described by #3--and that crap rests on a fundamental (and perhaps intentional) misrepresentation of what #1 was getting at."

By Justin Landon

As you can probably tell, I'm most inclined to the set of arguments and framing of said arguments in #4. But regardless, you can see it all for yourself from the links provided.

 

[Brian G Turner]

Thread titled edited, as requested.

And - what's this? Someone using Tor.com to troll the internet with middle-class social politics? What a shocker!

If someone is sick of reading about x things in fiction, then they should expand their reading list or write and publish more of the fiction they personally want - instead of trying to troll everybody by using white middle class guilt to attempt to make others feel ashamed about the entertainments they enjoy, fin.

Why should anyone feel they have the moral prerogative to compel other people to write about any socio-political ideas they do not personally subscribe to?

Btw, I say these things as someone who does write fiction that goes beyond simple ideas of sexuality.

 

[Nerds_feather]

I don't think there was any "compelling" going on in #1. Rather, it was a call for authors to push beyond certain assumptions on gender, and a statement that the writer finds binary ideas of sex/gender/sexuality inherently less interesting than going past them, and wants to try to undermine binary ideas of sex/gender/sexuality as "the default." I didn't read it as stating: "you must do it this way."

As far as I'm concerned, I'm a firm supporter of breaking down assumptions and being forward-thinking and creative in how we look at the future (on gender/sexuality issues and elsewhere). I really like when authors, for example Iain M. Banks, show how things like gender might be completely different in the far future (in this case, that you can ingest some chemicals and change gender whenever you want, after a short waiting period).

That said, I would not support the statement that this is a "must" for any story to be considered successful. If someone were to make that argument (and I'm not attributing that to anyone until I see it made), then I would strongly disagree.

 

[Brian G Turner]

As far as I'm concerned, I'm a firm supporter of breaking down assumptions and being forward-thinking and creative in how we look at the future

Same here - but it's going to take quite forward-thinking people to accomplish it successfully, IMO.

That said, I would not support the statement that this is a "must" for any story to be considered successful.

One of the big problems with writers moving too far out of their comfort zones is accusations of not writing "authentically".

There's nothing wrong with normalising sexualities that are not traditionally accepted as mainstream. But they need to be handled with care and sensitivity - authenticity - if you like.

Otherwise writers are going to be - rightly - accused of tokenism and unrealistic portrayals. We see this with gender issues - men writing female characters who act like nothing more than men with boobs - and therefore not accepted as writing "authentic" women characters, and even more dangerously, trivialising gender issues.

Simply IMO, and will step aside now to allow the discussion to develop as it could be an interesting one.

 

[Montero]

Not gone and read the links (yet) - just making a quick visit to SFF before doing what I should be doing.

However, at first read on this thread - have the writers of the stuff on the links read Lois McMaster Bujold? And the masculine, feminine and both characters that she has? (Captain Bel Thorne the Betan hermaphrodite). That is artificial, rather than the rainbow of genders available naturally but surely it is a modern example of writing about gender?

 

[hopewrites]

Catchy thread title.

With only the information and opinions presented in this thread I would like to point out that if someone is saying "there should be more of [desired content ] in [genre]" they Are saying "someone should write this" its a call to action and "must" is emotionally implied so one should expect to see emotional reactions to the implication, intended or not.

Basically what I'm saying is what I hear you saying sounds like me walking into the kitchen and declaring "I'm hungry" and then being defensive when the other people in the kitchen ether point out ready to eat food or tell me why they cant fix me anything.


If what is being asked for is more works that address the dule nature of human sexuality within each human, sure, I'll read that. But its not a subgenre I'd go looking for outside of romance novels.

 

[Toby Frost]

Should this thread be titled "Gender 2.0" if it's beyond binary? That is the first and last maths joke I will ever make.

Anyhow: I must confess that I always wonder whether anyone who is not a critic of SF reads critiques of SF. The first job of a writer, beyond any others, is to write a readable and entertaining book. Write what you like, about whoever you want, just make a decent job of it. Frankly, I'm quite tired of all these hectoring posts from both sides of the fence, and not just what's said, but the dreary way it's usually said (clunky jargon for the left, sarcastic "regular guy" talk for the right).

I think if one thing could improve SF (and politics in general) it would be less knee-jerk name-calling and the acceptance that (gosh crikey) people can have differing opinions to you without being evil or idiotic. Honestly, they can. Then we might start seeing people pausing for thought before throwing around serious abuse like "sexist", "racist" and anything else (and devaluing those terms) whenever something doesn't quite chime with their own politics. (The right-wing equivalent, although usually unspoken, is "Gard-daym Commonist", said in the style of a redneck sherrif). I don't feel that the right wing or the liberal left represents me much at all - by various defaults, they probably both regard me as yucky if they cared enough to check - but I don't believe that everyone holding those views is a halfwit or a devil.

The problem seems to be this. When you call someone an imbecile or a bigot, you aren't saying that they are wrong. You are saying that their views cannot be sincerely held by a decent person. That's different to saying "I disgree". It's basically "You are unstable" or "You are evil". Before whining about liberal Commies like someone out of Deliverance, or spouting some self-righteous guff about checking your privilege, people should actually think. After all, you don't win a debate by shutting the other side's argument down. That's like overturning the chess board and saying that you won the game. All that does is stop it being a debate at all.

None of which changes the fact that anybody using the words "protip" or "hegemony" in any context whatever is both evil and stupid.

 

[Nerds_feather]

Catchy thread title.

With only the information and opinions presented in this thread I would like to point out that if someone is saying "there should be more of [desired content ] in [genre]" they Are saying "someone should write this" its a call to action and "must" is emotionally implied so one should expect to see emotional reactions to the implication, intended or not.

Basically what I'm saying is what I hear you saying sounds like me walking into the kitchen and declaring "I'm hungry" and then being defensive when the other people in the kitchen ether point out ready to eat food or tell me why they cant fix me anything.

Without a quotation, it's difficult to understand what or who it is that you perceive of as being "defensive"--let alone why. Someone posting in this thread? I don't see anyone being defensive. Perhaps it's one of the writers linked to? In which case, I have to ask: is it the author of the original piece? I have not seen her respond to Correia at all. I assume she knew what she was doing and did, in fact, seek to stimulate debate. Are you instead talking about Correia? Hines or Landon?

As to the rest of your response, surely you see the difference between saying "someone should" or "more people should" and saying "everyone must" or "this should be required of everyone."

I think more fantasy writers should experiment with implementing more daring social structures into their fantasy worlds. Does that mean all fantasy writers should experiment with more daring social structures in their fantasy worlds? Of course not. There will always be a place for European-modeled fantasy.

 

[Nerds_feather]

Not gone and read the links (yet) - just making a quick visit to SFF before doing what I should be doing.

However, at first read on this thread - have the writers of the stuff on the links read Lois McMaster Bujold? And the masculine, feminine and both characters that she has? (Captain Bel Thorne the Betan hermaphrodite). That is artificial, rather than the rainbow of genders available naturally but surely it is a modern example of writing about gender?

I think that would count as "post-binary gender in SF."

I mentioned Iain M. Banks earlier, but the Culture novels are another set of examples. Ann Leckie's Ancillary Justice too. All do it in very different ways. One Esk in Ancillary Justice comes from a monogender society and so has no pronouns for male or female. And in the Culture novels, you still have two genders, but anyone can switch whenever they feel like it (and do so frequently).

 

[thaddeus6th]

Did a bit about this at university. Although in most cultures it's a straight male/female divide, there are other genders. Leaving aside transgendered people in Western culture, there are genders such as berdache (chaps who pluck the hair from their legs and, if memory serves, live as a 'wife' with another man, who might have a female wife as well).

I don't read much sci-fi. As usual, I think this'd work if it were well-written, but not if it came across as an author trying to ram their political message down the reader's throat. That never works (well, almost never. Even when I was a more 'serious' atheist I still thought CS Lewis making Jesus into a talking magical lion was cool).

 

[alchemist]

I don't think there was any "compelling" going on in #1. Rather, it was a call for authors to push beyond certain assumptions on gender, and a statement that the writer finds binary ideas of sex/gender/sexuality inherently less interesting than going past them, and wants to try to undermine binary ideas of sex/gender/sexuality as "the default." I didn't read it as stating: "you must do it this way."

From the original article...

Conversations about gender in SF have been taking place for a long time. I want to join in. I want more readers to be aware of texts old and new, and seek them out, and talk about them. I want more writers to stop defaulting to binary gender in their SF—I want to never again read entire anthologies of SF stories or large-cast novels where every character is binary-gendered. I want this conversation to be louder.

(my bolding)

I haven't read the responses because I find these discussions often end up like a dog chasing its tail. Attitudes like the one above do my head in. What makes this issue so compelling that it takes precedence over any other concept we could talk about in SF? What makes a novel or anthology so lacking if it only involves binary-gendered characters? I've read some works with more than one gender and that wasn't a problem -- it added to the colour and diversity of the character list -- but I could live without it too.

 

[Mouse]

I don't actually write much SF, but I do write LGBTQ stuff. Gender/sexuality is right up my street, so plan on lots of stories with non-binary characters. Well into the whole drag-king thing at the mo too, so planning a drag-king character... but in my head she's straight but probably genderqueer.

Anyway. Interesting stuff.

 

[Jo Zebedee]

Just write the characters. Don't be led by what is or isn't pc. I have a bisexual character; I didn't set out for him to be that, he just was. Hey-ho. He's the same strong character he would have been if he was straight, or gay; he is just himself, nothing more. Honestly. People just like to get their knickers in a twist sometimes.

 

[Nerds_feather]

From the original article...

(my bolding)

That's a fair point, that her statement was "harder" than I interpreted it as being. But I still see "I want/don't want" being different from "everything must/must not." Regardless, I think if I were writing the same argument, I probably would have phrased it more like:

In the future, we are likely to see greater levels of differentiation and more fluidity with regards gender than we do today. Because of this, I strongly prefer to read authors who go past binary gender assumptions--and I think it's high time more authors pushed in that direction.

I'm not saying that to "tone police" MacFarlane, but rather just to illustrate how I would have made a similar argument.

I haven't read the responses because I find these discussions often end up like a dog chasing its tail. Attitudes like the one above do my head in. What makes this issue so compelling that it takes precedence over any other concept we could talk about in SF? What makes a novel or anthology so lacking if it only involves binary-gendered characters? I've read some works with more than one gender and that wasn't a problem -- it added to the colour and diversity of the character list -- but I could live without it too.

I agree that binary gender schemes shouldn't be a barrier to consideration of a given novel as successful--at least as far as I'm concerned. But I think the issue is that if science fiction is really the literature of the future, its authors should push farther into the sociological imagination than most do.

Do all SF books need to dispense with binary gender schemes? No, I don't think so--and especially if the author really doesn't have anything interesting to say on the topic and is just doing it because they think they "should" (the one point of Correia's I do agree with). But I certainly welcome more thoughtful attempts (in fantasy as well as SF) to move beyond binary gender schemes. That's what I think MacFarlane, ultimately, is asking for.

 

[ralphkern]

As a reader, by and large, I don't seek out sci fi novels for gender statements. In fact the more casual about it they are almost the better.

For example, 2312 by Kim Stanley Robinson really forced the issue and it became somewhat eye rolling as I was reading it. (I thought the book generally was poor in addition, which probably didn't help). Having his MC's as a mix of male and female was interesting but became far to much the focus.

Peter F Hamiltons almost casual disregard for prejudice was far more refreshing. People accepted, in his stories, a wide variety of sexuality and preferences and didn't even really think twice about it. That is by far the better future in my eyes.

 

[Nerds_feather]

Interesting, I've ended up defending #1 for most of this thread. But this quote from link #4 comes closest to my own opinions (except the bit about identifying as a conservative white male at any point):

Although Correia goes on from here to say some incredibly misguided things, the core statement has merit. Writing about gender, particularly non-binary gender, in such a way that it is not organic to the story you’re trying to tell is awful writing advice and will almost assuredly make your book suck. The problem is McFarlane never purports to give advice. Not even a little bit. She is writing her point of view. She is demanding something more of herself and the fiction she reads, not the fiction Correia writes or his readers’ read. What she’s asking for is more fiction that appeals to her, not less that appeals to Correia. It’s the same argument used by those advocates for marriage equality. Our marriage doesn’t lessen your marriage. Except, much like Correia is offended by McFarlane’s feelings, conservatives around the country cannot fathom sharing the precious with someone not like them. It’s a position that, as someone who has self identified as a conservative white male, I find continually reprehensible.

 

[Montero]

Should this thread be titled "Gender 2.0" if it's beyond binary? That is the first and last maths joke I will ever make.

Anyhow: I must confess that I always wonder whether anyone who is not a critic of SF reads critiques of SF. The first job of a writer, beyond any others, is to write a readable and entertaining book. Write what you like, about whoever you want, just make a decent job of it. Frankly, I'm quite tired of all these hectoring posts from both sides of the fence, and not just what's said, but the dreary way it's usually said (clunky jargon for the left, sarcastic "regular guy" talk for the right).

I think if one thing could improve SF (and politics in general) it would be less knee-jerk name-calling and the acceptance that (gosh crikey) people can have differing opinions to you without being evil or idiotic. Honestly, they can. Then we might start seeing people pausing for thought before throwing around serious abuse like "sexist", "racist" and anything else (and devaluing those terms) whenever something doesn't quite chime with their own politics. (The right-wing equivalent, although usually unspoken, is "Gard-daym Commonist", said in the style of a redneck sherrif). I don't feel that the right wing or the liberal left represents me much at all - by various defaults, they probably both regard me as yucky if they cared enough to check - but I don't believe that everyone holding those views is a halfwit or a devil.

The problem seems to be this. When you call someone an imbecile or a bigot, you aren't saying that they are wrong. You are saying that their views cannot be sincerely held by a decent person. That's different to saying "I disgree". It's basically "You are unstable" or "You are evil". Before whining about liberal Commies like someone out of Deliverance, or spouting some self-righteous guff about checking your privilege, people should actually think. After all, you don't win a debate by shutting the other side's argument down. That's like overturning the chess board and saying that you won the game. All that does is stop it being a debate at all.

None of which changes the fact that anybody using the words "protip" or "hegemony" in any context whatever is both evil and stupid.

Wahoo - thank you Toby. That was theraputic to read. Especially the line about "You are saying that their views cannot be sincerely held by a decent person." I have been involved in a campaign once which was about a major planning application in our area and some members of the opposition did exactly that. We were trying to make reasonable, well researched technical arguments, they just yelled at us for being "selfish" (and more and worse besides). It is good to hear the experience being expressed in one succinct sentence, as it is bruising to be on the receiving end of it.

I am deeply tired of people who instantly categorise and typify other people. (Including those who categorise you by which newspaper you read. As it so happens, I read none - which really baffles them.) Live and let live.

There is also the "thing" that minorities who've been criticised or even persecuted then become hyper-sensitve so that ignorance is seen as bigotry and people outside the minority are then on the receiving end of knee jerk reactions - which is sad.

 

[Nerds_feather]

So Alex MacFarlane has posted her first examination of a specific work of SF that deals with non-binary SF.

 

[Nerds_feather]

There is also the "thing" that minorities who've been criticised or even persecuted then become hyper-sensitve so that ignorance is seen as bigotry and people outside the minority are then on the receiving end of knee jerk reactions - which is sad.

Ignorance is one of the principle wellsprings of bigotry. The other is (primarily but not exclusively economic) competition.

 

[Grunkins]

Whenever I read something that smacks of an author pushing their politics via their work I immediately devalue the work and either stop reading or read on but take it all with a grain of salt.

This is likely because when it becomes obvious to the reader that a writer is promulgating their politics they are writing inelegantly.

Regarding the specific topic at hand, I don't care at all what variation on gender any character might be. Gender alone adds nothing of value to a story. Execution is everything.

In Iain M Banks's Culture series there are many characters transitioning between genders, and it's never because Banks was making a political statement (or, rather, if he was making a political statement he was making it elegantly). It was always just a facet of the Culture universe.

Anne Leckie's Ancillary Justice received lots of attention for it's inspecific use of the feminine pronoun for all genders. People talked about it being a statement on gender and it put the spotlight on gender in the book. I disagree. I thought it removed gender from the book. Gender was inconsequential in Ancillary Justice.

I feel strongly that the individual work should dictate its own setting, story, and characters. A writer arbitrarily making a social statement in their book is likely writing a book I don't want to read.