The Deleted Comment: Guess you missed the compliments.
For what it's worth, I'm not sure if I could have stated my beliefs in a more conciliatory manner. I was not saying Wave runs around kicking puppies and smacking defenseless babies. I said what I said, and thankfully had the good sense to save my comment before I deleted it. I took it down for my own reasons.
I also requested that I be removed from the site as a collaborator. The blog owner did as I requested, and I am no longer a collaborator at Chicks and Dick per my own request.
My comment, in it's entirety, and completely unedited is below. You are welcome to leave comments, which will be moderated to prevent baseless insults being posted. As long as your tone remains civil, I will allow any comments to post.
***********************************************
I don't have a problem with someone, anyone, saying I only want to review M/M romance, or F/F romance, or M/F romance... I do think though, that it behooves those folk to be clear, and specific. If you mean that you only review M/M romance where the only "on-screen" sex allowed is between cis (born biologically with the same genitalia as they identify with in regards to gender) then you should state that. Because otherwise you are saying, and saying very clearly that trans* men are not men. Though if your logic is followed to it's natural conclusion, you have to realize you are also saying that any cis man who has at some point been castrated or neutered no longer counts as a man.
I'm not saying you should change what you review.
Though perhaps, especially given the huge debacle last fall which included cis people asking some trans* people for the "geography of their genitalia" and hounding them as if simply being trans* were a crime which automatically gave others entre into the most private parts of their psyches, you can not claim to be ignorant of the issues at stake here.
I've visited your site many times, and seen that you exert a great deal of influence within the sector of the romance community which writes cis-gender gay romance. You've done a marvelous job of promoting those works, and every author who writes in that niche can only be grateful for what you have done.
Make no mistakes though. Refusing to update your definition of what you review there makes your site as culpable of oppression as the ones which claim to review "romance" and then refuse to review any gay romance. It's not bad to have a niche. It is reprehensible, however, to tout yourself or your site as a purveyor of quality M/M romance... unless you specify that you mean only CIS M/M romance. To do otherwise leaves your site standing on the backs of already vastly oppressed people, spouting rhetoric about how you are uplifting them.
I also requested that I be removed from the site as a collaborator. The blog owner did as I requested, and I am no longer a collaborator at Chicks and Dick per my own request.
My comment, in it's entirety, and completely unedited is below. You are welcome to leave comments, which will be moderated to prevent baseless insults being posted. As long as your tone remains civil, I will allow any comments to post.
***********************************************
I don't have a problem with someone, anyone, saying I only want to review M/M romance, or F/F romance, or M/F romance... I do think though, that it behooves those folk to be clear, and specific. If you mean that you only review M/M romance where the only "on-screen" sex allowed is between cis (born biologically with the same genitalia as they identify with in regards to gender) then you should state that. Because otherwise you are saying, and saying very clearly that trans* men are not men. Though if your logic is followed to it's natural conclusion, you have to realize you are also saying that any cis man who has at some point been castrated or neutered no longer counts as a man.
I'm not saying you should change what you review.
Though perhaps, especially given the huge debacle last fall which included cis people asking some trans* people for the "geography of their genitalia" and hounding them as if simply being trans* were a crime which automatically gave others entre into the most private parts of their psyches, you can not claim to be ignorant of the issues at stake here.
I've visited your site many times, and seen that you exert a great deal of influence within the sector of the romance community which writes cis-gender gay romance. You've done a marvelous job of promoting those works, and every author who writes in that niche can only be grateful for what you have done.
Make no mistakes though. Refusing to update your definition of what you review there makes your site as culpable of oppression as the ones which claim to review "romance" and then refuse to review any gay romance. It's not bad to have a niche. It is reprehensible, however, to tout yourself or your site as a purveyor of quality M/M romance... unless you specify that you mean only CIS M/M romance. To do otherwise leaves your site standing on the backs of already vastly oppressed people, spouting rhetoric about how you are uplifting them.
Published on March 31, 2012 12:30
No comments have been added yet.