Val McDermid's Top 10 LGBTQ writers: Guardian

[thatdamnwoman]

Sad to see Val McDermid involved in this. I had hoped she'd be GC.

www.theguardian.com/books/2019/aug/10/the-word-is-out-val-mcdermid-selects-britains-10-most-outstanding-lgbtq-writers

I checked out a number of the clicky bio links in the article. Some of them in their biographies don't mention being lesbian or gay or whatever. Keith Jarrett's link instructs us to 'read between the lines' so I have no idea what his apparently queer identity is about. Is he trans? There are at two TW authors explicitly 'out' and one of them has even written a book about their 'transgender journey'. Brave and stunning, I presume.

It's left me wondering whether it's more acceptable to be trans or 'queer' than it is to be openly lesbian or gay. And saddened that an older, intelligent butch dyke would be prepared to go along with the exercise. LGB (sexuality) isn't the same as gender identity. Conflating the two helps make the lesbians disappear.

Some of us have been fighting the inclusion of T since the day it was mooted. I was an active member of Stonewall until it became clear that T was the new direction it was taking.

There have been several threads from straight women asking how they can support their lesbian sisters. Listening to what lesbians are telling you and taking it seriously, rather than telling us we're making a fuss about nothing is right at the top of the list. We are the canaries in the mine. Once they've disappeared us, you're next.

Er I don’t think I told you what my sexual orientation was. I am also a lesbian.

I really don’t see the problem with this. Presumably she has chosen a cross section of LGBTQ writers who are up and coming, rather than more established. I don’t know much about those writers, but am very familiar with the ones she name checks further down, who are more established writers. She no doubt wants to give these ten authors a plug to help their careers.
And why the hell should writers put their sexuality in their bio? It’s private.

O-kay... So people are happy to have their names appear in a public list of LGBTQ writers but not happy to be out?

thatdamnwoman I felt guilty when I realised what lesbians have been up against in all this. I only became aware of it about three years ago. I think a lot of people are still oblivious.

I didn't read the article because I didn't want to feel :(

I have no idea what 'queer' means. 3/3 of my kids are 'queer' (lesbian, bi and ?) but they can't explain it to me either, other than as a discriminator of who is heteronormative and who isn't. As if heteronormativity is a freely chosen oppressor identity, which makes a person lame, rather than as a set of power relations between males and females.

To me, queer is the color you get when you mash all the separate playdoughs together - sort of a muddy non-color with flashes of the original colors remaining.

And why the hell should writers put their sexuality in their bio? It’s private.

Possible to argue that it’s irrelevant, but if it’s private they are being outed without consent.

I think this does illustrate that ‘LGBTQ’ is so inclusive that its meaning has been lost. We don’t know what common features these writers share that explain their inclusion on a list.

(“So detective, I think I’ve cracked it, none of them are heteronormative! Jane is married to Louise and we have evidence that John used a rose scented glitter bath bomb last week!”)

Keith Jarret’s poem is called ‘Gay Poem’. Listening to it, it was obvious to me that he’s a gay man. Interestingly, the poem is about people wanting him to write a gay poem. He questions what that would be like. So he’s suggesting that he doesn’t think he should be made to write a stereotypical ‘gay poem’ whatever that is.
O-kay... So people are happy to have their names appear in a public list of LGBTQ writers but not happy to be out?
They are out, but why should they have it on their Twitter bio, or whatever? Should they be defined by their sexuality or the art they make? Is their sexuality the most interesting thing about them?
If someone is heterosexual, should they have ‘heterosexual’ after their name on their profile? No, a heterosexual person is free to define their work as they see fit, to make the art they want to make.
Val McDermid writes about the discrimination that LGBTQ writers have faced in the past and how it’s great that they get more recognition now.
A form of discrimination they might face now is the requirement by some people to put their sexuality/trans status in their Twitter profile, when a heterosexual person or trans person would never be expected to do that.

A form of discrimination they might face now is the requirement by some people to put their sexuality/trans status in their Twitter profile, when a heterosexual person or trans person would never be expected to do that

Agree, but it’s still not clear what people on an ‘LGBTQ’ list would have in common. I don’t know why the list exists.

Without a some common characteristic it might as well be a list of writers who are German or like Kit-kats or are accountants.

I come back to my original post. I'm sad that someone, one of the highest-profile butch dykes in the public eye here in the UK and someone who apparently thinks of themselves as a radical feminist, creates a list of a LGBTQ writers and thus promotes the conflation of sexuality and gender. Radical feminism is surely about sex, not gender.

I'm sad as a lesbian who's always interested in reading fiction by lesbians that I don't know if most of the women on that list are female and whether they are lesbians or not. Why are the LGB writers mostly in hiding? What does that say?

I agree, Merrymouse. Meaningless, but meaningless in a way that legitimises the T and the Q still further, even though no one really has any idea what they stand for.

Agree with your post too thatdamnwoman

I think it’s very, very noticeable that this conflation of sexuality and gender has less effect on men because very few men don’t conform to gender expectations.

The only large, visible group of people who really refuse to be boxed in by gender are female, but they are increasingly marginalised.

I think it’s very, very noticeable that this conflation of sexuality and gender has less effect on men because very few men don’t conform to gender expectations.

And most of those who do refuse to conform seem to do it by appropriating women’s identities & spaces, so most men probably barely notice.

And most of those who do refuse to conform seem to do it by appropriating women’s identities & spaces

That is what I mean - it's as though we almost got to the point where it was possible for everyone to just wear what they want and love who they want, but men just can't make that final jump and abandon gender boxes, so here we are.

Don't know how Juno Dawson could be in anybody's top ten. Terrible writer. Fairly poor human as well from what I can see.

She no doubt wants to give these ten authors a plug to help their careers.
And why the hell should writers put their sexuality in their bio? It’s private

Mary Paulson-Ellis had considerable success with her first novel The Other Mrs Walker. I don't know why. I thought it was badly plotted, clichéd, highly improbable and badly researched- which was a major flaw for a plot which relied on certain facts. It was like a fourth rate Barbara Vine.

I don't know which category of LGBT Mary Paulson-Ellis falls into. Her novel didn't deal with sexuality or gender issues. Knowing that she is LGBT seems completely irrelevant in her case.