An Open Letter to All Creators and Their Editors:

Incidents like this are unacceptable. Categorically, offensively unacceptable.

I just read an archived version of the "cancelled" story in question over my Sunday brunch. It was interesting. The writer definitely has skill at the phrase and sentence level. I'm not sure I agree with all of the ideas contained therein - radical constructivist notions of gender simply don't align with my reading and research, and the author's descriptions of how it feels to be a woman don't match my own so-called "lived experience" - but I rarely encounter authors or artists with whom I agree 100%, so I certainly didn't expect to do so in this particular case. You know, because I'm an adult who can grapple with works that challenge my view of the world without assuming my very existence is under attack.

The creative world used to pride itself on pushing boundaries and asking tough questions. The fact that the above story upset some people indicates that the author - at least by that old, exciting standard - did something right. I'm sure the late Harlan Ellison, editor of Dangerous Visions, would've been proud. Instead of wussing out, the editor of Clarkesworld should've stuck to Ellison's vision of the SFF field and backed this author up. Of course, it's ultimately the author's choice whether to keep the story in print, but the statement upon its removal from the Clarkesworld website should not have implied in any way that the censors were right. They were not.

You cannot be all things to all people. You cannot avoid offending people -- even if they're "marginalized." The reason for this is very simple: people are not interchangeable widgets. I'm sure that for every trans individual who was upset by "I Identify as an Attack Helicopter," there were several who liked it. That's the way of the world. Sharing a particular identity category does not guarantee lockstep agreement on what that identity means because "lived experience" is individual, not collective. Note: Trans sensitivity readers okayed the story, yet people were offended anyway. That right there should indicate the futility of your quest to please all.

Allowing the loudest complainers to control what art gets made will lead to bad, boring art. But beyond that, bending the knee in this way is fundamentally immoral. Why? Because it stomps on the individual freedom of your creators -- and because it allows the unreasonable few to dictate to the many what they may read and what they may watch. Nobody, no matter their political sympathies, should be permitted to wield such power over others.

If you are a creator or an editor, nut up for the love of God. Allow criticism, but don't allow said criticism to intimidate people into silence. "Don't like, don't read" should be a universal mantra.

Sincerely,

Stephanie S.