There's a posting by Nora ![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
nojojojo on the comments to erastes LJ here to which I wanted to respond, but she's frozen comments. So I'll do so on my own LJ. The post concerns the change to the rules for the Lambda Literary Award which appears to have been new this year.
nojojojo, I can see where you're coming from - I really can - but I take you up on a couple of points. The guidelines for the award mention GLBT writers. They don't mention the "Q" part which you have in your comments at all - it's therefore a reasonable question whether queer/questioning members of the community are included, or whether they fall under 'our supporters'. Stil less do they mention the "I" part I see referred to elswhere on the discussion. That inclusion seems to be an assumption on the part of the commenters - a reasonable one, but still an assumption.
Also apparently falling under "our supporters" are asexuals. Most asexuals (not all) are supporters of the LGBTQQIA community, and I (for one) get irate when asexuals are included with heterosexuals - it's argued that we can "pass" - as we're not. We're different. I don't speak for all asexuals, but I feel uncomfortable in straight spaces. I'm happier in LGBT ones but still not completely relaxed.
IMO, as it stands the guidelines aren't very well written and should have stood as they were for another year while the organising committee took the temperature of the community they serve. Public consultation is a wonderful thing, and perhaps we'd have got this straightened out (no pun intended) without this level of kerfuffle.
nojojojo on the comments to erastes LJ here to which I wanted to respond, but she's frozen comments. So I'll do so on my own LJ. The post concerns the change to the rules for the Lambda Literary Award which appears to have been new this year.nojojojo, I can see where you're coming from - I really can - but I take you up on a couple of points. The guidelines for the award mention GLBT writers. They don't mention the "Q" part which you have in your comments at all - it's therefore a reasonable question whether queer/questioning members of the community are included, or whether they fall under 'our supporters'. Stil less do they mention the "I" part I see referred to elswhere on the discussion. That inclusion seems to be an assumption on the part of the commenters - a reasonable one, but still an assumption.Also apparently falling under "our supporters" are asexuals. Most asexuals (not all) are supporters of the LGBTQQIA community, and I (for one) get irate when asexuals are included with heterosexuals - it's argued that we can "pass" - as we're not. We're different. I don't speak for all asexuals, but I feel uncomfortable in straight spaces. I'm happier in LGBT ones but still not completely relaxed.
IMO, as it stands the guidelines aren't very well written and should have stood as they were for another year while the organising committee took the temperature of the community they serve. Public consultation is a wonderful thing, and perhaps we'd have got this straightened out (no pun intended) without this level of kerfuffle.
