Thread by @racheline_m

I want to talk about Lambda Literary pulling a nomination because someone was aggressively transphobic on Twitter, and about how this isn't the organization policing manners or quelling speech or deciding only some queers are the right queers or WHATEVER.

Regardless of whether the author has ever heard of the Lammys, the awards are significant. Even as just a finalist last year, they caused a massive increase in my book sales and more sales = bigger platform = potentially increased cultural influence.

Lambda Literary's mission statement is that it "nurtures and advocates for LGBTQ writers, elevating the impact of their words to create community, preserve our legacies, and affirm the value of our stories and our lives."

While the Lammys mostly honor texts not authors, it is profoundly reasonable for an organization to want to avoid increasing the platform of someone who is engaged in active harm to parts of the community it nurtures and advocates for.

Elevating anti-trans rhetoric is in opposition to Lambda Literary's mission. Increasing the already massive platform of someone who is engaged in anti-trans rhetoric and harassment of trans people on social media is in opposition to Lambda Literary's mission.

The scale of the platform in these situations -- and what increases a platform's power -- is a reasonable essential subject of decision making.

While very different in some ways, the platform issue can remind us of the wizard book lady situation -- already own the books and want to read them for nostalgia? Sure whatever. Giving the wizard book lady more $$ and accolades so she can do even more harm? Not so great.

What we've stumbled into here is also the paradox around intolerance. If we're tolerant of intolerance we get more intolerance and more harm to more people.

Lambda Literary has effectively made a strong statement that trans-hostile and trans-exclusionary rhetoric won't be tolerated by their org - even from other queer people. That's a good thing.

And it's the right decision, even if we also have to acknowledge that anti-trans rhetoric and behavior sometimes comes from a place of poorly addressed trauma. That sucks, but is not a burden trans people should ever be expected to accept.

This isn't about "thought crimes" and I'm extremely disappointed to see people popping into this with that viewpoint. I don't know if they haven't dug into the issue (common Twitter problem), just enjoy a good fight (also a common Twitter problem), or are just anti-trans.

But Lambda Literary asked itself if continuing to honor this person would harm the people the organization means to serve, realized the answer was yes, and acted accordingly, as is their prerogative.

Also, I'm a little tired of "how dare what I say in public - on a topic directly related to the arena in which I have later faced consequences - matter?" It's deeply disingenuous.

Also, we need to stop mistaking the idea of being exceptional at setting boundaries for the idea of being above any and all criticism.