Alastair Reynolds calls for more civility

[Ursa major]

Very true, Nerd's Feather - I suspect that was what happened with the whole binary gender thing. I got the impression that Larry Correia was effectively saying "So that means that I'm not allowed to write my sort of novel any more, am I?" which is not what that article was saying at all.

I suppose it depends on what sets people off.

1. Larry Correia might** argue, though I'm not sure how successfully, that there's an implication that a major publisher (i.e. Tor) would look more favourably, because they conform to the "new default", on works that go beyond binary gender. (After all, the blogpost is on their site). This might then lead to other questions, such as "How much better must my binary gender story be than a post-binary gender story to get that valuable the publishing slot?" and "If non-binary gender is the default, do I have to have a reason (in the story) why only two genders (or only one ) are present?" Note that even if someone didn't think any of this, they still might write a blogpost about it (e.g. because extra clicks*** may make them money, or they haven't anything better to write about).
2. The second sentence of the blog, especially the bit saying

   gender is more complex than the Western cultural norm of two genders (female and male)

   might set off some people, either
   • because they think they're being targeted for the implied criticism (because they're writing binary gender stories and are from a**** Western culture),
   • they don't see why ("the") Western culture is being singled out here, given that some other, non-Western, cultures have rather appalling views on, say, gays and lesbians, and may even act on those views with violence.

I think this is where an expansion of one of the earlier points made in this thread applies:

• that people may read more into something than is actually there in front of them;
• that people often look behind the words being said, seeking the writer's the agenda;
• that people, when writing, can often be careless about how they express things;
• that some people (one would hope, a small minority) write things very carefully to get a strong reaction but to which they can respond, "But you're reading too much into what I wrote!" when questioned about it.

So in the original piece, I expect Alec MacFarlane didn't want to go into details about which cultures did or did not have a cultural norm regarding the number of genders, but thought that saying, "...gender is more complex than some cultures' norm of two genders (female and male)..." was both a bit bland and would let the majority of the readers of the blogpost think, "She must be talking about cultures other than mine because most Western ones seem to have got over the shock that there are more than two genders", meaning that they might not take her argument to heart . So instead, she ended up with a form of words that would, inadvertently, raise some people's hackles.



** - I'm not saying he would; I've only read one blogpost by him (and nothing else), so I can't say one way or the other.

*** - I read too many articles on the Grauniad whose sole reason for existence is as click bait. (To be fair, little if any subtlety is deployed.)

**** - I know we leave in a shrinking world, in terms of communication, but there isn't a single western culture, not even within single countries.

 

[Bick]

You're forgetting the other side of the coin on this, though, which is that the mild statement can and often is assumed to hide the more extreme belief--regardless of whether or not there is any evidence for that being the case.

Oh bugger! I'd not paid much attention to this thread, and now its become too large and academic to just dip into whilst still doing it justice.

But dip in I shall - I'm too lazy to read it all - as I saw Nerds comment above to which I have a small thought. Reading too much into comments posted on the web is undoubtedly what's behind the childish 'flame wars' that make so many boards unpleasant. They are conspicuously lacking here. And while SFF fans are not immune to getting the wrong end of the stick and berating their fellow fans with their particular world-view, I'm glad its less common among SF types. (And, if you think SF fans are not actually better than other fans in this regard I suggest you take a quick peek at a UK soccer forum someday). I have a theory why this might be. Being scientific means drawing only those conclusions that are demonstrated by the statements, facts or data. Not more, and not less. Good scientists have become trained to reach conclusions that do not extend beyond what is precisely meant (presuming the meaning is clearly presented), and I suspect that many on here have a scientific leaning - SF tends to attract scientists after all.

I'll now recede from the discussion that I've not been following and let you all get back to it!

 

[Montero]

I have to admit never reading any Tepper. I have Grass on my shelf but have never gotten around to it. I do understand that Grass is supposed to be an excellent book, and I need to get around to it one day. .

The ones I was thinking of in particular were "The Gate to Women's Country", "The Companions" and "The Fresco". (The last of which is the lightest read.)

Grass is impressive (recently re-read it) - does not end up where you might expect at the start. The style is a bit mannered, especially at the start, and you have to keep going until you find you've been gripped by the story. Where elements about society (and religion and politics) comes in, the story is more a commentary than a deliberate attempt to re-engineer such things. The world building is inventive.
(Tepper does have a spread of writing style and tone as well.)

As far as conflict-seekers and consensus-makers are concerned, I guess, as with most things, I think you need some balance.

All things in moderation (including what you eat and drink) until that gets too boring and something goes ping.