Can we talk about ownvoices, from a less white lens, for a second?

I'm seeing comments like "this is why ownvoices is toxic" and "ownvoices does more harm than good" and just... no. Let's think on this for a moment.

Ownvoices is a *tool*. Like any tool, it can be misused.

Using ownvoices as a weapon to force authors to disclose personal information? Bad. Gross.

Using ownvoices to help readers find books they feel safe reading and shifting the spotlight to the people who are constantly barred from telling their own stories? Necessary.

Listen, there's a reason ownvoices took like wildfire in the community. We all knew we needed a way for authors to say they had the experience to tell certain stories.

This is *still* necessary in an industry where white authors are constantly paid more to tell PoC stories.

Like... listen. This JUST happened a few days ago. Did y'all forget? It happens all the time. Throwing out ownvoices isn't the answer.

What we need to throw out is the *entitlement* to authors' personal lives. This extends beyond representation, btw.

If you think the people demanding to know authors' sexuality or disability status will just leave authors alone without the ownvoices label existing, you're wrong.

There is a very specific culture at work here where fans feel entitled to creators beyond the work offered.

As I mentioned earlier, ownvoices is a tool. As a reader, it tells you that this book will likely be written by someone who understands, but that's it.

Not using the label doesn't mean the author wrote a bad book. Using the label doesn't mean the author wrote a good book.

It's a starting point. It tells you "this person is marginalized for this and needs support". It tells you "this person may have a similar experience to yours".

But at the end of the day, that work needs to speak for itself. If it's harmful, ov can't save it & non-ov =/= bad.

We throw the word "nuance" around a lot, but that's largely what it comes down to. What are you critiquing?

Is it bad rep? Or is it rep that just didn't suit you? Is it the book? Or is it the author's identity?

These things matter.

And while it is *wrong* to expect an author to disclose their sexuality or disability, I need y'all to see that that's not where ov begins and ends.

PoC *need* ov to claim our spot in publishing, and guess what? We don't get to *choose* to be perceived a certain way.

So let me be clear about something: when you stay closeted, you essentially work around some of the industry's oppressions.

As a closeted gay person, you can sell a book easier than an out gay person. And you have the right to make that choice as it suits you!

But for those of us who don't *get* a choice (ie POC), ownvoices is *all we have*. It's our big counterattack in an industry that gives us no opportunity.

So for white queers to declare it dead bc it can be used badly or against them is peak privilege. What about us?

Y'all need to stop looking at every diversity tool and applying it without nuance to white experiences. That's no how this works!

So we need to talk about entitlement and we need to talk about the way people attack authors who show care bc they assume their identity,

HOWEVER, trying to find a quick fix by throwing out a tool that's finally giving PoC a chance is so racist. We gotta stop being an afterthought to y'all.

And even in the case of white queers, ov still has value. Really. It's about using it with care instead of as a cudgel.

Stop expecting every term and tool to act in a one-size-fits all manner across every identity.

And maybe stop nitpicking every
Ittle thing in an attempt to show how "problematic" everyone's fave authors are, but that's a separate convo entirely.

Bonus thread, as a treat https://twitter.com/EmeryLeeWho/status/1300537469117423616?s=20