Cramer Asks Readercon to Investigate Age Discrimination Charge

Kathryn Cramer announced on Facebook that she has asked the Readercon board to investigate whether its program organizers engaged in age discrimination while culling their program participants list and violated the convention’s own Code of Conduct.

Several older white male writers who have been on Readercon’s program in previous years have posted to Facebook that they were notified they won’t be on this year’s program, or simply haven’t received the expected invitation. The wording of the notice sparked resentment —

Allen Steele’s reaction was typical:

Oh, we’re still welcome to attend, if we pay the registration fee. In fact, because of our exalted former status, we’re entitled to a 25% discount … if we go to a private registration site and enter the password (get this) PASTPRO.

So not only have we been told that we’re not welcome to come as professionals, we’re also being told that we’re no longer professionals, period.

Whether writers/editors/artists who have been on a convention’s program in the past are owed the courtesy of being formally notified that they are not going to be on the current year’s program, or a con should let silence speak for itself, is worthy of discussion in its own right, however, Readercon made the former choice.

Even more important than the careless language of the letter (“PASTPRO”), some writers who received it say they suspect that Readercon’s effort to churn its roster of panelists has been done entirely at the expense of older writers.

A few days ago Jeffrey A. Carver added his name to the list of writers who have gotten the letter: “Readercon Says, ‘So Long, and Thanks for All the Fish!’”

I worried I was getting old when I turned 50 and started getting mail from AARP. And then, when I wasn’t looking, I suddenly became eligible for senior discounts. (No, that can’t be right. My parents were seniors, not me!) And now…

Readercon, once one of my favorite conventions, has decided that—well, let’s let them tell it in their own words: “You won’t be receiving an invitation to participate in programming for Readercon 29. We’re deeply grateful to you for your years of participation at Readercon… but…” But so long, and thanks for all the fish!

They go on to say that they’re making room for fresh, young writers—which, if I thought that were the real reason, would at least be understandable. The truth, of course, is that Readercon has always been welcoming to new writers. I was one myself once, and Readercon always gave me a place at the table, as they did others. In fact, one of the things I liked about it was the yeasty mix of writers of all kinds, all ages, genders, creeds, etc. It made for great conversations. I guess the newer team of organizers are aiming for a new shape for their demographics. Either that, or they think they’re comping too many memberships to program participants.

I’m not the only one to receive this letter, of course. A number of older, white male writers (including my friend Craig Shaw Gardner) have received the same email. I don’t know if any female writers have received it or not. I’d be interested in knowing. (Update: I’ve received a secondhand report that a woman-writer friend of mine, also in my age group, got a similar boot to the backside.)

Kathryn Cramer tried to bring the matter to a head and tweeted Readercon a question —

Cramer also criticized a comment left on FB by Readercon program chair Emily Wagner:

…Speaking as the widow of a Readercon 13 GoH, I take exception to your complaints about past program participants’ “longevity.” You may find this whole matter “hilarious” (as per screen shot). I do not. Readercon has a code of conduct. I suggest you read it. And if you still think it is hilarious that you have given offense to many of the writers you have written such things to, and if you still think other peoples’ impression that you are engaging in age discrimination is hilarious, then I suggest you politely submit your resignation to the Readercon committee and find another hobby.

(This page lists 150 program participants from the 2017 Readercon – how Wagner’s 700 figure relates to that is unclear.)

Cramer has made a public request that the Readercon Board get involved.

I have just sent the following letter to info@readercon.org: To the ReaderCon Board:

In light of letters from Emily Wagner, writing as program Chair, recently received by older writers and professionals disinviting them from future participation on the ReaderCon program based their “longevity”, offering a discount code of “pastpro,” I formally request that the Board open an inquiry into whether Emily Wagner has committed age discrimination and whether she has, in the process, violated ReaderCon’s published Code of Conduct as pertains to age. Since Emily Wagner also sits on the Board, it would be appropriate for her to recuse herself from this inquiry.

I further request that the ReaderCon board publicly release the age demographics of the list of people to whom such letters were sent. And further, should these demographics demonstrate that all or nearly all such letters were sent to writers over age 50, I request that Emily Wagner be removed as Program Chair of ReaderCon and removed from the ReaderCon Board.

Ms. Wagner has posted on Facebook that she finds these allegations of age discrimination on her part “hilarious.” Age discrimination is not hilarious.

Further, should the Board determine that age discrimination has, in fact, taken place – which is to say that all or almost all of those disinvited are over 50 – I request that the Board take appropriate action to remedy the situation.

Sincerely,

Kathryn Cramer

Several other well-known writers have added their protests. Peter Watts ended a comment on the subject:

Readercon, you suck.

Barry Longyear chimed in:

So, the Readercon “Dump-the Old” program is still in effect. It makes me think there ought to be two new categories in the Hugo Awards at the World SF Con: Best Science Fiction Convention, and a booby prize for that convention committee deemed as “doing the absolute least to promote science fiction and fellowship surrounding the literature of science fiction.” Designs for the Fucktard Award are currently being solicited.

David Gerrold made a more substantial comment on Cramer’s announcement:

About ten years ago or so, the Writers Guild of America won a major lawsuit on age discrimination. The studios paid out $70 million, some of which was distributed to writers who had proven they had been discriminated against, the rest to establish protections for the future.

Age discrimination is real — it’s pernicious, it’s vile, and in venues where there are laws prohibiting it, it is illegal.

For it to occur in the science fiction community is appalling. This is a community that has prided itself on inclusion. The rule in fandom is that “the ceiling constitutes an introduction.” That is, we’re all in the same room, we’re all fans, we’re here to have fun celebrating what we love.

So for any convention to knowingly violate the trust of the community, to disinvite the experienced and respected members of that community — this doesn’t just punish the authors, it punishes the fans who want to hear from those authors.

I’ve always wanted to attend a Readercon. I’ve only heard good things about Readercon — but now I suspect that I am too old to be considered worthy to contribute to Readercon.

I hope that this is a momentary glitch that the Board of Directors will address quickly. Otherwise, Readercon’s good reputation will be soiled for a long time to come

92 thoughts on “Cramer Asks Readercon to Investigate Age Discrimination Charge

  1. I correct myself slightly; ISTM that there are more panels on how-to-solve-writing-problem-X than there used to be.

  2. Regarding gender neutral bathrooms, they usually use men’s rooms to convert them into gender neutral bathrooms, because men’s rooms have both urinals and toilets and therefore accomodate people with every type of equipment. And since convention centres are not yet regularly equipped with gender neutral bathrooms (the only places except for SFF cons where I’ve seen them is universities – mine had one more than ten years ago), it’s very likely that there would be a gender neutral (converted from a men’s room) bathroom next to a women’s room. Besides, I’m sure there were regular men’s rooms available elsewhere at the convention centre. Though it would probably help to point out where to find another men’s room, for those who are uncomfortable with gender neutral bathrooms.

  3. The two cons I go to regularly both have gender neutral bathrooms. Arisia converted a matching pair (large con with plenty of bathrooms) while WisCon converted all of the available single user bathrooms (small con with relatively small hotel which was reluctant to convert its main bathrooms even for the weekend). It seems fairer.

  4. @Hampus
    You sure you aren’t looking for insult?
    She’s said so twice already. If she says it a third time, will you believe her?

  5. Bill: She’s said so twice already. If she says it a third time, will you believe her?

    I won’t. It seems pretty apparent from the contents of her posts here that she is determined to wrest the most sinister possible intent from the messages that she can. 😐

  6. @rcade: “John Norman did the same in 2001 after a Philcon disinvite, writing a screed for the ages.”

    That’s definitely one way to describe that letter. “How dare you not provide me a forum in which to lecture about sex, politics, and loony economics at your sci-fi convention! This is censorship!” Perhaps he should have offered to host a panel on entitled whining. Going by his letter, he seems eminently qualified.

    And I’ve read most of the Gor books – over two dozen, anyway. I’ll admit that the first, oh, half-dozen or so were pretty neat. After that, he didn’t so much write new books as keep churning out variations on the same three – enslaved man fights his way up to master, enslaved woman learns to love her master and embrace submission, and what I call the “travelogue”… that is, a retread story set in a new land or amongst a different tribe, which causes only a few cosmetic differences to the plot. If that series constitutes a Significant Contribution To The Genre, I’ll eat my hat – bird poop and all. (Old story.)

  7. The two cons I go to regularly both have gender neutral bathrooms. Arisia converted a matching pair (large con with plenty of bathrooms)

    I think gender neutral bathrooms are great. It was having one gender neutral and the other for women that did it. If it’s a matter of plumbing if the official sign stating “womens room” would be sufficient. And men have used toilets for a very long time. (As anyone who cleans bathrooms knows!)

    When it came to the consuite all bathrooms are gender neutral and always have been. Thus putting up a sign to say so was thought to be making an issue of people of different genders should all be treated the same instead of just treating them the same.

  8. Something it seems I should restate is that what has me seriously annoyed is that however it was phrased the letter was totally unnecessary in the first place. To quote myself:

    All that needed was to add something carefully written to the Readercon Program page and remove one para.

  9. Men can use toilets as well as urinals. All the men I know don’t have an urinal at home and cope.

  10. Elspeth:

    “When it came to the consuite all bathrooms are gender neutral and always have been. Thus putting up a sign to say so was thought to be making an issue of people of different genders should all be treated the same instead of just treating them the same.’

    You do not make sense. Why is it a problem making clear that a restroom is gender neutral if it always has been that way anyhow? It doesn’t seem like anything to get angry over, much less to use as an example for how a con is changing.

  11. Elspeth, I’m not fully understanding. The problem was the lack of a men’s room in one area of the con where there was a women’s and neutral? But there were men’s rooms elsewhere? Probably would have been better to convert both of those rather than just one, yes.

    Almost, and thank you for boiling it down for me. The problem was a Neutral and a Women’s room, the need for a woman’s room but not a men’s room being what upset people, not that there was a gender neutral bathroom. I’m not wild about seeing men urinate but since I could see the ‘Men’s Room’ sign as well as the paper ‘Gender Neutral’ one presumably I would also be able to see ‘Women’s Room’ and choose that.

    There was also that these were the bathrooms on the main level; I don’t think the ones on the next level were labeled at all. So there was one, just one, gender neutral bathroom in the entire place.

  12. @Elspeth: “So there was one, just one, gender neutral bathroom in the entire place.”

    And having that one was somehow a problem?

    I use men’s rooms. I’ve cleaned men’s and women’s rooms, back in the day. A woman in a bathroom uses a stall; a man has the option of stall or urinal. Men’s rooms have both, women’s rooms have stalls only. Anyone dispute any of that?

    From a mechanical, traffic flow perspective, it makes sense to me to label the men’s room as gender-neutral. I’m sure we’ve all heard horror stories of long lines for the women’s rooms at high-traffic events (concerts, sports, et al.), right? Stalls are at a premium for women; more are needed. Men generally use urinals and are in and out quickly; the supply of those is fine. Making the men’s room gender-neutral looks like the best single way to alleviate all of those problems. It’s not perfect, but it’s less imperfect than the other solutions.

    If some dude whines about not being able to find a dudes-only room… hate it for ya, snowflake. It’s still a functional men’s room, “changed” only by a piece of paper on the wall; deal with it. I have yet to hear about a woman venturing into a men’s room or a gender-neutral bathroom because she’s eager to catch a glimpse of some guy’s junk. She just wants to get in, do her business, and get out. You’ll be fine, random guy.

  13. @Elspeth:

    Having a bathroom labeled “gender neutral” on the main level, rather than only the con suite bathrooms be gender-neutral, also tells nonbinary people that they’re welcome.

    Not all cons have public bathrooms in the con suite: for example, last year’s Boskone and this year’s Arisia didn’t. Both were in the Westin Waterfront, using the same lower-level area for a con suite, and the bathrooms were outside the con suite/art show area, and separated by gender. (I’d guess that’s true of this year’s Boskone as well, but I don’t know for sure.) If someone is new to con-going, or if that’s their recent experience of con suites, they not only won’t assume that the con suite has a gender-neutral bathroom, and may not even think of it as a possibility.

    Also (another thing that may not apply to Readercon), if the con suite closes for part of the time that the con is running (which happens at some cons), having a gender-neutral bathroom on the main floor means there’s always one available.

  14. @Rev. Bob
    @Elspeth: “So there was one, just one, gender neutral bathroom in the entire place.”

    And having that one was somehow a problem?

    Oh for Pete’s sake. No need to read what I posted an hour before you wrote this, all you need to read is what you quoted. How you switched objecting to there being just one gender neutral bathroom into objecting to there being a gender neutral bathroom is a mystery not worth solving.

    Once and for all: I am in favor of gender neutral bathrooms. I think all conventions – in fact any place that can make such options available – should have gender neutral bathrooms. I think that when there are two bathrooms side by side they should both be neutral or both be gender specific. I respect the wishes of those of various genders who don’t want gender neutral signs where they aren’t needed.

    I’m going to assume that that’s either sufficiently clear or that there is no clarifying that will suffice. In any event I need to go wash the cat.

  15. Elspeth said:
    How you switched objecting to there being just one gender neutral bathroom into objecting to there being a gender neutral bathroom is a mystery not worth solving.

    You were the one complaining that there was a gender-neutral restroom, instead of two gendered restrooms. You can’t have it both ways.

    *plonk*

  16. “I think that when there are two bathrooms side by side they should both be neutral or both be gender specific. I respect the wishes of those of various genders who don’t want gender neutral signs where they aren’t needed.”

    Those two sentences seem to be mutually exclusive. There was no need to have two gender neutral restrooms next to each other.

  17. “I respect the wishes of those of various genders who don’t want gender neutral signs where they aren’t needed.”

    I’m trying to figure out why the default is to respect the wishes of those who don’t think signs are needed over the wishes of those who do think that they are needed.

  18. Folks, we are not listening fully to Elspeth. The place Elspeth doesn’t think the signs are needed are where the bathrooms were already neutral. The signs seemed to her to be less friendly than not signs in that case, because it makes a big deal out of it. In the other case, the problem was that only one of a pair was converted, creating a gender discrepancy. One may or may not fully agree with these positions, but neither is against gender neutral bathrooms.

  19. All that needed was to add something carefully written to the Readercon Program page and remove one para.

    But as I understand it, many people had been invited back regularly and had likely come to expect it as a matter of course. Shouldn’t they have been alerted prior to the issuing of the official program in case they wanted to adjust their plans? Which doesn’t take away from the point that the letter should have been more tactful.

  20. From a mechanical, traffic flow perspective, it makes sense to me to label the men’s room as gender-neutral. I’m sure we’ve all heard horror stories of long lines for the women’s rooms at high-traffic events (concerts, sports, et al.), right? Stalls are at a premium for women; more are needed. Men generally use urinals and are in and out quickly; the supply of those is fine. Making the men’s room gender-neutral looks like the best single way to alleviate all of those problems. It’s not perfect, but it’s less imperfect than the other solutions.

    Yes, this. Indeed, I often used the gender neutral bathroom at university, because unlike the women’s rooms, there were never any lines.

  21. Lenore Jones / jonesnori: Folks, we are not listening fully to Elspeth. The place Elspeth doesn’t think the signs are needed are where the bathrooms were already neutral.

    Oh, I’m listening to her quite fully. What I’m saying is that I’m wondering why someone who is neither trans nor nonbinary feels that they are in a position to decide whether gender-neutral signs were actually needed on the consuite bathrooms — and whose opinions should be “respected” on that subject.

  22. Funny how this all comes out with Elspeth simply responding that people she’s talked to mentioned the gender neutral bathroom as an issue. Now she’s caught up in trying to explain it all. And getting ragged for it.

    I wonder what would have happened if they’d changed the women’s bathroom to the gender neutral one?

  23. @Elspeth, but starting with what Harold Osler just said because it makes for a logical entry into my response:

    Funny how this all comes out with Elspeth simply responding that people she’s talked to mentioned the gender neutral bathroom as an issue.

    I’m well aware that, at least in the beginning of this thread, Elspeth was just a messenger who observed that:

    One thing almost everyone mentioned was the public bathrooms, one labeled “gender neutral” and the other with the original signage of “Women’s Room”. The off-hand discrimination resulted in a number of angry jokes. Meanwhile some of the men, even some of the women, were uncomfortable enough that they walked a lot farther to use other bathrooms.

    And right before I commented, Elspeth added:

    The problem was a Neutral and a Women’s room, the need for a woman’s room but not a men’s room being what upset people, not that there was a gender neutral bathroom.

    Which is why, when I chimed in, I commented on the “how dare they take away a men’s room” attitude that Elspeth reported while carefully not attributing that opinion to Elspeth, but to the men who had complained about it:

    If some dude whines about not being able to find a dudes-only room… hate it for ya, snowflake. […] You’ll be fine, random guy.

    …which, of course, Elspeth promptly mischaracterized.

    Once and for all: I am in favor of gender neutral bathrooms.

    I never said you weren’t! Don’t let that stop you from ranting, though:

    How you switched objecting to there being just one gender neutral bathroom into objecting to there being a gender neutral bathroom is a mystery not worth solving.

    No mystery at all: I read your own words, quoted above in this very comment, which reported that “almost everyone mentioned” the issue of a single men’s room getting relabeled as gender-neutral as a negative factor, while making no mention of those people saying they wished there had been more relabeled bathrooms. Wow, what a mystery indeed! It’s almost as if I’m only able to respond to what you actually say, rather than the complete contents of your mind…

    Oh, and @Harold – to answer your question about what would’ve happened if they’d relabeled those bathrooms as Men/GN instead of GN/Women: There would have been insane traffic snarls, for reasons I have already covered in more detail.

    Edit, @JAA: Having never encountered that story, it is impossible for me to have forgotten it.

  24. Rev Bob: I have yet to hear about a woman venturing into a men’s room or a gender-neutral bathroom because she’s eager to catch a glimpse of some guy’s junk.

    John A Arkansawyer: How quickly they forget Hugo and Nebula finalists.

    Surely you’re not seriously claiming that a speculative fiction story is evidence that this really happens. Maybe you should learn to read the room, and recognize that this is not an appropriate response to a serious statement. 🙄

  25. Elspeth on February 27, 2018 at 5:11 pm said:

    Once and for all: I am in favor of gender neutral bathrooms. I think all conventions – in fact any place that can make such options available – should have gender neutral bathrooms. I think that when there are two bathrooms side by side they should both be neutral or both be gender specific. I respect the wishes of those of various genders who don’t want gender neutral signs where they aren’t needed.

    I’m with you on this one Elspeth. Surely it’s rational for both bathrooms to be marked as gender neutral?

  26. @JJ: “Surely you’re not seriously claiming that a speculative fiction story is evidence that this really happens.”

    Nope, I’m not. I am saying I’ve heard of it. It’s humanly imaginable and I wouldn’t be shocked if it were done. I felt for that woman.

  27. If you’re dealing with only a few toilets, say one set on each floor, I am of the opinion that a men’s room should be converted to Gender Neutral.

    Do NOT convert the Family/Handicapped toilets (if even present). Handicapped people need them. Converting them forces the handicapped to wait longer.

    If you convert a women’s room, you run into longer lines for women. If you convert a men’s room the guys need to go up or down a floor if they don’t want to mingle, but the lines are shorter.

    Coming home from the Women’s March in DC last year, we stopped at a rest area with fifty gazillion other buses. The lines were HUGE. We shamelessly took over the men’s room. As the few guys came up and looked in dismay at the line, we just waved them forward to the front. “We’re not using the urinals. Go ahead.” And they did. And we ignored them. They ignored us. The few who needed a stall, got a bonus of going to the front of the line. If it wasn’t for harassment, I’d be all for doing away with gendered toilets completely.

  28. jayn on February 27, 2018 at 7:59 pm said:

    But as I understand it, many people had been invited back regularly and had likely come to expect it as a matter of course. Shouldn’t they have been alerted prior to the issuing of the official program in case they wanted to adjust their plans?

    Based on my experience as program participant at various cons over the decades, the process has a multi-month lead time, beginning with the Program committee brainstorming some topics, followed by soliciting participants and doing some form of “what would you like to talk about, be on” back and forth (increasingly via web survey/form). Granted, that’s not necessarily within the window of optimal airline pricing (unless you fly SouthWest, which lets you rebook if their fare goes down, without any fee, keeping the delta as a re-usable credit).
    Also, being a program participant doesn’t have to be the sole reason for attending.

  29. @Rev Bob:

    “How dare you not provide me a forum in which to lecture about sex, politics, and loony economics at your sci-fi convention!”

    FTFY:

    “How dare you not provide me a forum in which to lecture about loony sex/politics/economics at your sci-fi convention!”

    @Cora: How old were the university buildings where you had line trouble? There was much discussion about handling this when the local sports arena was replaced ~25 years ago, although I don’t remember a result. (A factor causing problems for the arena was that its predecessor was built for boxing (largely male audience) but became a general show venue (e.g., when Ringling etc. Circus started using arenas instead of tents); I expect universities are still playing catchup with a changing student body.) I just rechecked the layouts I built on the detailed floorplans of the 2015 Worldcon’s exhibit hall (built 2004-2006); not only do they have 1 more room for women than for men, they also have much more space in each women’s room, allowing for a larger number of stations (necessary given slower throughput). (Unthinking architects provide the same floor space for both, not even allowing for the fact that stalls take more room than urinals.)
    Not that this is always necessary; I remember a mass beer tasting where I saw a couple of women very dismayed at the loo line (coming up a staircase from the basement and running onto the convention floor) — then snickering and going past when they realized it was all men. Apparently women understand that it’s not necessary to drink all of every sample, or use all of one’s sample tickets….

    @Elspeth (just in case you’re done cat-washing): going back to the original question: what focus change do you see? GN bathrooms are an acknowledgment of reality, not some indication (outside of Puppy hallucinations) that the whole convention is being rebuilt for the benefit of pervy SJW-fanciers

  30. @Chip: (FTFY)

    I’m confident in describing the economics as objectively loony, but I didn’t want to opine on the other two. Might hurt a lurking Pup’s feelings, and all that.

  31. @Chip
    The university buildings date from the 1970s. They have been renovated, since I graduated, but at the time we were still studying in rundown buildings from the 1970s. Though by the 70s, they at least expected there to be roughly as many women as men.

    I was at the building of the technical college, which dates from the 19th century, once for an event and had to run through half the building to even find a women’s room, because they assumed their student body would be mostly male.

  32. @ Vicki Rosenzweig

    Having a bathroom labeled “gender neutral” on the main level, rather than only the con suite bathrooms be gender-neutral, also tells nonbinary people that they’re welcome

    I’d been considering putting them on the second level up where most of the programming was, not the consuite, but putting them somewhere prominent where people can see them coming in is an excellent point.

    And

    the bathrooms were outside the con suite/art show area, and separated by gender.

    I’m sorry, I do know that consuites are held in function space as well but it fell completely out of my brain. This was about consuites that are in suites where bathroom(s) is considered in the same way it would be, for example, in an apartment. It’s a bathroom.

  33. @Cora: I suppose that assumption may have been justified by statistics — MIT was ~90% male in the early 1970’s — but it doesn’t answer for convenience (or the future). OTOH, they seem to have handled it more directly in old buildings; if a bathroom was for men on one floor, the ones directly above and below it were for women.

  34. John A Arkansawyer: Nope, I’m not. I am saying I’ve heard of it. It’s humanly imaginable and I wouldn’t be shocked if it were done. I felt for that woman.

    You felt for a woman character in a fictional story?

  35. Well, I feel for that poor hamster stuck in the male urinal. It is imaginable and I wouldn’t be shocked if a hamster was stuck in a urinal. Lets make policy based on this fantasy.

  36. @JJ: “You felt for a woman character in a fictional story?”

    Didn’t you? “Tiny Tango” is one of my favorites. It catches so much about the moment in history when it was written.

  37. John A Arkansawyer: Didn’t you? “Tiny Tango” is one of my favorites. It catches so much about the moment in history when it was written.

    I’ve reserved my feelings in this case for the transgender people who are being persecuted by homophobic legislators and constituents who are getting laws passed to forbid them from using the toilets which match their gender identity — and I don’t think that people pointing to fictional “proof” of the homophobes’ claims that there are perverts abusing the rights to use the correct toilets because they’re “eager to catch a glimpse of someone’s junk”, or worse, is at all helpful to those people. 😐

  38. @JJ: That’s fair. I still have very strong emotions tied up with the era that story reflects.

    The sort of longings she had, I got that, and I got how her conscientious drive for safe sex shaped her sex life. We’ve seen that happen the last twenty-five years in the large. So much that was perverse is now okay, and one factor in making it so in many cases is (I think) the relative sexual safety of the practice. There’s more going on, of course.

  39. @John A Arkansawyer

    So much that was perverse is now okay

    With all due respect, do you really want to use that particular phrasing? This strikes at the heart of the problem–people (not you necessarily) thinking that an inborn orientation is “perverse,” and persecuting people accordingly. Many people (again, not you necessarily) are taught this because of their religion. However, this form of religion, a religion that persecutes people for being who they are, has no place in our public discourse, and others (including me) are quite rightfully fighting against it.

  40. @Bonnie McDaniel: I agree that’s not the best phrasing. It might have been better to say “so much that was thought of as perverse”. I’m not sure about that, because the power to determine what is thought of as perverse is the ability to make something be treated as perverse. It’s a social judgement. I was trying to reflect that.

  41. Pingback: Readercon Issues Apology | File 770

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.