In light of experiences at this WorldCon

[james_davis_nicoll]

In light of experiences at this WorldCon, I am amending my panel requirements: No all-male panels, and at least _two_ panelists who are persons of colour.

Comments

[agharta75]

And a limit on while male USAers?

[bunsen_h]

Some panels aren't large. How about tying the numbers to the number of panelists?

[(Anonymous)]

Given that requirement, your willingness to be on a panel might categorize a fellow panelist in a way that they don't identify with, and don't care to discuss with you ahead of time.

[rosefox]

Yes, it's possible that James will accidentally remove himself from a panel where a transfeminine person who's read as a cis man is part of it being "all men", or someone who's read as white but has nonwhite ancestry is part of it being "all white people". But... I'm not really seeing the problem. If James is replaced on that panel by someone who's a cis white man, then the demographics are no different than they were, and if he's not, then the panel is made more diverse. The person who's invisibly marginalized remains who they are. James is saying he won't be on that panel, not that anyone else would be asked to leave it.

[(Anonymous)]

The problem shows up when James *doesn't* remove himself, because he feels his requirements *have* been satisfied.

Imagine a panel which includes James, some male-looking fellows who have no issue calling themselves males, and one other person, someone who isn't comfortable talking about their appearance or their gender, and who really doesn't think their gender and their appearance is any of James' business, and doesn't want to discuss any of that, and doesn't want to be labeled. And yet James will be labeling that panelist as non-male, since James has very publicly declared of his requirement to be on a panel that is not all-male.

Or, imagine that James participates on a panel with a majority of people who look stereotypically white and one person who readily identifies as a POC, and one person who has more ambiguous appearance as seen by someone who thinks in terms of Canadian & US racial categories, and who tires of having people assume that they have had a life experience as a POC, as opposed to their own experience and their own circumstances, and their own identity. They are tired of being asked "well, wait, then what are you?" And yes, if James agreed to be a panel partially because they were on it too, they would be upset at being labeled as a POC.

[theresawright]

Based on James's past behaviour, I expect he'll find a way to satisfy his principles without harming the people you're concerned for.

"What if there's a panel that includes people who don't fit into any easy categories?" Great! That's an incredibly diverse panel! I look forward to listening to their conversation!

[roseembolism]

It is truly gratifying that James' actions are attracting so much concern from the "let's spin hypotheticals" crowd. Their concern for ensuring diversity is refreshing

[(Anonymous)]

Yes, you've got me, I'm against diversity and my tactic is to point out that conceptions of gender and race are fluid and personal, and to point out that James might be unknowingly labeling people and that labeling people can be hurtful.

I'm not a crowd - I wrote both of the anonymous comments above, and while my examples were explicitly described as scenarios to imagine, I thought of them because of the pain I've experienced in similar situations, in which someone else has labeled me and made assumptions about who I can represent, instead of waiting until they know me, and until I choose to let them know who I think I'm representative of, and who I'm really not, despite appearances and superficialities.

[(Anonymous)]

What steps would you prefer James to take?

I am trying to take you in good faith and I take your point, these things are fluid, but I actually think it is a great step on James' part to say, ok, I am not willing to be part of this panel unless representatives unlike me are also present (for lack of a better way of phrasing it). To return to the race example, even if someone has a "more ambiguous appearance" and "tires of having people assume that they have had a life experience as a POC"... like, I feel like someone with a more ambiguous appearance could have experienced racism, which might consciously or not have prevented them a slot to speak to an audience.

Basically I am not seeing how James' decision really has a downside, without him specifically asking each panelist how they identify, which I think you'd agree is the worse option all told. What steps would you prefer James to take?

[(Anonymous)]

To the person who asked "What steps would you prefer James to take?", I'm sorry I haven't answered you. I'm not ignoring you, and I think your question is a good one, but I haven't decided how to answer yet.

[graydon]

No one inviting you to be on a panel is functioning as your friend.

"Until someone knows me and I chose to let them know" can't apply to panel selection. They don't know and don't have time to find out (and probably should not know) anything private, including your private construction of identity. Panel selection necessarily runs on public identity, whatever that might be.

[(Anonymous)]

Graydon, I agree that "panel selection necessarily runs on public identity, whatever that might be", but I'm pointing out that gender and race are not always part of someone's public identity, and shouldn't need to be.

[theresawright]

That's true, but James's position here is intended to support *representation* on panels. If someone on a panel is currently passing as part of the majority, then they're not part of minority representation. James is not saying all members of a panel must divulge their identities to him, he's saying he won't take part in panels that don't represent the broader population.

[(Anonymous)]

Theresawright, you're talking about the opposite situation from the one I've been commenting on. I'm talking about someone who most certainly isn't passing as a member of the majority or a privileged group.

For example, I'm talking about someone who, due to their appearance, is assumed by James to be a woman. But this person doesn't identify as a woman. This person doesn't want to be treated like a representative of women. Maybe you disagree, but I think this particular individual person's gender shouldn't be anyone elses' concern, since this person just wants to be on the panel, without being labeled. But, if the circumstances are as I described in a previous comment, James' public requirements will label that person.

[theresawright]

I'm not out offline. Due to my appearance, I am assumed to be a man. I present as a man and use male pronouns in public. I have labelled myself in public as a man. If I'm on a panel and James regards me as a man, that is entirely due to my choices. That's not James labelling me, that's James reacting to the labels I'm wearing.

If you have a specific concern that you'd like James to take into consideration, you really should contact James directly. Because these hypotheticals you've brought up aren't really resolveable to anyone's satisfaction.

[theresawright]

I'm being more aggressive in these responses than I intended. I'll stand by my position, but I'm going to step away from the conversation so it doesn't degenerate into a shouting match.

[theresawright]

Given the actual demographics of the speculative fiction field, there should be no problem in organizing panels that fit those criteria. It's inexcusable that organizers keep choosing to emphasis such a narrow range of SF voices.

[petrea_mitchell]

Will that be at final schedule time or at panel time?

(2 of my 3 panels had more than one POC at one point or another, and both ended up with just 1. In one case I know a POC self-rejected, saying they didn't feel qualified, since they e-mailed me as well as the con.)

Something's advocate

[rdm]

This does have the side-effect of preventing you from appearing in solo presentations.

Is this a deliberate result?

Re: Something's advocate

[roseembolism]

Strangely, I think the term "panel" implies more than one person.

Re: Something's advocate

[rdm]

Even more strangely, I have seen items labeled as 'panels' with one person scheduled (albeit not at a Worldcon - that I can recall). Hence my question.

For bonus unrelated fun, however, I have also attended panels where zero panellists turned up, but there was a room full of audience. Including several people more qualified to talk on the topic than the original panellists. No prizes for what happened next. (Again, not a Worldcon.)

Re: Something's advocate

[beamjockey]

Not long ago, a con put me on a panel where I turned out to be the only panelist for some reason.

I appointed myself moderator, and we held a discussion of the topic among audience members. Worked out fine, on this occasion. The concom later apologized.

This wouldn't work so well if the panel was supposed to be a conversation among people with specialized knowledge.