on not finishing books & author politics
january 20, 2024
i was reading a book about medicine recently, and had to stop reading it. all things considered, the book was quite good; medical history and the politics surrounding it is one of my biggest interests, and something that i could research about forever. the author's writing is polished and it appears that a considerable amount of research and attention was paid to the subject. the discussion is mostly nuanced, without completely painting either side in an issue as completely good/bad (with some scant and blatant exceptions; this is a book about medicine within the context of capitalism, after all).
yet as i read, i noticed a few whiffs that struck me as peculiar, in an "am i being microaggressed?" kind of way. a chapter discussing medical practice in India, for example, was written in a tone and rhetoric that came across as condescending and cruel, with little consideration for why certain failures within India's medical system exist, or what effect these failures have on the people who live there. a chapter discussing a very similar system within the US, UK, and Canada, however, was given far more nuance, and aspects of the big picture were scrutinized in a way that i would have expected to be present in the chapter discussing India. (it bears mentioning that the author is indeed from the UK.) i pressed on, nonetheless. i've read a lot of imperfect and outright offensive books, and again--i was experiencing a "is this happening, or is this just me?" moment common to experiencing microaggression.
out of curiosity, i checked the author's twitter account to see what other work they did, or if they had anything else coming out. to my disappointment, i found that this author is anti-transgender, and shares a lot of hateful content while misgendering trans people. me keeping the author's name and work vague is more for my protection, in the (admittedly very) small chance that this entry gets the attention of trans-exclusionists.
now, the book itself had little--if anything--to say about trans people. yet, knowing that the author believes whole-heartedly in "big pharma pushing transition onto people," or that parents are forcing gender-non-conforming children to transition, or that trans women are inherently predatory, it made me question other aspects of the book i was reading. did the author truly present historical and contemporary issues in an objective, journalistic, accurate fashion? what information wasn't included? was anything cherry-picked? can someone who truly believes that children self-identify as cats or inanimate objects is a massive issue in our society actually have the capability to research something as complex as medical systems? mind you, these questions were based on tweets and retweets i saw through the author's profile--there's no hyperbole here on my part.
inconsistencies and flaws in the book magnified, and i found myself unable to enjoy it anymore. after all, if i met this author face-to-face, my transness would make me subhuman in the author's eyes. i'd either be viewed as a victim of "gender ideology" without autonomy or agency in my own life and identity, or as a "groomer" because i'm a trans person who exists in public spaces.
but it's still damn disappointing. i feel like i've wasted my time and given attention to someone who uses what platform they have to spread hateful ideas. i admired parts of this book in spite of the flaws. but now, knowing what i know, i am just left questioning why this author's skills in critical thinking and research leave the room when the subject is on trans people. what's happening politically to trans people is a blatant culture war and an attempt to conjure up boogeymen to split groups, yet intelligent people are so wrapped up in their disgust for us that that they buy into that rhetoric and forget how to think.
i've taken to not looking too deeply into the personal views of well-liked artists, writers, and other creatives who i know aren't queer in some way (and, frankly, especially ones from the UK). but is this the responsible thing to do? if i don't know that some of these creatives are hateful, could i unknowingly be financially supporting them, and risking part of my dollars going towards hateful groups? is it better for my mental health and well-being to know, or to not know? is feeling like i need to be 100% aware, all the time, of these people's political ideas just a type of scrupulosity ocd? is my behavior contributing to a "shut up and sing" attitude that so many creatives get once they talk about political issues, or is it different because i'm concerned about specifically hateful rhetoric? can the art be separated from the artist? i certainly can't be separated from the art that i make. it would be like removing the flesh and bones from my work.
i don't have an answer and never will. this post is, admittedly, more of a vent than anything profound. it always stings when i discover that i've unknowingly enjoyed the work of someone who hates me and mine or any marginalized group, especially since local and global politics are so bleak right now. for now, this book has been added to my "did not and will not finish" shelf, regardless of my personal interest in the subject.