Why I withdrew my book from an LGBTQ+ literary prize
I think such a viewpoint is abhorrent, but Boyne is free to hold whatever views he wants. What was unacceptable was a statement from the Polari prize addressing the backlash, emphasising its commitment to 'support trans rights and amplify trans voices', but defending Boyne's inclusion on the grounds that submissions are assessed purely 'on the merits of craft and content' and that 'within our community, we can at times hold radically different positions on substantive issues'.
I immediately withdrew upon reading it, after the resignation of judge Nicola Dinan, who won the prize last year, and withdrawal of fellow longlisted author Mae Diansangu. Since then, a further judge has withdrawn and at least 16 authors across both lists have excused themselves from consideration. It was not a difficult or painful decision – I felt misled about the principles underpinning the organisation and I no longer cared to be awarded by it. I have, in the past, been shortlisted for my work alongside writers whose views I did not agree with. But in those instances, their positions didn't undermine the stated values and politics of the prize. This isn't a matter of differing views, but of an institution properly and accurately representing itself.
The prize has always been for the entire LGBTQ+ community, as evidenced by previously shortlisted, and winning, entries from trans writers. And so it is a contradiction to include someone who is trans-exclusionary (terf stands for trans-exclusionary radical feminist). The prize claims that it does 'not eliminate books based on the wider views of the writer'. But a prize claiming to be a celebration of LGBTQ+ inclusion should know that the condition of trans people isn't reducible to a debate in which people are simply holding 'different positions' – they are a minority group facing unprecedented levels of harassment and political antagonism.
Not all of my fellow longlisted authors have chosen this path; some have, while affirming their commitment to trans rights, stated their intentions to remain. Avi Ben-Zeev (the only trans author nominated) stated his reasoning as, 'If I walk away, I'm erasing my trans story' and regretted that 'transphobia has shifted the conversation away from the celebration of LGBTQ+ literature', while emphasising the solidarity between longlisted writers regardless of their decision.
I can understand such a position, but I think it undermines collective solidarity, rather than being an example of it. I think there is significant power in authors acting as a collective bloc. I was particularly moved by the example of the US writers who withdrew from the PEN America literary awards last year, in protest against the institution's lack of criticism of Israel's actions in Gaza. And to me, the real celebration of LGBTQ+ literature has come not from the prize, but from the community that has rallied behind the withdrawn authors. Our withdrawal has been followed by a 800-strong petition to remove Boyne from the longlist. That is not about him per se – he is obviously suffering great personal upset at this situation. It is, once again, about the stated aims of the organisation.
We have, of course, been subjected to the usual name-calling: described as the 'Trans Taliban' and 'Queer Isis' by Julie Bindel; accused of being proponents of 'radicalised', 'totalitarian' politics by Canadian novelist Allan Stratton. Some have accused critics of bullying Boyne, and compromising freedom of speech and expression. But we have not called for his books to be pulped, and evidently he has, and continues to be, more than free to share whatever views he likes and write as many books as he wants.
Boyne has since issued a statement outlining his views on trans rights and calling on the writers who have withdrawn their nominations to restore themselves to the longlist, writing that he has 'shelves full of awards at home' and that while he would not withdraw, he would ask the judges not to shortlist him. Perhaps some writers will take up this offer. But from where I stand, the response is not for Boyne to propose, as this action is not specifically about him – it is about Polari as an institution.
Where does it go from here? This year's prizes are still going ahead and a 'shortlist' will still, somehow, be forged from the depleted pool of authors (PEN America, under similar circumstances, had the good sense to cancel its awards). Polari has also said it will be 'undertaking a full review of the prize processes', to avoid the 'hurt and anger' caused by this year's awards. I do wonder what that will look like. Poring through the public statements of all authors to ensure that nothing offending has been said? I can only hope that whatever processes are put in place will be sufficient to secure the confidence of the queer writers who have found themselves having to weather abuse and hostility for taking a public stand.
Mostly, though, I think – with or without Boyne's nomination – Polari needs to figure out what it wants to be. If it wants to be a prize that is inclusive of trans-exclusionary views and writers, it is free to do this and must accept that large swaths of the community will find this intolerable and disengage.
I suspect that this reluctance to commit is exactly because of that. As the response to this boycott has shown, the swell of public support is behind those who are supportive of the entire LGBTQ+ community. At one time, Polari seemed to recognise this: Bindel herself has noted that in 2021, after 'the trans train had chugged into town', she was told by its organisers that her presence at an event would cause 'a major pushback'. Polari finds itself at another crossroads, called upon to tell us what kind of organisation it is and where it really stands. Perhaps bridges will be rebuilt and the community will return, or we will go off and build something else.
Jason Okundaye is an assistant newsletter editor and writer at the Guardian. He edits The Long Wave newsletter and is the author of Revolutionary Acts: Love & Brotherhood in Black Gay Britain
Do you have an opinion on the issues raised in this article? If you would like to submit a response of up to 300 words by email to be considered for publication in our letters section, please click here.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Telegraph
19 minutes ago
- Telegraph
‘The Left blacklisted me for criticising smug London Review of Books'
The founder of a literary magazine claims he has been blacklisted by the Left for criticising the London Review of Books (LRB) as 'smug'. Booklaunch, the UK's most widely distributed literary magazine, had previously given out tens of thousands of free copies of its publication with The Spectator and The New Statesman. But now Dr Stephen Games, its founder and editor, claims his independent literary magazine has been 'no-platformed' and 'cancelled' by The New Statesman under pressure from the LRB. Dr Games alleged the LRB 'poured poison in the ear of The New Statesman', causing it to sever its ties with Booklaunch. 'It's dirty and shabby and inexplicable that magazines that ought to be committed to free expression and plurality of expression should feel that Booklaunch is so threatening to them that they have to shut it out of existence,' he claimed. The New Statesman and the LRB have declined to comment on the row, and it remains unclear exactly why the relationship has soured. However, Dr Games believes it can be traced back to last summer's Issue 20 of Booklaunch, which carried an editorial that read: 'We used to worship at the LRB's altar. Not any longer.' The editorial went on: 'Something has happened at the LRB that makes one warier of its contributors and less confident about their judgments. The magazine's once unrivalled openness has been replaced by small-mindedness in which the rigour of proper argumentation is now accompanied by labelling, dog whistles and taunts. 'Fun for those who like that sort of thing; dishonourable if you hold the LRB to a higher account. So limited has the LRB become in what it will examine openly that it seems to be suffering from locked-in syndrome.' LRB coverage of Middle East criticised The editorial goes on to criticise the LRB for its coverage of the Middle East as 'uniformly one-sided', and compares it to Nazi 'propaganda', adding: 'Such a lack of balanced analysis does a disservice to the complex and deeply contested nature of the conflict... 'Der Stürmer [the Nazi propaganda tabloid] was similarly effective in its day: we often underrate propaganda as always crude and obvious; on the contrary, it can be intelligent, sophisticated, difficult for the ordinary reader to find fault with and attractive to read. Those who commission these essays are complicit... 'As it stands, its writing on the Middle East is reminiscent of the Inquisition – admit you're a heretic so we can burn you or deny it until we've tortured you to death.' The piece also accuses the LRB for endorsing 'the culture of the smug', with its 'side operation selling commercial fripperies, from branded tote bags to high-priced picnic blankets and umbrellas', and for having an array of writers hailing from 'upper class stock', citing Mary Wellesley, the daughter of the Marquess of Douro and Princess Antonia of Prussia, as an example. It also alleges the editorial team are 'ensconced in their Bloomsburian towers, away from the practical realities they critique and the divisions they promote'. Dr Games said the LRB also used to distribute Booklaunch, but claimed it terminated that arrangement following a misapprehension about Booklaunch allegedly telling an advertiser that it was part of the same stable as the LRB. Despite this, Booklaunch continued to have a positive relationship with its other distributors, The New Statesman and The Spectator, for around six years. 'Suddenly, and completely out of the blue, these two important media vehicles of the political Left [The New Statesman and the LRB] are acting in concert to squeeze us out,' Dr Games claimed. 'They must have a motive, but I can only guess what it might be. It looks to me like spiteful political cancelling.' 'Fine upstanding organs of the Left' Dr Games claimed it was 'very odd' that 'two major players should collude – which is what it looks like – to shut another player out of the market', describing Booklaunch as a 'minnow' by comparison. He said: 'It feels like the sort of thing that a cartel would do to prevent competition. 'It's an action which goes against what you would expect to be each magazine's commitment to free speech and free expression... they're both fine upstanding organs of the Left, and fine upstanding organs of the Left have recently been getting into the habit of, you know, cancelling people they don't like and no-platforming them. 'And this would seem to be an example of that.' The Telegraph has seen confirmation from The New Statesman that it planned to circulate Booklaunch in May, but that this never happened. The New World has since replaced The New Statesman as a distributor of Booklaunch.
The Guardian
19 minutes ago
- The Guardian
Farage adviser said UK would be better off if it had not fought Nazi Germany
An adviser used by Nigel Farage and others in Reform UK to boost their social media popularity has suggested that Britain would be better off had it stayed neutral in the second world war instead of fighting Nazi Germany. Jack Anderton, who ran Farage's hugely successful TikTok account before helping Luke Campbell become the Reform mayor of Hull and East Yorkshire, also said the UK should not support Ukraine in its fight against Russian aggression. In a post on his personal blog about Britain's international standing, Anderton said that in a future world of 'meritocracy', the UK could 'regain' former colonies such as Australia, Canada and South Africa. He added that the UK should copy the policy of mass incarceration carried out by El Salvador's president, Nayib Bukele, widely condemned as an abuse of human rights. Anderton has never been employed by Reform but the 23-year-old established Farage on TikTok, where he now has 1.3m followers, before working closely on Campbell's election campaign. He remains a central part of Campbell's circle, and the mayor is known to have made efforts to get him on to his roster of staff, which have been thwarted because he cannot have political appointees. Anderton's personal blog, titled Britain Needs Change, includes an entry from last year about what he called 'a self-interested British foreign policy', arguing that the only conflict in the last century that was in the UK's interest was the Falklands war. 'Trillions of pounds of British taxes have been spent in foreign lands in the pursuit of 'democracy', 'human rights' and 'doing what is right',' the post said. 'More than a million British lives have been lost since WW1 in wars and battles that have never once been fought by British men, on this island.' Fighting in both the world wars ensured the UK was no longer a great power, he wrote: 'We impoverished ourselves for decades, we didn't finish paying the loans off to America until 2006. Our economy stagnated, we lost an empire, and we are pushed around by America. And Germany, a country we beat, has been richer than us since the 1970s. 'Alternative history is interesting; if Britain had not fought in WW1 and WW2, it would not have had to rely on America for economic support, and it would have had the independence to act accordingly. Britain could have developed India, Cyprus, Fiji, Malta, Saint Lucia, Seychelles, the Bahamas, Australia, Canada, South Africa, Ireland and New Zealand. In the coming meritocracy, perhaps Britain could regain some of these nations.' The same post also argues against providing support for Ukraine after Russia's invasion: 'We are sending billions of pounds (that we cannot afford) to prop up a country that we have no allegiance to. Russia is not our enemy, they have not attacked Britain.' Anderton calls for a shake-up of the Foreign Office so that all decisions are made purely on the basis of whether or not they benefit Britain: 'Instead, what we have are people who should be working for the UN or a charity rather than working in the British Foreign Office.' In another post from 2024, on crime, Anderton enthusiastically endorses the policies of Nayib Bukele, who has dramatically cut gang violence and wider crime through mass detentions that have put 2% of El Salvador's population in prison. 'Extraordinary times require extraordinary measures,' he wrote. 'I'd even argue the measures aren't that extraordinary and should be in place in times of normalcy. 'El Salvador is perhaps a lesson for those in Britain who wish to take back control of their country. Power works, and it is all that matters. State power when used effectively is basically omnipotent. The meritocracy will be established, criminals and corrupt officials will be jailed, immigration will drop to zero, houses will be built, and our citizens will once again feel proud of the country they call home.' Anderton was contacted for comment. Campbell's office referred the matter to Reform UK, who said Anderton was not employed by either the party or the mayor.
Reuters
19 minutes ago
- Reuters
US ready to be part of security guarantees for Ukraine, Germany's Merz says
BERLIN, Aug 16 (Reuters) - The U.S. is ready to be part of security guarantees for Ukraine, German Chancellor Friedrich Merz said on Saturday, a day after a summit in Alaska between U.S. President Donald Trump and Russian President Vladimir Putin. "And the good news is that America is ready to participate in such security guarantees and is not leaving it to the Europeans alone," Merz told German public broadcaster ZDF after being briefed together with other European leaders by Trump on his talks with Putin. Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskiy is due to meet Trump on Monday in Washington, after which a three-way meeting between Putin, Trump and Zelenskiy should be held as soon as possible with the aim of reaching a peace agreement, Merz said. "If that works out, it's worth more than a ceasefire," he said. Merz said Trump had indicated that Russia seemed ready to negotiate based on the front lines of the conflict, rather than the borders of Ukrainian regions it claims. "This is a huge difference because Russia is claiming territories that it hasn't occupied yet," he said. Speaking separately to German broadcaster n-tv, Merz said he did not think Zelenskiy would face as difficult a time in Washington with Trump as he had in February, when the two leaders clashed in an extraordinary exchange before the world's media at the White House. Merz said Zelenskiy would on Sunday talk to European leaders who would help him prepare for the meeting. "We'll give a few good pieces of advice," he said. Merz told ZDF that while it was important that Europe stand united, the U.S. would for the time being continue to play the decisive role in the war, which has raged since 2022 when Russia invaded Ukraine. "The American president has the power both militarily and via appropriate sanctions and tariffs to ensure that Russia moves more than it currently does," he said.
