Scan barcode
A review by sara_m_martins
Alphabet Soup by Michael Bach
informative
medium-paced
3.75
Is this book really informative? Yes
Will it greatly help people in higher up/manager roles be more inclusive of people in the LGBTQ+ community? Yes
Is it without flaws? No. And some of them are quite hurtful. :/
General review: This book is a great first stop for organizations looking to further Diversity & Inclusion in their spaces. It gives a lot of information on the LGBTQ+ community and some great tips and how-tos.
The humor, even if not for me, makes it an easier read and (not to be shady) I do think the people this book is marketed towards will appreciate it.
The problems:
Now, there's a few problems that I really think need to be highlighted. I think the issue, for points 1-3, is THE SOURCE of the information, aka the "online dictionary" from a cis het man - I wouldn't immediately consider this an issue, but if done by actual queer people this wouldn't have happened -, and the government source (not always super up-to-date).
1. for the MILLIONTH TIME: bisexuals are NOT trans exclusive! The definition has been "one or more genders" for so long and the community has been saying for YEARS that the "tends to be more specific to cisgender people" idea untrue, unfounded and extremely hurtful to bi people. bi people include trans peole in their sexual attraction and saying the opposite is both transphobic and biphobic. This was awful to read, especially in this type of book. I really considered dnf'ing for this alone. I really hope it gets fixed.
2. I think gay is an extremely umbrella term. And I think many queer women feel the same, as I have seen many gay women identify as... gay. I'm all for queer and the acronym, but saying no one but gay men use the term gay is... false.
3. This one is from a government source. On page 172 it is written as an example to put as gender identification answers "Man/ Trans/... Woman". I find this strange - A trans person will not exclude the other labels. I found it odd after the pages before explaining so much about HOW to deal with gender on forms.
4. One thing I thought was lacking was, ironically, the consideration of the queer people at the organization. Should we go to the seminars too? A small text line would be helpful, as I think that will be a doubt that will crop up.
5. The last thing that really irked me, much like #1, probably because I'm writing this after the Harry Styles' Variety interview debacle, was reading "Your advertising doesn't have to be overt (no one actually wants to see a picture of people kissing; there's a name for that:porn)." (Page 191). I'm sorry, and I know the Puriteens may come for me on this one, but seeing people kiss on an ad isn't porn, it isn't even soft porn; it's nowhere near porn unless the kiss is happening during sex (which as we all know has never been used as a marketing device btw. and not in a variety of PG-R classifications). This "joke" wasn't it.
Will it greatly help people in higher up/manager roles be more inclusive of people in the LGBTQ+ community? Yes
Is it without flaws? No. And some of them are quite hurtful. :/
General review: This book is a great first stop for organizations looking to further Diversity & Inclusion in their spaces. It gives a lot of information on the LGBTQ+ community and some great tips and how-tos.
The humor, even if not for me, makes it an easier read and (not to be shady) I do think the people this book is marketed towards will appreciate it.
The problems:
Now, there's a few problems that I really think need to be highlighted. I think the issue, for points 1-3, is THE SOURCE of the information, aka the "online dictionary" from a cis het man - I wouldn't immediately consider this an issue, but if done by actual queer people this wouldn't have happened -, and the government source (not always super up-to-date).
1. for the MILLIONTH TIME: bisexuals are NOT trans exclusive! The definition has been "one or more genders" for so long and the community has been saying for YEARS that the "tends to be more specific to cisgender people" idea untrue, unfounded and extremely hurtful to bi people. bi people include trans peole in their sexual attraction and saying the opposite is both transphobic and biphobic. This was awful to read, especially in this type of book. I really considered dnf'ing for this alone. I really hope it gets fixed.
2. I think gay is an extremely umbrella term. And I think many queer women feel the same, as I have seen many gay women identify as... gay. I'm all for queer and the acronym, but saying no one but gay men use the term gay is... false.
3. This one is from a government source. On page 172 it is written as an example to put as gender identification answers "Man/ Trans/... Woman". I find this strange - A trans person will not exclude the other labels. I found it odd after the pages before explaining so much about HOW to deal with gender on forms.
4. One thing I thought was lacking was, ironically, the consideration of the queer people at the organization. Should we go to the seminars too? A small text line would be helpful, as I think that will be a doubt that will crop up.
5. The last thing that really irked me, much like #1, probably because I'm writing this after the Harry Styles' Variety interview debacle, was reading "Your advertising doesn't have to be overt (no one actually wants to see a picture of people kissing; there's a name for that:porn)." (Page 191). I'm sorry, and I know the Puriteens may come for me on this one, but seeing people kiss on an ad isn't porn, it isn't even soft porn; it's nowhere near porn unless the kiss is happening during sex (which as we all know has never been used as a marketing device btw. and not in a variety of PG-R classifications). This "joke" wasn't it.