Complaint: M/M Writers Are Turning Characters Into Bullies

Don't get me wrong. There are good M/M writers out there. 

But lately a number of M/M writers have begun using their supposedly enlightened characters to work off vicarious bullying.

I recently read the latest tome of a series that I enjoyed--up until the latest tome. The other books are funny, clever stories with hilarious denouements. 

And then, in the last book, the authors decided that the main character was non-binary. 

I will be frank. The current emphasis on labels, such as non-binary, etc., is appallingly reactionary. It is more 1950s neo-Victorianism than the 1950s and Victorian Era. It is so entirely reductionist, I suspect it is promoted by people who are troubled by modern life and truly, in their heart of hearts, want a return to a world where male behavior is definitively MALE and female behavior is definitively FEMALE. 

As David French recently wrote, "[T]here’s a strange convergence between left and right on the matter of gender stereotypes. The stereotypes are too powerful on both sides. One side identifies what a boy or girl is 'really like' and tries to make all kids conform. Another side makes the same judgment and questions whether nonconforming kids are 'really boys' or 'really girls.'" 

I agree. Rather than "male" and "female" being expanded and explored and widened, these reactionary types prefer the terms to be so narrowed that anyone who is even vaguely outside the assigned definitions has to call him or herself something else. Heaven forbid that people should just be complex! Heaven forbid that a man like pink shirts, unicorns, and football. Wait, that means he is...THIS LABEL! Heaven forbid that a biological woman use "her" pronouns without first apologizing to the world for being "cisgendered"--or conceding, "No, I guess I'm actually something else. I will immediately adopt the proper label and associated thought-process."

What's worse is the thoughtlessness, what Ayaan Hirsi Ali refers to as a lack of critical thinking.  In the disappointing tome, the nature of the main character as non-binary excuses the character's behavior. The label--actually, to a degree, simply the self-belief or, even, the vague attitude--provides instant victimhood, so much victimhood, the character doesn't have to think through "who am I" as a personal struggle within the reality of social expectations and outcomes, a struggle that will lead to personal growth. The character also doesn't have to accept consequences or treat others well. The character needs to endure and then be accepted. 

From a writing point of view, the problem here isn't politics or social impact. The problem is bad art. That is, the result is not that dissimilar from Victorian morality tales. All tell, no show. The people with the proper ideologies and backgrounds succeed. They never have to defend themselves. They never have to grow up. They have the correct upbringing. They vote the required way. And they have the designated labels. The audience knows of whom to approve, who deserves love. Complexity of character and complexity of ideas take a backseat to never being wrong and never having to suffer.

In real life, there are intelligent, well-read, thoughtful biologists who question the theories associated with non-binary, etc. There are thoughtful activists who point out the possible ramifications, especially to feminism. In real life, there are conservative and libertarian gay men, some of them quite vocal. In real life, Bari Weiss exists.

One reason I write what I write is that my gay characters aren't labels or excused victims or representatives of a group. They are characters in a story, and they care primarily about their stories. 

They also aren't bullies, unless bullying is an inherent personality trait--in which case, the bullying is part of the character arc. They aren't "excused" bullies. Nobody gets to treat other people like trash based on a notion of "progression" or "advancement." 

Actually, some of my characters do that.

They are villains.