Y'all remember that de-gaying of YA fiction link I posted?
Apparently it caused an explosion. 
cleolinda lays out the details here:
http://cleolinda.livejournal.com/993710.html
Long story short: two authors shop around for an agent to represent a YA post-apocalyptic sci fi novel with a gay male protagonist as part of a multiple-POV protagonist structure, get a bite, but the agent requests that the gay male POV be either cut or straightened. Authors say thanks but no thanks, post on the topic of "straightwashing" LBGQT characters in YA fiction, which topic was a matter of much discussion earlier this year during the whole Wicked Pretty Things anthology, not even six fucking months ago. They neither name the agent who made this request, nor the agency in question, but instead issued a generalized call for greater inclusiveness of perspectives in Young Adult fiction. In the very comments thread of their post, multiple authors post examples of how they were asked by both agents and editors to straightwash LBGQT characters or whitewash POC characters.
And then a representative of the unnamed agency in question decides to go public -- naming the agency in question and whining at length about how the authors' characterization of the matter was unfair and a lie and just because they asked the gay male character's POV to be cut doesn't mean they wanted him to be removed from the story! Just his perspective!
No, seriously. Check it:
[The Stampfel-Volpe] post really surprises me because a) it accuses the authors of lying and b) of using the blog post to 'exploit' the agent. I wonder if their lawyers approved it. I can’t see giving that advice. The post itself may be a breach of fiduciary relationship at best and defamatory at worst. It’s definitely a she said/she said thing but the authors did not defame the agent whereas the accusations of lying and exploitation are risky statements to put out there publicly. What we do know from both blog posts is that the authors were asked to remove the gay character. It is confirmed in this contradictory statement by the agent:
s). Our second bit of editorial feedback was that at least two POVs, possibly three, needed to be cut. Did one of these POVs include the gay character in question? Yes. Is it because he was gay? No. It’s because we felt there were too many POVs that didn’t contribute to the actual plot. We did not ask that any of these characters be cut from the book entirely. Let us repeat that, we did not ask that any of the characters in the book -gay or straight-be cut from the book
Two or three POVs needed to be cut including the gay character but we did not ask for any characters to be cut from the book?
Frankly, I'd like to know when it became absolutely necessary that every single POV had to actively contribute to plot development -- because, between you and me, if I took my Little Red Pen of Death and marked up every single book I've ever read containing non-plot-moving points of view that nonetheless enriched the characterization and overall narrative fabric of the story in question, we'd have a fuckton of really short books in the traditional canons of English literature, I'll tell you that right fucking now. Maybe it's only the queer, non-white POVs that add nothing to the narrative?
cleolinda lays out the details here:
http://cleolinda.livejournal.com/993710.html
Long story short: two authors shop around for an agent to represent a YA post-apocalyptic sci fi novel with a gay male protagonist as part of a multiple-POV protagonist structure, get a bite, but the agent requests that the gay male POV be either cut or straightened. Authors say thanks but no thanks, post on the topic of "straightwashing" LBGQT characters in YA fiction, which topic was a matter of much discussion earlier this year during the whole Wicked Pretty Things anthology, not even six fucking months ago. They neither name the agent who made this request, nor the agency in question, but instead issued a generalized call for greater inclusiveness of perspectives in Young Adult fiction. In the very comments thread of their post, multiple authors post examples of how they were asked by both agents and editors to straightwash LBGQT characters or whitewash POC characters.
And then a representative of the unnamed agency in question decides to go public -- naming the agency in question and whining at length about how the authors' characterization of the matter was unfair and a lie and just because they asked the gay male character's POV to be cut doesn't mean they wanted him to be removed from the story! Just his perspective!
No, seriously. Check it:
[The Stampfel-Volpe] post really surprises me because a) it accuses the authors of lying and b) of using the blog post to 'exploit' the agent. I wonder if their lawyers approved it. I can’t see giving that advice. The post itself may be a breach of fiduciary relationship at best and defamatory at worst. It’s definitely a she said/she said thing but the authors did not defame the agent whereas the accusations of lying and exploitation are risky statements to put out there publicly. What we do know from both blog posts is that the authors were asked to remove the gay character. It is confirmed in this contradictory statement by the agent:
s). Our second bit of editorial feedback was that at least two POVs, possibly three, needed to be cut. Did one of these POVs include the gay character in question? Yes. Is it because he was gay? No. It’s because we felt there were too many POVs that didn’t contribute to the actual plot. We did not ask that any of these characters be cut from the book entirely. Let us repeat that, we did not ask that any of the characters in the book -gay or straight-be cut from the book
Two or three POVs needed to be cut including the gay character but we did not ask for any characters to be cut from the book?
Frankly, I'd like to know when it became absolutely necessary that every single POV had to actively contribute to plot development -- because, between you and me, if I took my Little Red Pen of Death and marked up every single book I've ever read containing non-plot-moving points of view that nonetheless enriched the characterization and overall narrative fabric of the story in question, we'd have a fuckton of really short books in the traditional canons of English literature, I'll tell you that right fucking now. Maybe it's only the queer, non-white POVs that add nothing to the narrative?