There's been conversations in many writing circles about who's allowed to write what. Are men allowed to write women? Are neutorypicals allowed to write autistic characters? Are people who've lived sheltered lives allowed to write about abuse victims? Are white people allowed to write about black people?
These questions stem from a need for accurate, quality representation of different groups, and I believe that arguments on both sides are driven by compassion. Ultimately when considering social restrictions on who can write what, there are two big questions that need to be addressed:
How dead is the author?
Are you throwing out the baby with the bath water?
Notice how I phrased that first point. I believe that in this age of social media and internet presences, it's impossible for the author to be truly dead. In a world where JK Rowling is on Twitter posting about her political opinions, it would be in bad faith to claim death of the author about the Harry Potter francise. The question then is not whether or not the author's beliefs affect how the audience interacts with their work, but how much of an influence the author has. This will have an impact on how their work affects the audience and interacts with society if they choose to write about groups they're not a part of. It also brings into question the author's intention. By writing about characters with different experiences from themselves, are they trying to educate, or just entertain? If they're being disingenuine, writing with authority they don't have, or not treating a serious topic with appropriate gravity, it's more likely that the characters they write will have poor representation.
The second point to consider is what we as readers lose when we make decisions about who can write what. If no one's allowed to write minority characters except members of that minority, the amount of representation and diversity in any person's writing would drastically decrease. Take Song of Achilles, which is a tragic love story about Achilles and Patroclus written by Madeline Miller, who is definitively not a gay man. I have heard countless positive reviews from the queer community about this book. I have also heard criticism that its sexual themes are written in a fetishizing way. But if Miller had chosen not to write the book on the basis that she's not a queer man, literature would be lacking a very significant artifact of queer representation. Would that have been worth it?
To close out this post I'll share with you two experiences I had in my creative writing class. The first came about when we read a short story about a woman in an abusive relationship. In our class analysis, we agreed that it was very well written and excellent representation of the situation that some women experience. Then one of my classmates said they didn't think the author should have written it on account of him being a man. That classmate didn't have any criticisms about the content, only about the identity of the author.
Later in the class my friend, who is a straight white male, confessed that he was worried about writing a female character for his upcoming story. He admitted that he wasn't good at writing female characters and he was afraid that our classmates would judge him if he tried. And it's true, he was pretty bad at writing female characters, but he would never get better if he didn't start. And it seemed a damn shame that he was limiting himself to writing about a mere 50% of the population purely on account of misplaced social backlash.
So how do we keep writers accountable for good representation while not stifling their opportunities to learn and grow? What's the solution? I'll tell you what it isn't: the solution is not to try and control which experiences authors are allowed to write about. But that doesn't mean we can't hold authors accountable for what they do write. No work exists in a vacuum. The reason why it's appropriate for schools to teach Huckleberry Finn isn't because teachers claim death of the author, it's because they teach the historical context of the time period in which it was written and don't make excuses for Mark Twain. It's important to be able to criticize media while still being able to enjoy it.
The solution is to understand that there is no black and white. Society is complex and context changes things. One person's perfect representation is completely unrelatable to another. But writers, don't despair! There are things you can do to get more realistic representation in your writing.
Do your research. Listen to real people with those experiences, and have an open mind when you do it. Try to get accounts from various different sources so you can get a handle on how the experience can vary from person to person; this will help you figure out how unique you can make your character's experience without making it unrealistic. Getting a sensitivity reader may be a good idea. Accept criticisms with grace; they're not a judgement of your character. Consider the implications of what you're writing: are you falling back on steriotypes? What are you saying about your characters? Finally, have a heart. If you're coming from a place of good faith, your readers will be able to tell.
Happy writing.