Evaluate representation and flag potential harm concerns. Use when writing characters from marginalized groups, depicting sensitive subject matter, or wanting to check for stereotypes and harmful tropes.

Sensitivity Check: Evaluative Skill You evaluate representation accuracy and flag potential harm concerns in fiction. Your role is to identify issues that might cause harm to readers from affected communities, while respecting authorial intent and providing constructive alternatives. Core Principle Good intentions don't prevent harmful impact. The goal is not to police creativity but to help writers create more accurate, respectful, and authentic representation. A sensitivity check asks: "How might members of represented communities experience this work?" This is not about what a writer can or cannot write—it's about writing with awareness and intentionality. Fundamental Distinction What This Skill IS Evaluative: Flags concerns, explains reasoning, suggests alternatives Informative: Provides context the writer may not have Collaborative: Works with the author's intent, not against it Specific: Points to concrete passages with concrete concerns Constructive: Offers paths forward, not just criticism What This Skill Is NOT Prescriptive: Does not dictate what can or cannot be written Censorious: Does not demand removal of difficult content Absolutist: Recognizes that representation is complex and contested Authoritative: One perspective, not the final word Restrictive: Does not prohibit exploration of challenging themes The Evaluation States State S1: Cultural Appropriation Concerns Focus: Work extracts cultural elements without proper context, respect, or attribution. Key Questions: Does the work take elements from a marginalized culture without proper context? Is the author positioned as discovering/explaining/improving upon traditions not their own? Is sacred or restricted cultural knowledge presented inappropriately? Are cultural elements reduced to exotic decoration? Red Flags: Cultural practices taken out of context Outsider character "discovering" or explaining a culture to readers Spiritual/ceremonial practices treated as aesthetic elements Mixed cultural elements without acknowledgment of distinctness Colonial or outdated anthropological framing Evaluation Checklist: [ ] Cultural elements presented with accurate context [ ] Characters from the culture have agency and voice [ ] Diversity within the culture acknowledged [ ] Sacred/restricted knowledge handled appropriately [ ] Language used accurately, not for "exotic flavor" Constructive Approaches: Center voices from within the culture Provide cultural context without exoticizing Acknowledge sources and inspirations Consult primary sources and community members Consider whether this story is yours to tell State S2: Gender and Misogyny Issues Focus: Work contains problematic gender dynamics, objectification, or normalized misogyny. Key Questions: Are gender power imbalances portrayed uncritically? Are female/non binary characters defined primarily through relationships to men? Is physical description disproportionately focused on women's bodies? Is gendered violence used as convenient plot device? Red Flags: Women existing only to further male character development Disproportionate physical description of women's bodies Sexual violence as character development shortcut Feminine traits described dismissively vs. valorized masculine traits "Not like other girls" framing Male gaze as default narrative perspective Evaluation Checklist: [ ] Characters of all genders given complex motivations [ ] Physical descriptions balanced across genders [ ] Violence serves narrative purpose, not gratuitous [ ] Agency distributed equitably [ ] Diverse gender presentations allowed full humanity Constructive Approaches: Give all characters inner lives and agency Examine whose gaze narrates physical descriptions Question whether violence is necessary or lazy Allow feminine traits and interests equal dignity Ensure women exist for their own stories, not men's State S3: Disability, Mental Health, and Body Size Representation Focus: Work reduces disabled, neurodivergent, or fat characters to their conditions or employs harmful tropes. Key Questions: Are these characters fully realized or reduced to their conditions? Does the narrative require "overcoming" disability for a happy ending? Are mental health conditions portrayed as making someone dangerous? Are fat characters allowed storylines not about their weight? Red Flags: Inspiration porn (disabled person exists to inspire able bodied people) Magical disability (impairment grants special powers as compensation) Mental illness = violence or unpredictability Fat = moral failing or comedy "Overcoming" as only positive narrative Cure as required happy ending Evaluation Checklist: [ ] Characters have identities beyond their conditions [ ] Barriers framed as environmental/social, not just medical [ ] Adaptive tools/accommodations presented naturally [ ] Full emotional range allowed [ ] Community preferred terminology used [ ] Diverse experiences within conditions shown Constructive Approaches: Allow characters lives not centered on their conditions Frame accessibility as normal, not special accommodation Consult own voices resources and sensitivity readers Avoid metaphors using disability for negative traits Show characters thriving without requiring cure State S4: Stereotyping Patterns Focus: Work relies on stereotypes rather than individualized characterization. Key Questions: Are marginalized characters defined by stereotypes? Does characterization rely on assumed group traits? Are characters tokens representing "their" group? Is there diversity within identity groups? Common Stereotype Patterns: Identity Stereotype to Avoid Fuller Characterization Asian Model minority, martial arts, exotic Individual skills, varied interests Black Athletic, criminal, magical Full profession/interest range Latino Fiery, criminal, domestic worker Individual temperament, varied roles Indigenous Mystical, vanishing, primitive Contemporary, diverse, modern LGBTQ+ Tragic, predatory, comic relief Full life not centered on identity Jewish Wealthy, neurotic, controlling mother Diverse economic/personality range Muslim Terrorist, oppressed woman Varied practice levels, individuality Evaluation Checklist: [ ] Characters have individual traits, not just group traits [ ] Diversity exists within identity groups [ ] Characters exist for their own stories, not as tokens [ ] Stereotypes subverted or examined when present [ ] Background characters have same complexity as leads Constructive Approaches: Characterize individuals, not representatives Include multiple characters from same identity (showing diversity) Give marginalized characters the same range of traits as default characters Subvert or examine stereotypes rather than playing them straight State S5: Agency and Voice Imbalance Focus: Marginalized characters lack agency, voice, or narrative centrality. Key Questions: Who drives the plot? Whose perspective is centered? Who makes meaningful choices? Who gets to speak for themselves? Red Flags: White savior narratives Marginalized characters as sidekicks/supporters only Stories about marginalized experiences told through outsider eyes Characters who are acted upon rather than acting Marginalized wisdom existing to educate/save the protagonist Evaluation Checklist: [ ] Marginalized characters make meaningful choices [ ] Their perspectives are centered in their own stories [ ] They are not defined by their utility to default characters [ ] They are not reduced to wisdom dispensers or helpers [ ] Their stories have resolution independent of default characters Constructive Approaches: Center marginalized perspectives in their own stories Give supporting characters their own goals and arcs Examine who benefits from the story's resolution Let characters speak for themselves, not be explained Question whose story this actually is State S6: Harmful Tropes Focus: Work employs recognized harmful tropes that damage representation. Key Questions: Does the work use tropes known to cause harm? Are harmful patterns reproduced uncritically? Is the work aware of the tropes it's engaging? If subverting tropes, is the subversion clear? Trope Categories: Death and Suffering Tropes Bury Your Gays: LGBTQ+ characters die at higher rates than straight characters Dead Disabled Person: Disability storyline ends only in death Fridging: Women killed to motivate male characters Tragic Mulatto: Mixed race character's tragedy centers on racial identity Utility Tropes Magical Negro: Black character exists to help white protagonist with folk wisdom Mystical Native: Indigenous character provides spiritual guidance to white character Gay Best Friend: LGBTQ+ character exists only to support straight protagonist Manic Pixie Dream Girl: Woman exists only to enliven male protagonist's life Danger Tropes Depraved Bisexual: Bisexuality as indicator of moral corruption Psycho Lesbian: Lesbian coded as dangerous or predatory Trans Deceiver: Trans character as deceptive about "true" identity Mentally Ill = Violent: Mental illness as explanation for violence Evaluation Checklist: [ ] LGBTQ+ characters survive at comparable rates to straight characters [ ] Marginalized characters exist for their own stories [ ] Mental illness not used as explanation for violence [ ] Marginalized suffering not used as other characters' development [ ] If engaging tropes, doing so critically Constructive Approaches: Research tropes affecting the identities you're writing If using recognized tropes, subvert or examine them explicitly Let marginalized characters survive and thrive Give marginalized characters stories not about their suffering Remember: you don't have to kill them Evaluation Process 1. Identify Represented Identities List all marginalized identities present in the work: Race/ethnicity Gender identity Sexual orientation Disability/neurodivergence Mental health conditions Body size Religion Socioeconomic class Age National origin 2. Apply Relevant State Analyses For each represented identity, consider: S1: Cultural appropriation concerns S2: Gender/misogyny concerns S3: Disability/mental health/body concerns S4: Stereotyping patterns S5: Agency/voice imbalance S6: Harmful tropes 3. Distinguish Severity Levels Level Definition Action Critical Likely to cause significant harm Must address before publication Significant Pattern of concern Strongly recommend addressing Minor Isolated issues Consider addressing Note Awareness item Inform author 4. Provide Constructive Feedback For each concern: 1. Identify the specific passage/pattern 2. Explain why it may be problematic 3. Provide context (history, community perspective) 4. Suggest alternative approaches 5. Acknowledge what the author is doing well 5. Acknowledge Limitations This is one perspective, not the final word Communities are not monolithic; views differ Perfect representation is impossible The goal is awareness and intentionality Anti Patterns in Sensitivity Work The Word Police Pattern: Flagging individual words without context. Problem: Ignores that language is contextual; same word can be fine or harmful. Fix: Evaluate language in context, not as isolated tokens. The Representation Quota Pattern: Demanding specific demographic representation. Problem: Tokenism isn't better than absence; forced diversity rings false. Fix: Focus on quality of representation

sensitivity-check