[KittenInABox]

> s a writer myself, I find the concept of 'sensitivity readers' condescending, troubling and downright dangerous.

Also a writer myself, I find 'sensitivity readers' just another tool in the toolbox. I wouldn't find it appropriate to have a generic one, but if I'm, say, depicting an addict I might want to consult someone who either has lived experiences with addiction or someone who is an expert on addicts, so that I'm not unintentionally spreading bullshit tropes. A basic "am I the asshole" sort of check.

[dbspin]

What you're describing already existed. It's the role of a researcher or fact checker. A sensitivity reader explicitly serves a different function. Not checking for accuracy but perceived offensiveness. This is an ever expanding rubric and one that (for the 'sensitivity reader' like the bureaucrat), can only fail catastrophically in one direction. The incentive is not to ensure accuracy, it's to avoid controversy.

The phrase 'bullshit tropes', so reminiscent of 'piece of shit people' is telling here.

[KittenInABox]

I mean I can factually portray a spiral into addiction pretty accurately but I would rather not do so in an asshole manner :)