hostility aside, a writer's inability to write outside of their personal traits(race, religion, sexual preference, etc.) is indicative of a bad writer.
A 'real' writer understands what they are saying and how to say it.
By saying things "you don't understand, you're white, male, straight, etc." is, incidentally, bringing the writer's merit into question, the artist who has set out to establish these empathetic connections between social rifts.
When I read A Single Man I, a straight guy, understand the crippling solitude, the intimacy, and the lust felt by the homosexual protagonist because the book captured it properly.
When I read Stoner I, a black guy, empathize with Stoner's detachment, I feel the blurred line between stoicism and emotional underdevelopment, because Stoner was written with human sentiments, not racial tropes
When I read Mrs. Dalloway I, a straight male, empathize heavily with the existential turbulence of a bisexual woman married to a male while in love with a female. Because it's fucking Virginia Woolf and she cuts through every layer of "identity" bullshit.
and my favorite book about a black slave, Octavian Nothing, was written, brilliantly, by a white guy.
A person's """"identity""" should say very little about their art, the reader is not 100% accountable for how they feel about what they read.
kek