MICHAEL FLYNN on presentist dismissals of classic SF literature:

Simply because a female character does not conform to today’s stereotypes does not mean that the portrayal is ipso facto sexist.  In reader discussions of Game of Thrones, the character Arya, a young girl, is often praised as “kickass,” while her sister Sansa is disparaged for being a wuss. But when one thinks on it more, Arya is praised and Sansa dispraised precisely in proportion as they behave like boys.  A freer thinker than some might wonder whether it is sexist to thus privilege masculinist behavior. . . .

Classic SF was not relentlessly “sexist, racist, homophobic, or antisemitic.” The most that can be said is that [its characters] were not always depicted according to modern sensibilities. What some people cringe at today was actually cutting edge progressive at the time. “Omnilingual” portrayed a woman scientist on Mars, competing with other scientists to be the first to crack the Martian language, but no one in the story makes any issue over her being female, either to praise or condemn. It’s just a fact. But Late Modern readers are likely to obsess over the women in the expedition being referred to as “girls.” As in fact my mother referred to herself and her cronies: it was just the way of speaking in the 1950s, and did not have the same connotations to the people at that time as academics now suppose by parsing the term. (There is that emphasis on words, again.)  Everyone in “Omnilingual” is smoking and drinking cocktails, too.  In a way, that seems even more jarring to Late Modern puritans.

He writes in the comments about an author using mythological creatures in her work:

Did she ensure that she used mythological creatures from an assortment of non-Western mythoi?

If she did not do so, she is guilty of Euro-centrism.
If she did, she is guilty of “appropriating” indigenous cultures.

It’s a win-win situation for the guilt industry.