Brief twitter skirmish involving Santino Hassell participants, Kindle Unlimited authors, and trad publishing members
Background
A group of Twitter users most notorious for driving the Santino Hassell debacle have kept active in the wank-realm of publishing. After #CopyPasteKris erupted, there’s been many discussions among industry members over Amazon’s different methods of selling books. One such discussion drew the attention of the Santino Hassell group.
Setting
Nick Mamatas, a Very Online tweeter and author, posted a negative reaction towards “20booksto50k,” a group that promotes writing 20 books in a year and netting 50,000 dollars (and, apparently supported cockygate’s, Faleena Thompkins).
Tanya Chris, a romance author, responds with her opinion.
A debate of Kindle Unlimited’s merits follows, with Nick Mamatas using abrasive language to forward his points. He is against KU while Tanya is for KU.
A brief break down of Kindle Unlimited: Authors agree to exclusively offering their work for Amazon’s subscription service and receive a certain amount of money with each page of their book read after the reader has passed a certain marker. Research has shown that Amazon’s monopoly on book selling has driven down author income.
Time For Quote Tweets
Mamatas then quote tweets Tanya Chris, which is when third author MK joins the discussion.
Their discussion, while heated, has no markers of trolling. They continue the debate over Kindle Unlimited.
But, this is when things really start to get interesting.
Catalyst
Let’s break this tweet down:
Kindle Unlimited users pay a base rate to read an unlimited amount of books.
Authors are paid per page view BUT how much they’re paid per page changes month to month based on Amazon’s ‘global fund’
MK doesn’t like this.
At this point, the conversation branches out in several directions, and new players (well, old to those who pay attention) join in. At the point of this post being written, all tweets are still available. However, here we’re going to focus on a core group of tweeters.
Angela reads books and tweets. She first appears in this discussion about publishing between authors by asking MK where her books can be found on Goodreads. She was also a primary member of Santino Hassell’s exposure and takedown.
When MK does not respond, Angela continues by tagging MK’s literary agent.
Others from Angela’s sphere join, including Samantha Derr — a co-owner of Less Than Three Press.
(Side-note: typically, in the publishing industry, authors are paid once for an anthology and don’t have immediate control over where they are published.)
More Quote Tweeting
Concurrently, Angela is also having a quote tweet conversation with Nick Mamatas.
As seen above, Angela replies with a screenshot of Nick’s book on Goodreads. Nick replies by encouraging Angela to go leave a review:
Here, readers, is where we face an interesting response from Angela. Let’s break it down.
She informs Nick that Goodreads shelves are not reviews
She declares she has a right to do so
The conversation drags on a bit, but there are some fascinating moments. Most interestingly, Angela starts introducing some new accusations against Nick Mamatas.
Accusation: Nick Mamatas is trying to get his followers to attack Angela.
Accusation: Declares Nick called her a troll for disagreeing with him. [This claim can be proven false by reviewing previous tweets.] However, Mamatas participates in some trolling of his own by saying “homophobe” to a gif Angela sent that said “butthurt.”
Accusation: Veiled, but has the implication that Mamatas is misogynistic.
Well, then.
As seen above, Angela uses the hallmark techniques of trolls— misdirection, weird accusations, and ignoring actual responses.
To recap: Mamatas, Tanya Chris, and MK were discussing the merits of Kindle Unlimited from the perspective of authors. Yes, the language was abrasive. But it was not abusive.
Angela tried to introduce real world harm to MK by tagging her agent and stated it was to ‘show him how she treats her peers.’
Below is Nick’s final quote tweet because Angela did not respond.
(And, we might add, where Angela introduced another accusation, this time implying harassment of a woman of color.)
Perhaps she found him a harder target than she could have predicted? Mamata appeared hard to fluster and rattle, so there may have come a point when the effort felt wasted.
However, her conversation with MK produced much more satisfying dividends.
Back in the Ring
To put it bluntly, the “conversation” between MK and Angela devolved almost immediately. A sampling:
Winding Down
Of note - Angela’s group of twitter friends started tweeting at MK. One example:
Finally Angela bows out with this note:
Addendum
The crew lobbed a second volley at Nick Mamatas after the writing of this post. More trolling tactics were used, including muddying the timeline of events and portraying Nick’s responses to their tweets as harassment.
To expand further: They provoke people and then blame and mock them for responding.
Angela and her friends push to make the reader a “protected class” while the author is the villain. If an author voices dissatisfaction with how KU operates, it’s an attack on readers and not a stand for valuing their work higher than what Amazon dictates.
As of now, multiple individuals in Angela’s sphere have locked down their Twitter accounts. Is this the calm before a storm?
poetry-protest-pornography replied to your post: rebecca2525 replied to your post “Cocky as all...
Search twitter for the tag #cockycockers! There’s a call for romance stories featuring cocker spaniels for an anthology! I am 100% writing something for it!
Signal boost! We look forward to seeing this anthology come to life.
This is frankly one of the weirdest thing we’ve seen in publishing wank. It’s not quite on par with His Wife A Horse and Snapewives but it’s a beauty.
An author by the name of Faleena Hopkins has been sending out cease and desist to any author that has used the word ‘cocky’ in their book titles. Why? Apparently she has trademarked the word.
Yeah, so that’s a thing.
An example of the letter can be found here (x).
In a twist, the font Faleena uses for her Cocky Series was from someone who had not given his permission for her to trademark a design using the font.
People call Faleena out, and she responds with a statement. Basically, she’s not asking for much, just for the author to change the title and redo the cover and ensure all distributors are using the new cover. This is so no one tries to ride on her coattail. No biggie.
Shockingly, everyone takes the piss.
A lawyer weighs in. In essence, she doesn’t have any basis for the legal action she’s threatening.
A cocky is a cockatoo so pictures like these are also floating around in the tag:
Some authors have already done what Faleena wants. The RWA is now getting involved, apparently, as per this article.
A parody novel is already out, because God bless romance writers.
As Courtney Milan points out here, the owner of the font Faleena uses for her series could ask Amazon to take down covers of Faleena’s work as it is an infringement of his copyright.
Faleen continues to miss the point. There is now a petition to cancel the trademark.
There are some amazing summary articles and thoughtpieces out there such as The Digital Reader and Pajiba and Jenny Trout. Hashtags to search on twitter include: #cockygate, #cockyblock #byefaleena
Megan Derr is the co-owner of Less Than Three Press, an indie LGBTQ publishing house--and she’s also their most prolific author. Before LT3’s founding, Megan posted her slash fiction on LiveJournal and Fictionpress, epicenters of older wank that unfortunately went unrecorded.
Over the years, Megan has been embroiled in several dramas, none of which impeded LT3’s growth. When juxtaposed with similar controversies, this lack of fallout becomes curious.
Was she just Not That Bad, comparatively? Did people not care? Or had Megan's navigation of the drama de-escalate any chance at a larger blow up? We investigate.
Why does Megan matter?
As visible co-owner of a successful and award-winning LGBTQ press, Megan is officially a gatekeeper. Her personal opinions matter and her voice reflects on her business… theoretically. Of course, in the past Megan has implied she was a martyr for the community, working so hard for them, whilst neatly minimising that her profit also comes from that same community
Nonetheless, she has a direct hand in what gets published, which is her right as co-owner. LT3 proactively publishes trans, bi, ace, and other less-exposed areas of the queer spectrum.
While this is obviously wonderful in a lot of ways, LT3's prominence in this particular publishing sphere becomes concerning when you realize that Megan Derr's personal beliefs and ethics drive the majority of the publishing decisions, and thus, what representation is produced. Given her avowed dislike of #OwnVoices (which will be expanded upon further in this report) and her insistence that the subject of a genre is not the audience for that genre, the implications are troubling.
We posit that Megan skirts the line of actionable offences, but works to "poison the well" or create a toxic environment. This is more ephemeral than other infamous instances of wank, but it is a long-running pattern of behavior with real consequences for both individuals and the community as a whole.
Social Media Climate
Recently, we compiled reports on Santino Hassell and Riptide Press, the latter of whom is still attracting attention for bad decisions.
Social media is primed for another explosion. The match was lit when the Bi Book Award finalists were announced and several Twitter users took umbrage with the two competing publishers of the year: Riptide Publishing and Less Than Three Press.
The current call out
Twitter user BrookieRayWrite reacted to the Bi Award announcement with a threaded post, which included screenshots of Megan's past behaviour. They referenced two incidents: Megan’s dislike of #OwnVoices—a movement in publishing to uplift authentic minority experiences so that people could find content they felt connected to—and her blog post declaring M/M is for women.
However, this was not the first time someone tried to call out Megan. Heidi Belleau, an author LGBTQ romance, posted a comprehensive thread in 2016.
The rest of which, can be found here.
Nothing came from this Twitter call out. But now Heidi has resurfaced with her complaints about Megan, and with her comes an old wank standby to defend Megan--Aleksandr Voinov.
Yep. He called her crazy. In case you missed it, Heidi Belleau takes on this moniker to analyze its silencing and delegitimizing function. In short, Voinov is not only being ableist, he is actively working to create a hostile landscape to voices critical of Megan Derr.
Moments of Note
“No Gay Aces”
In an incident that went unrecorded, but that we witnessed at the time, an author published a book with a character who identified as “gay ace.” Incensed, Megan declared that there was no such thing. This conflict is worthy of note because its exemplifies Megan’s confidence in her own rightness and her refusal to ever back down from a position, a character trait that shines through in following events.
However, perhaps it also showcases Megan’s reaction when she knows she’s incorrect—as of now, the conflict seems to have been scrubbed from GoodReads. We hesitate to include unsupported facts, but feel it is important in Megan Derr's case to establish her pattern of behavior, in order to examine her tactics and strategy.
“Rose Lemberg”
At the height of #OwnVoices, Megan was becoming increasingly irritated over what she interpreted as a movement to outlaw people writing outside of their identity. She replied to a Tweet by Rose Lemberg—
Apparently Megan needed a reaction, because she Tweeted at Rose twice.
Megan's interpretation of “you are not doing us a favor,” as “don’t do this,” has the unfortunate implication that she believes writing outside of her identity is doing someone a favor.
When Rose removed themself from the conversation, Megan reacted thusly:
She steamrolls over Rose's "no spoons" comment, a clear signal in the disabled community that further engagement would be literally damaging to the respondent. The fact that she ignores that signal is incredibly ableist—and if she's ignorant about that, it just shows how unprepared she is to write disabled characters, thus proving Rose's point.
After confronting Rose, and not getting the response she wanted, Megan unfollowed.
Megan apologized for misgendering Rose, and we do not believe she would intentionally misgender someone. However, it does illustrate her "shoot first" nature.
“M/M Is for Women”
Turnabout is fair play, in a sense, because Megan had her own opportunity to open a discussion and then immediately block responses to it.
Megan lobbed quite the cannonball across the community’s bow with this fascinating retort against white cis gay men, prompted by a gay man who had called out the M/M genre for its fetishism of its subjects. Out of all her altercations, this one may be the most ill-advised (in a PR sense). It is also one where she found her audience not only unreceptive, but actively accusatory.
Whatever her point may have been, Megan said M/M wasn’t for gay men. Yes, Yaoi, BL, and slash fic was, on the surface level, fueled initially by a female audience. Yes, they fall under different genre conventions than the works of EM Forster and other literary authors. But there’s something undeniably and offensively entitled about declaring ownership of a genre over the actual subject of that genre.
When Megan felt that people were ignoring her reasoning unfairly, she shut down comments.
Friend/Colleague Exodus
If one were to casually take note of the comings and goings of Megan’s friends and colleagues, they may notice a gradual change in the cast of characters. The common denominator of this situation, of course, is Megan. There is a track record of Megan and her sister, Sam, saying oddly misguided and downright offensive comments to their authors, usually trans authors, at which point the relationship is ended and the author quietly moves on.
Water off a duck’s back
People in Megan’s sphere have probably noted that, controversy after controversy, nothing sticks. Even after years of wanky drama all throughout M/M’s history, with the inevitable apologies and flounces from the authors and readers at the center of each crisis, Megan keeps on trucking. The question is, what makes her different?
Leaving the realm of screenshots and facts, there’s only theory to go on. For instance, maybe the conflicts Megan faces are small enough, and far enough apart, that no one can exactly put into words why they think she should be called out. Or perhaps the people who dislike her realize some hypocrisy would come with accusing her of something. (Those in glass houses, etc.)
From a more practical angle, she almost never apologizes. Typically, the subjects of wank quibble, apologize several times, and release statements. Megan usually just posts a few accusatory tweets and then moves on after blocking anyone who could possibly question her worldview.
As evidenced by the more recent wanks, there is generally tangible evidence of harm with multiple victims stepping forward to detail their abuse. However, this takes years and momentum for this to occur. We know that Megan has her share of victims as well, and we know that they have experienced mental and emotional harm that has had real impact on their ability to work. Yet if people were to inspect why they don’t like her, would they only find several blog posts and Tweets that are abrasive and tone-deaf?
Her Modus Operandi has always been to aggressively confront someone she disagrees with (ex. Rose Lemberg) and then flounce/block when she’s challenged. Mirroring that, when someone confronts or disagrees with her, she immediately shuts down discussion (ex. M/M is for Women blog post).
As the co-owner of LT3, she also partly controls the narrative of indie LGBTQ publishing. Her choices and attitude influence the community tone and acceptable in-group culture, and, arguably, add toxicity. However, to pin down specific instances (and therefore confront and address them), is incredibly difficult—which is possibly why every call out thus far has dwindled without fanfare.
In Summation
The overarching, and fascinating, truth about Megan is sometimes she makes sense. Unfortunately, she also says a lot of bullshit. This may come from a lack of ability to grasp nuance.
Does #OwnVoices put pressure on people to out their life circumstances for the sake of credibility? Probably, yes. But others feel confident in self-reporting, wanting their voices out there for others to hear them. Do people mispronounce white people’s names? Yes. But that doesn’t negate the racist undertones and microaggressions minorities face when people mock their names. These, among other situations, are odd hills Megan chooses to die on seemingly because she doesn’t want to understand them.
The current call out is in reaction to the Bi Awards. Certain authors have stepped forward to Tweet their protest of LT3's nomination. They argue that Megan, as the owner of LT3, has promoted an environment that does harm to bi voices, and they feel it is inappropriate for her to be celebrated in this specific context.
The situation is still developing. From here, we can see only two branching paths. Either those running the Bi Awards rescind LT3's nomination, or they do not.
But this event is dredging up old salt. As with any wank, one is left wondering what the conclusion should be; Exile? Apology? Loss of sales? What does a successful call out look like? Megan is a real person with a wife and a business that she has worked hard to develop. She publishes minority representation because she believes in that effort.
But her belief does not exculpate her.
She has managed to repeatedly dodge accountability. Whether this is through calculated tactics or a magical formula she managed to stumble upon doesn't change the fact that she has actively contributed to making the community hostile to marginalized people. It doesn't change the fact that her status as a major publisher among LGBTQIA online presses shields her, especially as those who would ordinarily call her out for bad behavior must hesitate and consider the economic ramifications of doing so.
Now, to guess what Megan might pull from this to deflect responding to the salient points? Probably that we mentioned her mom voted for Trump.
Ais (of In the Company of Shadows fame) has made a statement regarding what she knew and didn’t know about Santino Hassell on her tumblr and patreon.
In summary, she has always thought Sonny was an individual, and only knew Mike and Alicia as Sonny’s housemates/friends. She has never met Sonny in person. The statement is a short one and links to a PDF file with a much longer and detailed explanation of her relationship with Sonny. In the longer statement, she also talks about Noah and what she remembers of him.
How long has this persona of Santino H. been going on? Did this actually last a good amount of years?
As the ayamaxwell account was started in 2001, at least as far back as that. Then 2006 is when the first chapter of ICoS was posted and when Sonny started gaining some measure of fame. And 2011 is when Sonny first published their first solo work.
Ok. I really hope you will respond because I am still lost and a lot of people have directed me here for answers. People have been move on patreon, demanding that subscribers drop SH, and that's how I finally notice that something was up. The narrative keeps changing and getting more outrageous everyday. Publishers are dropping SH like dominoes. I just want to know has this been going on from ICoS days? I feel like I have been living in a bubble.... I love his stories but this is crazy :(
Hey, it’s definitely a difficult thing to read through and comprehend. What you're feeling now is something a lot of people are also feeling. You're not alone.
To answer your question, it does appear that Santino Hassell has been manipulating and abusing people since their early ICoS days.Ais has stated on her patreon (in this public post) that she will be making a statement soon.
After the last post, we are back to our usual programming. It’s short and sweet today.
Summary: More apologies. Berkley Romance dumps Sonny. We go from calls to boycott to calls to retract your work from Riptide or else. Xen X Cole appears to be an excellent human being.
Berkley Romance severs (x) their connection with Sonny. So far, there is no mention of what they plan to do with the books they have already published.
Then Eddie Witt posts this. For those of you keeping score, I think this is the "social experiment" square on the bingo card. Megan Erickson makes another apology (x). It appears she has learned from her past mistake, somewhat. (Bad apology bingo for anyone interested in playing along.)
A separate GR thread has been established for the Sarah Lyons and Riptide aspects of this mess. Rachel Haimowitz (the publisher at Riptide) makes a non-apology (x) (we're not even sure the word apology applies here), and Xen calls her out. Riptide then goes dark.
Santino Hassell makes yet another apology (x) (and deletes their first one). Missing is any mention of the bullying, false cancer claims, catfishing, etc. They apologise for "messing up" and being an asshole and that all the lies were the result of….actually it's very hard to know.
Those "bad" and "good" author lists people were making? We now have demands that authors either leave (x) Riptide or be labelled (x) as part of the problem. Some people point (x) out the issues (x) with that tactic (x).
If nothing else, we hope people reading this will leave the understanding that Xen X Cole is an articulate motherfucker and basically wins the internet.
May I ask why the issues with Santino Hassel and Sarah Lyons are referred to as “wank”? It feels like that term downplays the abuse that’s occurred. Are there appropriate alternatives?
We began Saltminers as an homage to fandom_wank of old, which has now gone defunct. The first post’s style reflects this history. Also, at the time we released the first post, the facts were still emerging. Some of us were still convinced it was all an elaborate hoax or conspiracy. Later posts reflected our deeper understanding of the damage SH did, but we have chosen not to edit our first post for tone as we believe to do so would be disingenuous. Finally, ‘wank’ is a common search term, and reaches the largest audience, as well as making it easier for people to blacklist.
Disclaimer: We are not in the industry at any level, though many of us are avid read of the MM romance genre since its early days.
In light of recent scandals in the MM romance genre and the toxic reputation the community has gained it’s time to talk about the all but absent professional boundary between content providers and consumers. It’s something that has been present in the genre since the beginning.
Many early authors published online for free for years, even decades. In the days of LJ communities, the line dividing fan from author was very thin. As they began to publish for pay, authors built a brand out of their personalities to draw a larger audience. These authors also did not have the benefit of agents or publishers to inform them of appropriate author behaviour online.
As a result of this early history, authors and readers now commonly interact on a friendly personal level. This solidarity is a definite selling feature of the genre. Yet that very transparency between author and reader can lead to an exploitative dynamic.
It can lead to authors publicly humiliating reviewers. It can lead to reviewers giving undeservedly low ratings. It fosters inner circles versus outer circles. It allows authors to publicly air their grievances with others in the industry. It empowers fans to attack others on their author's behalf. Publishers, agents, and editors of the genre are complicit in this.
This is not to say an interactive relationship is inherently unethical. Most authors maintain healthy relationships with their readers. But the repetition of similar SH cases tells us that something about our community attracts this breed of predator. It is not really possible to prevent another SH as these predators are master manipulators. It is possible to change our environment to make it more difficult for the next SH, and to detect the next SH earlier at lesser cost to the future victims. The question becomes, how do we preserve the positives of our genre’s roots while inhibiting the ability of bad faith actors to manipulate and exploit?
The current state of affairs has consumer confidence at a low. Already, we see people dividing authors and reviewers into "good" and "bad" based on perceived moral virtue, informed by how they respond to the current situation. The problems with this approach are many and varied, not the least of which being further abuse and questions of sincerity. Compounding the matter is that some readers still believe in the myth that SH misrepresented themselves to be, and continue to attack others on SH’s behalf. None of this alters the root factors that allowed SH to flourish.
The community needs to change. An option is to adopt the code of conduct used by many other content providers. For an author, this means not publicly engaging with a bad review. It means not directing abuse at others in the community, and encouraging fans to do the same. This is even more important for publishers, editors, and agents, because they are also representing their company. In turn, fans need to reconsider the wisdom of attacking others to support an author. They should also understand that they are only entitled to what an author chooses to reveal. However, once that information is revealed, the author has given implicit permission for the consumer to ask further questions or discuss the subject.
MM genre’s environment of cliques was a direct contributor to the long-term exploitation SH enacted upon countless victims. Further, this environment prevented victims’ stories from being believed for far too long. Finally, it made it possible for SH to launch a near-successful counterattack against their detractors.
We have seen SH face the consequences of being dropped by their publishers and have their books refunded en masse. We have also seen readers turn against other industry professionals for their bad faith actions, and consumer confidence drop. To their credit, some of those in the wrong have worked to rectify themselves in various ways. In the end, this storm will blow over one way or another. Yet knowing that this is just another iteration in a long line of hauntingly similar stories, we acknowledge that something is broken here.
Well, things certainly didn't stay settled for long did it? On the one hand, we're moving past the SH debacle, healing is happening, and so on. On the other hand, we now have Riptide Publishing and Sarah Lyons under fire.
And so once more unto the breach…
Summary: Sarah Lyons resigns from Riptide Publishing amidst accusations of inappropriate conduct (sharing unwanted sexual information, sexual coercion, and gaslighting). Along with this are stories of Riptide's less than stellar approach to race and intersectionality.
Let us start with the fact Sarah Lyons and Riptide Publishing have parted ways (x). You might remember Sarah Lyons from the SH shitshow as the editor accused of inappropriate sexual conduct. Well, in addition to being a sexual predator, she is also accused of using and abusing relationships with others in the publishing industry. Most of the damning evidence can be found here (x). And this tweet is very telling.
In short, Sarah Lyons dangled the possibility of a job and contract over the head of an author in order to exploit him, sent him incredibly inappropriate texts (like this one), and violated all professional boundaries. This article also details interactions with Riptide in which the publisher questioned if the protagonist’'s ethnicity should be mentioned in the blurb in case it turned readers off. There is also an email from Sarah Lyons stating that although novels with PoCs will be accepted, PoC models/representation will not be put on the covers. Further accusations of Sarah Lyons exploiting the author for unpaid sensitivity consulting will surprise no one.
Riptide also comes under scrutiny. In the past, Riptide has been involved in some very unsavoury scandals. For example, creating a website that glorifies slavery. This was part of the promotion for their slave-fic series. After being called out, Riptide apologised and pulled down the site. In their own words, "the idea of the immersive website was to heighten a reader’s experience of the oppression of slavery by showcasing the horrifying reality of it." Then there is the "Dark Chocolate Love Monkey" incident (Sarah Lyons was involved in that one, too).
There are some excellent Twitter threads emerging, one of which being this one. And this one from KJ Charles (though this one was in regards to SH, it seemed relevant here). And this tweet. Courtney Milan calls out Riptide.
Of interest is this infographic from The Ripped Bodice detailing the state of racial diversity in romance publishing.
Hi. You have me (KJ Charles) listed on your Santino Hassell post part 2 as part of his inner circle. This isn't the case. I am not a co-writer of his, had maybe two brief Twitter conversations with him ever, wasn't a defender, and have never had any private or professional dealings with him. I don't know how the misunderstanding arose, possibly because he was with my agent before she sacked him, but I'd be very grateful if you could amend that. Thanks!
Damn, sorry about that. We’ll fix it up as soon as possible. Thank you for letting us know. We apologise again for the misunderstanding and misrepresentation.
cryptothelematrix replied to your post “The Santino Hassell Debacle”
Santino Hassell sounds like an asshole and a complete piece of work but will people please stop saying that people with liver cancer can't get transplants? It's not true. There are very specific criteria (either the Milan criteria or the UCSF criteria) for who's eligible to get one, but it does happen and I don't want people who legit have cancer to be misinformed.
I saw that Santino Hassell has updated his/her Patreon yet again. Any idea what they said?
I believe this tweet should answer the question. And this screen cap. Basically the apology link and prev update got locked to $100 dollr tier. And the other update seems to be about the changes to the tiers.
I'm an old fandom biddy (and, interestingly, one of those few who is acquainted with Charlotte Lennox's real identity and I think briefly mentioned in that write up) and I wanted to say how extremely typical this entire thing is. There is something that compels people like this to impersonate and take on identities that give them that "edge" in the game of vying for attention; in fandom, unfortunately, that edge seems to come most effectively via pretending to be a cis man.
Very very true. I think it does depend on the genre/fandom, however. In M/F romance genre or fandom, being a woman is the preferred identity. Because this is MM, being a queer cis man was the perfect identity to take up. Manipulators gonna manipulate one way or another, but they sure use the same playbook.
