Sometimes I'll write an article on [a][s] that deals issues like with sexuality or gender. Here's my process (which is an edited version of my response/apology to a commenter - http://adjectivespecies.com/2014/12/08/d-girls-and-c-boys-troublesome-terms-in-furry-porn/ ):
Firstly, I do bunch of background reading to understand the perspective of the group in question, and of researchers in the field.
Quite a few of my articles, especially those on political issues, come about that way. I’ve written about trans people, genderqueer people, women, zoophilies, babyfurs – younameit. I am none of these things. I come at these topics with curiosity – my approach is usually to learn about the topic at hand, and then write as if I were talking to myself before I did the research.
I suspect that this approach makes it seem like I am trying to express a political agenda of extreme-tolerance, which is not the case. However it would be fair to say that, once I’ve done the research, more often than not I learn that the minority perspective is a valid one.
Surprisingly regularly, my articles end up as the subject of derision on places like Reddit, predictably on subreddits largely dedicated towards complaining about minority groups. I’m sure you can imagine the sort of discussion that takes place. My biggest problem is that people don’t engage always with the argument; they often look to attack me personally. I’m okay with that – I’m not a vulnerable person, especially compared with the minorities who are usually the targets of such attacks – but it bothers me that I’ve spent all this time learning about an issue, and that people who care about it enough to get angry don’t take the time to think about the reasoning behind it.