As for literature: As soon as this line of thinking gains foothold, it spreads like mold through antiquated wood. It's like a gypsy moth and the elms. Okay, enough analogies. It's not just coming after her -- it's coming after everything, and has been since the canon came into question in the '80s. Dead, white males (or living, American females) are no longer the canon. The anti-canonites are trying to reserve space for the traditionally "underrepresented," which is the new buzzword now, because world literature and its adherents suffered so badly at the obviousness of quality back in the eighties and nineties. Underrepresentation is more of a political term of art once the artistic canon couldn't see fit to put enough world exotics in over the dead Europeans.
Underrepresentation, then, takes the act to a new level by making the personal political via some sort of implied quota. I've seen it in the music ads -- asking for artwork or calls for employment, especially among the "underrepresented." It wants its place in the pantheon. It wants to reserve the literary or artistic voice to those experiences had by traditionally distinct groups for members of the distinct groups themselves. Regarding cancel culture, the buzz of underrepresentation stakes out its barrier of sanction or soft censorship for the "dispossessed," and one of its methods is cancel culture, that which tries to quiet the talented outsider voice.
So we have the movement identified ("representation"), and now its modus operandi ("cancel culture"). So we've diagnosed it here in the few paragraphs above. My opinion is that it needs to be paid no heed within the literary crit world (hint: it won't be because of the self-flagellating political baggage turned to rot in lit crit) and the artistic world writ large. That's simply my declarative two cents and nothing more.