You need to sign in or sign up before continuing.
Take a photo of a barcode or cover
3.81 AVERAGE
3.81 AVERAGE
This book is TERF from cover to cover. Author has no background in sociology nor psychology (but a PHD in math). Complete lack of intellectual research for this book, saying that there are only to sexes in mammals, witch biologist would absolutely disagree with her (and completely erease the existence of intersex people). Many unreliable sources in her bibliography, including christian websites and blogs. Conclusions are not fact-checked, falacious and harmfull for transgender people. Many many opinions by the author, but where are the facts?
Really not worth your time.
Really not worth your time.
tense
Glad Storygraph gives the option of zero stars as that is what this book deserves.
Helen Joyce ignores all modern research on transgender identity and healthcare, instead citing fringe pseudoscientific theories such as Blanchard’s typology of transsexualism, ‘rapid onset gender dysphoria’, and the myth that 80% of trans children ‘desist’. Her brief section of references is largely drawn from anti-trans campaign groups who use exclusionary feminism and ‘think of the children’ as covers for their transphobia. She maliciously misquotes and misrepresents her opponents and their arguments. She repeatedly calls trans women ‘males’ and deadnames and misgenders the individuals she brings up. Her arguments are based on lies, anecdotes and hypotheticals. The gender critical (aka anti trans) movement, in which Joyce is a prominent figure, is linked to alt right conspiracies, antisemitism, anti-abortion and anti-gay political movements.
When she isn’t trying to appear somewhat respectable in print, Joyce can be found online stating that she thinks trans people are all a ‘huge problem to a sane world’, even stating that it doesn’t matter whether transition has been personally beneficial for them or not. She has called for the number of trans people to be ‘reduced’.
This book is poorly argued, reactionary, transphobic screed.
Helen Joyce ignores all modern research on transgender identity and healthcare, instead citing fringe pseudoscientific theories such as Blanchard’s typology of transsexualism, ‘rapid onset gender dysphoria’, and the myth that 80% of trans children ‘desist’. Her brief section of references is largely drawn from anti-trans campaign groups who use exclusionary feminism and ‘think of the children’ as covers for their transphobia. She maliciously misquotes and misrepresents her opponents and their arguments. She repeatedly calls trans women ‘males’ and deadnames and misgenders the individuals she brings up. Her arguments are based on lies, anecdotes and hypotheticals. The gender critical (aka anti trans) movement, in which Joyce is a prominent figure, is linked to alt right conspiracies, antisemitism, anti-abortion and anti-gay political movements.
When she isn’t trying to appear somewhat respectable in print, Joyce can be found online stating that she thinks trans people are all a ‘huge problem to a sane world’, even stating that it doesn’t matter whether transition has been personally beneficial for them or not. She has called for the number of trans people to be ‘reduced’.
This book is poorly argued, reactionary, transphobic screed.
Content Warnings
Graphic: Transphobia
Before I started this book I had a quick look down the reviews. A lot of the negative ones were making some very serious accusations or anti-Semitism and homophobia. There were comments underneath refuting them, but it did make me nervous.
To my eyes there is nothing of the sort in this book. I think these comments were illustrating a phenomenon discussed by Joyce in the book, that is people being targeted and abused for voicing opinions.
Anyone who doesn't think this discussion has become toxic is living under a rock, which is a real shame as this is people's lives and rights that are being discussed. There are moments in this book when I did feel Joyce was not being as sensitive as she could have been, and there were some lines of inquiry that I wanted her to pursue further but didn't, but it is a well thought out and reasoned work.
This book is compared a lot to Kathleen Stock:s 'Material Girls' and with good reason. It addresses a lot of the same issues, but I felt this book was more grounded in reality and tried harder to suggest solutions, which makes sense as Stock is a philosopher and Joyce is a journalist. Ultimately I did prefer this book as in many ways it felt more human and kinder.
To my eyes there is nothing of the sort in this book. I think these comments were illustrating a phenomenon discussed by Joyce in the book, that is people being targeted and abused for voicing opinions.
Anyone who doesn't think this discussion has become toxic is living under a rock, which is a real shame as this is people's lives and rights that are being discussed. There are moments in this book when I did feel Joyce was not being as sensitive as she could have been, and there were some lines of inquiry that I wanted her to pursue further but didn't, but it is a well thought out and reasoned work.
This book is compared a lot to Kathleen Stock:s 'Material Girls' and with good reason. It addresses a lot of the same issues, but I felt this book was more grounded in reality and tried harder to suggest solutions, which makes sense as Stock is a philosopher and Joyce is a journalist. Ultimately I did prefer this book as in many ways it felt more human and kinder.
I don’t know where to start. I brought this book hoping to educate myself of trans issues and was reassured by the positive reviews on the book and predominantly 5* reviews on Goodreads. It is the biggest load of transphobic nonsense I have ever read in my life.
She refers to trans women as ‘males’ the whole way through the book for starters. Joyce uses the classic TERF arguments of not wanting trans women in female sports or female spaces without actually contributing anything new or constructive to those arguments. She pays little to no attention to any issues faced by trans men as she is too busy talking about how she cannot comprehend that trans women are women.
By the end of the book she has identified as a TERF. Do not waste your money.
She refers to trans women as ‘males’ the whole way through the book for starters. Joyce uses the classic TERF arguments of not wanting trans women in female sports or female spaces without actually contributing anything new or constructive to those arguments. She pays little to no attention to any issues faced by trans men as she is too busy talking about how she cannot comprehend that trans women are women.
By the end of the book she has identified as a TERF. Do not waste your money.
challenging
informative
medium-paced
For a book that covers such an emotive and complex issue the tone could’ve been more nuanced and both sides of the issue could’ve been brought closer together for deeper examination and understanding whilst having a difficult exploration of this topic. From the beginning it was clear that the author has a huge level of contempt and incredulity. I didn’t find this helpful and whilst there were a lot of thought-provoking studies, observations and deep research that was new to me, I kept feeling that this is an echo chamber and that each argument needed more nuance and 360 views to make it a holistic and objective argument.
The book explores important case-studies and statistics regarding this topic including what role, if any, do gender expression, homophobia, paediatric transition, detransitioning and so on play in the debate as well as the possible and actual secondary or tertiary impacts on the areas of single-sex spaces, prisons, VAWG and sports in self-id conversation but by being so one sided when discussing these, it weakens the author’s point of view especially in the first half of the book. One can’t deny that the book is full of examples and facts that are not really discussed in the media. The author obviously tries to address a one-sided (as she sees it) narrative that plays out in the media with this book but I really think that a voice presenting a differing take was needed to create a more nuanced critical analysis and dialogue, not to mention more empathy.
The book explores important case-studies and statistics regarding this topic including what role, if any, do gender expression, homophobia, paediatric transition, detransitioning and so on play in the debate as well as the possible and actual secondary or tertiary impacts on the areas of single-sex spaces, prisons, VAWG and sports in self-id conversation but by being so one sided when discussing these, it weakens the author’s point of view especially in the first half of the book. One can’t deny that the book is full of examples and facts that are not really discussed in the media. The author obviously tries to address a one-sided (as she sees it) narrative that plays out in the media with this book but I really think that a voice presenting a differing take was needed to create a more nuanced critical analysis and dialogue, not to mention more empathy.
informative
medium-paced
Oh, Where to begin with this book. For starters where does hate Jewish people coming in? Is it because of where she got her sources? It claims to say that it is not a book aiming to demoralize the trams community but that is what it does. Just think about it like this if trans was replaced with gay and a detransition=erwas replaced with ex-gay we would find the same arguments. For example, how will a lesbian use a woman's space, won't she rape another woman or child. How will a gay guy use the bathroom won't he just eye all the other males? Children will be molested by them gays don't you know- they have that in their movement.
But no. Trans people and docs treating these people are trying to be sick fetishizing men in wigs who just want to rape and harass women. Not much so on trans guys.
Scratch that all trans men/boys are just driven through social contagion. Anyone who is not from the moment they exit the womb declaring that they are opposite they have been trapped by social contagion. Or maybe (I know from experience) that telling someone that you're trans is an extremely hard and risky event that could lead to damage in the long term it is better to remain closeted. This social contagion thing leads to ROGD which was crack science based upon the fact that parents of anti-trans leaning minds answered questions without asking their trans child these question that was geared to the trans child's mindset.
I think that the passing ting for trans individual comes down to the fact that they had access to treatment ( or later surgery) to prevent (or change what) puberty will do (has done) in this thing we see that the author say, "cannot change other people’s instinctive perceptions" well now we are fall in back to stereotypes of gender. Some things are from puberty but puberty shapes everyone differently is to be considered just as well.
Another thing I will point out from this book is that I read was autogynephilia. It's a paraphilia, not a trans identity. And then the author goes into that those who are bisexual are autogynephilic if they want to transition (this focused on bi transwoman). Has it come to be that some people are bi? The author who is all gun-ho about the LGB is now discounting bi people.
There is more on sports, (transwomen and how that research done on that is invalid for a small sample size. So was your ROGD study) and sex spaces (geared against transwomen). STuff with UK laws and how gender declaration things are bad and even worse now that requirements are being lowered.
All and all, glad to be done with it.
But no. Trans people and docs treating these people are trying to be sick fetishizing men in wigs who just want to rape and harass women. Not much so on trans guys.
Scratch that all trans men/boys are just driven through social contagion. Anyone who is not from the moment they exit the womb declaring that they are opposite they have been trapped by social contagion. Or maybe (I know from experience) that telling someone that you're trans is an extremely hard and risky event that could lead to damage in the long term it is better to remain closeted. This social contagion thing leads to ROGD which was crack science based upon the fact that parents of anti-trans leaning minds answered questions without asking their trans child these question that was geared to the trans child's mindset.
I think that the passing ting for trans individual comes down to the fact that they had access to treatment ( or later surgery) to prevent (or change what) puberty will do (has done) in this thing we see that the author say, "cannot change other people’s instinctive perceptions" well now we are fall in back to stereotypes of gender. Some things are from puberty but puberty shapes everyone differently is to be considered just as well.
Another thing I will point out from this book is that I read was autogynephilia. It's a paraphilia, not a trans identity. And then the author goes into that those who are bisexual are autogynephilic if they want to transition (this focused on bi transwoman). Has it come to be that some people are bi? The author who is all gun-ho about the LGB is now discounting bi people.
There is more on sports, (transwomen and how that research done on that is invalid for a small sample size. So was your ROGD study) and sex spaces (geared against transwomen). STuff with UK laws and how gender declaration things are bad and even worse now that requirements are being lowered.
All and all, glad to be done with it.
Echt mijn best gedaan om het te lezen, maar de schrijfster doet zulke heftige uitspraken terwijl ze zelf aangeeft ver van het onderwerp af te staan. Zo kort door de bocht, en zo venijnig. Ze zou eens wat meer moeten spreken met mensen die hier middenin staan. Het lijkt alsof de schrijfster vergeet dat ze het over mensen heeft. Beschadigend en pijnlijk hoe de reviews al aantonen hoe polariserend dit boek is.
"Whether someone espouses a crony belief, and how long they hold onto it, depends largely on how rewarding it is. If it is very rewarding--if their job depends on convincing declarations of faith, for example--most people will quell any doubts that arise."
Helen Joyce discusses the downside of trans ideology in respect to women's rights. Arguing on the topics of bathrooms, sports, medicine, and company policies, Joyce makes the point that these ideological changes don't make sense, nor do they legally or medically make sense. This ideology is a thought experiment brought to its most extreme.
While I have to say I appreciated the further reading section, I wish Joyce would have pulled more quotations and citations than she did, which is a large part of why I gave this book a 3 rather than a 4. She often does rely on saying that somebody said something rather than showing us where they said it. I've been on the same wavelength as Joyce for years, however, so I was myself familiar with much of what she was stating and citing. For those who are less familiar, or are looking for ways to push back against this book, it would have been helpful to be more specific on this account.
Perhaps along the same lines, the above makes this book more accessible, allowing the reader to connect their own dots using the logic many have long since offered.
Joyce focuses largely on British politics (ah, TERF island, I long for you), discussing the Maya Forstater case in addition to the legalities involved in changing one's gender on formal documents (for example, on a driver's license or birth certificate, you may be able to change your sex marker, but on the longer form of these documents, your natal sex remains for classification purposes).
At multiple points she does state that she does not wish for this to be a hateful book, but one that simply exposes some points that do not make sense and are at opposition with women's rights. This is a discursive book, one meant to bring about a dialogue and very real conversation.
Helen Joyce discusses the downside of trans ideology in respect to women's rights. Arguing on the topics of bathrooms, sports, medicine, and company policies, Joyce makes the point that these ideological changes don't make sense, nor do they legally or medically make sense. This ideology is a thought experiment brought to its most extreme.
While I have to say I appreciated the further reading section, I wish Joyce would have pulled more quotations and citations than she did, which is a large part of why I gave this book a 3 rather than a 4. She often does rely on saying that somebody said something rather than showing us where they said it. I've been on the same wavelength as Joyce for years, however, so I was myself familiar with much of what she was stating and citing. For those who are less familiar, or are looking for ways to push back against this book, it would have been helpful to be more specific on this account.
Perhaps along the same lines, the above makes this book more accessible, allowing the reader to connect their own dots using the logic many have long since offered.
Joyce focuses largely on British politics (ah, TERF island, I long for you), discussing the Maya Forstater case in addition to the legalities involved in changing one's gender on formal documents (for example, on a driver's license or birth certificate, you may be able to change your sex marker, but on the longer form of these documents, your natal sex remains for classification purposes).
At multiple points she does state that she does not wish for this to be a hateful book, but one that simply exposes some points that do not make sense and are at opposition with women's rights. This is a discursive book, one meant to bring about a dialogue and very real conversation.
informative
medium-paced