You need to sign in or sign up before continuing.
Take a photo of a barcode or cover
3.81 AVERAGE
3.81 AVERAGE
hopeful
informative
inspiring
reflective
medium-paced
challenging
slow-paced
Not the worst book of the year, but it's close.
Going into the book, I was aware that the viewpoint expressed by Joyce was going to be very different from my own, but I did try to go into it with an open mind. I wanted to try to understand her point of view and that of those opposed to transgender rights. This, however, wasn't the book I was hoping it would be. Sadly, on the whole, it's a straw man polemic filled with pejoratives that knows no subtlety nor nuance. It does not even try in the slightest to be even-handed. Transgenderism for Joyce is either not real, a mental illness, a pharma plot designed to sell more product and or a left-wing conspiracy designed to turn back the tide of feminism.
What's worse, though, is the fact that this is so badly referenced. There are a cursory further reading suggestions at the end but nothing else. As she is a journalist, I would have expected her book to have provided a full reference list of sources, but there is nothing. It's, therefore, impossible to know exactly how she has used her sources or, for that matter, what her sources were. So, every time I thought 'That's something that might be worth exploring more', I had nowhere to start. My better angel wonders whether she was just sloppy; my darker angel, what she's not saying.
Going into the book, I was aware that the viewpoint expressed by Joyce was going to be very different from my own, but I did try to go into it with an open mind. I wanted to try to understand her point of view and that of those opposed to transgender rights. This, however, wasn't the book I was hoping it would be. Sadly, on the whole, it's a straw man polemic filled with pejoratives that knows no subtlety nor nuance. It does not even try in the slightest to be even-handed. Transgenderism for Joyce is either not real, a mental illness, a pharma plot designed to sell more product and or a left-wing conspiracy designed to turn back the tide of feminism.
What's worse, though, is the fact that this is so badly referenced. There are a cursory further reading suggestions at the end but nothing else. As she is a journalist, I would have expected her book to have provided a full reference list of sources, but there is nothing. It's, therefore, impossible to know exactly how she has used her sources or, for that matter, what her sources were. So, every time I thought 'That's something that might be worth exploring more', I had nowhere to start. My better angel wonders whether she was just sloppy; my darker angel, what she's not saying.
When I first started this new book from Helen Joyce, I’ll be honest and say that I was very unimpressed by the first few chapters and thought it was just going to be another “anti-woke” cash grab. With that being said, once the book got past the initial biological stuff and into the conversations around ideology, ethical inquiry, and other topics, it got much better. Personally, I think Joyce did an incredible job discussing topics such as children struggling with these issues, the nuanced conversation around sports, and how people are getting fired or “cancelled” for simply wanting to have a conversation or express their opinions. I saw plenty of people labeling this book transphobic from the second it was released, and the reality from my experience is that people so quick to slap a label like that on a book are the least likely to read the said book cover to cover.
By the time I finished the book, I walked away not thinking Helen Joyce is transphobic or bigoted in any way. It sounds like she respects transgendered people but finds it important that we have some of these difficult conversations. That being said, I don’t agree with all of Joyce’s opinions, such as the panic over sexual predators, but that’s alright. We don’t have to agree with 100% of what someone says in order to have a conversation with them or listen to their opinions. This is a good book, and I hope people read it in order to further the conversations around this subject rather than using it as a way to argue for “their side”.
By the time I finished the book, I walked away not thinking Helen Joyce is transphobic or bigoted in any way. It sounds like she respects transgendered people but finds it important that we have some of these difficult conversations. That being said, I don’t agree with all of Joyce’s opinions, such as the panic over sexual predators, but that’s alright. We don’t have to agree with 100% of what someone says in order to have a conversation with them or listen to their opinions. This is a good book, and I hope people read it in order to further the conversations around this subject rather than using it as a way to argue for “their side”.
Complete trash
Content Warnings
Graphic: Transphobia
challenging
dark
emotional
informative
reflective
sad
medium-paced
challenging
informative
reflective
slow-paced
informative
reflective
medium-paced
fast-paced
medium-paced
I'm so frustrated by the fact that this book has no citations. Who the fuck writes a nonfiction book without citations? There's a list of references in the back. That's it. What the fuck?
Then again, some other books I've found valuable haven't had inline citations (A People's History of the United States, e.g.). I think what really frustrated me in this book was the lack of originality. If you're familiar with the general shape of this debate as it is presented online, there is nothing new here, nothing to chew on, no strong positions taken.
Read instead, if you're interested in a thoughtful and original gender-critical or sex-based perspective on gender/sex in society: Kathleen Stock's Material Girls: Why Reality Matters for Feminism.
Then again, some other books I've found valuable haven't had inline citations (A People's History of the United States, e.g.). I think what really frustrated me in this book was the lack of originality. If you're familiar with the general shape of this debate as it is presented online, there is nothing new here, nothing to chew on, no strong positions taken.
Read instead, if you're interested in a thoughtful and original gender-critical or sex-based perspective on gender/sex in society: Kathleen Stock's Material Girls: Why Reality Matters for Feminism.
Content Warnings
nope
Rigorously researched and well-written. This is not a book about transgender people, but on the concept of 'gender self-ID' - the idea that a person's biological, legal sex (or gender, as the terms are used synonymously) is whatever they declare it to be, irrespective of what they were born as, their surgical history, or where they're trying to access.
Things I liked about this book: -
Joyce tackles some of the prevailing issues in the 'trans debate,' some of which are deeply personal to me. To summarise them (in no specific order), she raises
(1) The medicalisation of (disproportionately LGB, autistic, and/or female) youth, and whether it's possible to give 'medically informed consent' to experimental medicine.
(2) Fairness and inclusivity in competitive sport, and whether it's possible to overcome sex differences in activities primarily designed to showcase said sex differences. She acknowledges that there is a relatively small proportion of transgender women competing in the female category, but this raises its own question: does the small number justify unfairness?
(3) Single-sex spaces (prisons, bathrooms, DV shelters).
Prisons - Males and females have different rates and forms of criminal offending, and gender self-ID raises the risk that males convicted of violent or sexual offences against females will be housed in the same facilities as females, as has already been the case in the UK, Canada, and the US. Joyce suggests, rather than endangering females in the female prison or endangering transgender women in the general male prison, prison staff should approach the safety of transgender women the same way they approach other, at-risk male demographics (such as gay men) - separate wards, separate facilities, separate showering times.
Bathrooms/changing facilities - Males and females use different facilities due to historical exclusion ('urinary leash') and contemporary safety. Joyce does not actually focus on the risk that an innocent child will be exposed to male sex organs, as many trans activists seem to suggest, but talks about the need for consent (to be seen, to see) and the need for more diverse bathroom facilities (which would benefit GNC men and women as well as transgender people).
DV shelters - As a (GNC, SSA) victim of DV, this is where I am somewhat biased. Males are overwhelmingly perpetrators of domestic violence and females are overwhelmingly victims; Joyce acknowledges the fact that, when a female has been victimised at the hands of a male, her (emotional, physical) recovery may require the total exclusion of males (including transgender women). Failure to do so risks silencing the female victim, uncomfortable of telling her story or sharing her space, or breaching the victim's trust in DV facilities.
(4) The very construction of sexuality.
Are heterosexual females attracted to male bodies or masculinity? If the answer is the latter, then would a heterosexual female date a masculine female? Are heterosexual males attracted to female bodies or femininity? If the answer is the latter, then would a heterosexual male date a feminine male?
Similarly, are homosexual females attracted to female bodies or femininity? If the answer is the latter, then would a homosexual female date a feminine male? Are homosexual males attracted to male bodies or masculinity? If the answer is the latter, then would a homosexual male date a masculine female?
Joyce, in far less repetitive words, argues that there is no basis for sexual attraction without explicit reference to sex. If the trans activist view is taken, and sexuality is based on self-described gender identity, then there is, quite frankly, no such thing as sexuality.
(5) Biology and its place in the world. Is it possible to be 'male' or 'female'? Joyce suggests it is, and highlights how trans activists may either deny the existence of these biological categories, claiming that newborns are randomly, arbitrarily assigned a sex, or deny the relevance of biological classification in the contemporary world. For the latter, she actually discusses an interesting legal trend where judges reject the existence of sex by explicitly referencing sex.
(6) Detransitioners and desisters. Detransitioners, for those who don't know, are people who've started to medically transition, then stop. Joyce talks about how their experiences, often traumatic and irreversible, are silenced on social media and in the debate. Desisters, in contrast, are those who experience gender dysphoria and later 'desist' in their (our!) feeling, many of whom are GNC children who grow into perfectly healthy, non-dysphoric homosexual adults. For desisters, Joyce points out the flaws of medicalising youth without considering their long-term development.
I also liked how Joyce contextualised the 'trans debate' - she looked at early trans figures, psychiatry's ongoing stigmatisation of same-sex attraction and femaleness, and the difficulties sporting bodies have had in defining 'male' and 'female' (spoiler: sporting bodies define females as inferior males).
(I actually found it interesting that transgender women were only expected to lower their testosterone to below 10 nm/L. The rate is much lower than the male average, but much higher than the female rate, where 1.7 nm/L is considered high!)
Things I did not like about this book
The pronouns got a little bit confusing (and sometimes, imho, unnecessary, but that's a different discussion)! At some points, especially when Joyce discussed detransitioners, she would slip between the 'original' pronouns (female), the 'transitioning pronouns' (male), and then the 'final' pronouns (female). Similarly, Joyce points out how trans activists use language to silence the 'matter' being debated (for example, in a discussion about sport, legal counsel for the applicants cannot call a transgender girl 'male'), but falls into the same trap herself.
(That being said, I've never cared about being misgendered, so my criticism may be a little bit biased.)
Her essays were usually concise, but there were times that the topics changed without warning. The topic changes were usually relevant, but there were times where I struggled to see the immediate relevance, or follow the point Joyce was trying to make.
I would have liked more references in some of the chapters. I think this critique only stands if the references are poor quality, which I can't comment on as I haven't read her references.
In summary
I'd recommend this book to anybody who wants a more informed perspective on the 'trans debate,' whether their interest stems from sports, from women's safety, or from how left-wing feminists like radical feminists (yes, they are left-wing, radical feminist analysis comes from Marxism) could create coalitions with conservative parties.
(I get the feeling that a lot of 1* reviews are from people who have not read the book. I think it's very childish to make claims about a book simply because a topic is unpopular, contentious, or woefully misrepresented. Knowledge is not dangerous!)
Things I liked about this book: -
Joyce tackles some of the prevailing issues in the 'trans debate,' some of which are deeply personal to me. To summarise them (in no specific order), she raises
(1) The medicalisation of (disproportionately LGB, autistic, and/or female) youth, and whether it's possible to give 'medically informed consent' to experimental medicine.
(2) Fairness and inclusivity in competitive sport, and whether it's possible to overcome sex differences in activities primarily designed to showcase said sex differences. She acknowledges that there is a relatively small proportion of transgender women competing in the female category, but this raises its own question: does the small number justify unfairness?
(3) Single-sex spaces (prisons, bathrooms, DV shelters).
Prisons - Males and females have different rates and forms of criminal offending, and gender self-ID raises the risk that males convicted of violent or sexual offences against females will be housed in the same facilities as females, as has already been the case in the UK, Canada, and the US. Joyce suggests, rather than endangering females in the female prison or endangering transgender women in the general male prison, prison staff should approach the safety of transgender women the same way they approach other, at-risk male demographics (such as gay men) - separate wards, separate facilities, separate showering times.
Bathrooms/changing facilities - Males and females use different facilities due to historical exclusion ('urinary leash') and contemporary safety. Joyce does not actually focus on the risk that an innocent child will be exposed to male sex organs, as many trans activists seem to suggest, but talks about the need for consent (to be seen, to see) and the need for more diverse bathroom facilities (which would benefit GNC men and women as well as transgender people).
DV shelters - As a (GNC, SSA) victim of DV, this is where I am somewhat biased. Males are overwhelmingly perpetrators of domestic violence and females are overwhelmingly victims; Joyce acknowledges the fact that, when a female has been victimised at the hands of a male, her (emotional, physical) recovery may require the total exclusion of males (including transgender women). Failure to do so risks silencing the female victim, uncomfortable of telling her story or sharing her space, or breaching the victim's trust in DV facilities.
(4) The very construction of sexuality.
Are heterosexual females attracted to male bodies or masculinity? If the answer is the latter, then would a heterosexual female date a masculine female? Are heterosexual males attracted to female bodies or femininity? If the answer is the latter, then would a heterosexual male date a feminine male?
Similarly, are homosexual females attracted to female bodies or femininity? If the answer is the latter, then would a homosexual female date a feminine male? Are homosexual males attracted to male bodies or masculinity? If the answer is the latter, then would a homosexual male date a masculine female?
Joyce, in far less repetitive words, argues that there is no basis for sexual attraction without explicit reference to sex. If the trans activist view is taken, and sexuality is based on self-described gender identity, then there is, quite frankly, no such thing as sexuality.
(5) Biology and its place in the world. Is it possible to be 'male' or 'female'? Joyce suggests it is, and highlights how trans activists may either deny the existence of these biological categories, claiming that newborns are randomly, arbitrarily assigned a sex, or deny the relevance of biological classification in the contemporary world. For the latter, she actually discusses an interesting legal trend where judges reject the existence of sex by explicitly referencing sex.
(6) Detransitioners and desisters. Detransitioners, for those who don't know, are people who've started to medically transition, then stop. Joyce talks about how their experiences, often traumatic and irreversible, are silenced on social media and in the debate. Desisters, in contrast, are those who experience gender dysphoria and later 'desist' in their (our!) feeling, many of whom are GNC children who grow into perfectly healthy, non-dysphoric homosexual adults. For desisters, Joyce points out the flaws of medicalising youth without considering their long-term development.
I also liked how Joyce contextualised the 'trans debate' - she looked at early trans figures, psychiatry's ongoing stigmatisation of same-sex attraction and femaleness, and the difficulties sporting bodies have had in defining 'male' and 'female' (spoiler: sporting bodies define females as inferior males).
(I actually found it interesting that transgender women were only expected to lower their testosterone to below 10 nm/L. The rate is much lower than the male average, but much higher than the female rate, where 1.7 nm/L is considered high!)
Things I did not like about this book
The pronouns got a little bit confusing (and sometimes, imho, unnecessary, but that's a different discussion)! At some points, especially when Joyce discussed detransitioners, she would slip between the 'original' pronouns (female), the 'transitioning pronouns' (male), and then the 'final' pronouns (female). Similarly, Joyce points out how trans activists use language to silence the 'matter' being debated (for example, in a discussion about sport, legal counsel for the applicants cannot call a transgender girl 'male'), but falls into the same trap herself.
(That being said, I've never cared about being misgendered, so my criticism may be a little bit biased.)
Her essays were usually concise, but there were times that the topics changed without warning. The topic changes were usually relevant, but there were times where I struggled to see the immediate relevance, or follow the point Joyce was trying to make.
I would have liked more references in some of the chapters. I think this critique only stands if the references are poor quality, which I can't comment on as I haven't read her references.
In summary
I'd recommend this book to anybody who wants a more informed perspective on the 'trans debate,' whether their interest stems from sports, from women's safety, or from how left-wing feminists like radical feminists (yes, they are left-wing, radical feminist analysis comes from Marxism) could create coalitions with conservative parties.
(I get the feeling that a lot of 1* reviews are from people who have not read the book. I think it's very childish to make claims about a book simply because a topic is unpopular, contentious, or woefully misrepresented. Knowledge is not dangerous!)