Scan barcode
cogowno's review against another edition
hopeful
informative
inspiring
lighthearted
reflective
medium-paced
4.0
Content Warnings
Graphic: Sexual content
lattelibrarian's review
3.0
Well, I read this. I thought it would be a good idea for me to continue reading current literature on the topic of trans activism and gender and, well, I did. I read it.
Let me begin with some of the things I truly did appreciate about this book. The variety of interviewees left me rather astounded. Roche interviews couples, single folks, people of color, disabled people, and immigrants. Thusly, their views surrounding transness and queerness hinge upon their lived experiences and other kinds of oppression and privilege they might face. This was hugely interesting,m and I appreciated seeing such a huge variety of people being interviewed.
I also think that some of the interview questions were so astute, and the reflection bits afterwards were very well-thought out and equal parts educational and perhaps even philosophical. There was so much to be gleaned from these, especially since this book does not operate within an academic space--it has much more of an allowance to be what it is: unabridged, fresh, real.
But.
A lot of this left me uncomfortable. Now don't get me wrong--some of my discomfort felt appropriate; after all, this is a book that pushes boundaries and asks its readers to rethink what we might have grown up with.
But.
The introduction was filled with some really gross opinions that absolutely made me skin crawl. Sorry, I don't want to hear about your weird fetishization of your "cave", and I definitely don't want to hear about your frustrations with "allies without intimacy" as though "proper" and "successful" activism must include intercourse. I don't want to hear about your introduction to womanly sexuality via pornography, I don't want to hear about the kink games you're just so passionate about. I don't want to hear about how you colored in your penis with your mother's lipstick and then tucked it between your legs (is this supposed to garner sympathy? Because even though I recognize that it happened as a child, I can't shake the picture of using your mother's lip make-up--a symbol of femininity and sexuality of the mouth--to color and enclose a male sexual organ. Ew?)
I get that there is huge power in talking about bodies, sexuality, intercourse. And we need to talk about these topics. But good god, your problems with not having sex are yours and yours alone. Don't blame other activists for your not getting any, and I'm glad that there's discussion of bodies, but there is a thing called nuance and professionality.
Additionally, did Roche's interviewees know that they were going to be so blatantly asked about their genitals? Their sexual life? And in such a crude manner that felt all too personal? I sure hope so, because otherwise....yikes.
Anyways, I read this. Some things were good. A lot was really fucking weird. I wish I liked this book more, I wish that I could say I learned so many incredible insights, but really, I just felt creeped out about 90% of the time I was reading this. Roche might think this book is a success, but I would wonder whether Roche thinks their personal definition of success is better than the one with which we currently operate.
Review cross-listed here!
Let me begin with some of the things I truly did appreciate about this book. The variety of interviewees left me rather astounded. Roche interviews couples, single folks, people of color, disabled people, and immigrants. Thusly, their views surrounding transness and queerness hinge upon their lived experiences and other kinds of oppression and privilege they might face. This was hugely interesting,m and I appreciated seeing such a huge variety of people being interviewed.
I also think that some of the interview questions were so astute, and the reflection bits afterwards were very well-thought out and equal parts educational and perhaps even philosophical. There was so much to be gleaned from these, especially since this book does not operate within an academic space--it has much more of an allowance to be what it is: unabridged, fresh, real.
But.
A lot of this left me uncomfortable. Now don't get me wrong--some of my discomfort felt appropriate; after all, this is a book that pushes boundaries and asks its readers to rethink what we might have grown up with.
But.
The introduction was filled with some really gross opinions that absolutely made me skin crawl. Sorry, I don't want to hear about your weird fetishization of your "cave", and I definitely don't want to hear about your frustrations with "allies without intimacy" as though "proper" and "successful" activism must include intercourse. I don't want to hear about your introduction to womanly sexuality via pornography, I don't want to hear about the kink games you're just so passionate about. I don't want to hear about how you colored in your penis with your mother's lipstick and then tucked it between your legs (is this supposed to garner sympathy? Because even though I recognize that it happened as a child, I can't shake the picture of using your mother's lip make-up--a symbol of femininity and sexuality of the mouth--to color and enclose a male sexual organ. Ew?)
I get that there is huge power in talking about bodies, sexuality, intercourse. And we need to talk about these topics. But good god, your problems with not having sex are yours and yours alone. Don't blame other activists for your not getting any, and I'm glad that there's discussion of bodies, but there is a thing called nuance and professionality.
Additionally, did Roche's interviewees know that they were going to be so blatantly asked about their genitals? Their sexual life? And in such a crude manner that felt all too personal? I sure hope so, because otherwise....yikes.
Anyways, I read this. Some things were good. A lot was really fucking weird. I wish I liked this book more, I wish that I could say I learned so many incredible insights, but really, I just felt creeped out about 90% of the time I was reading this. Roche might think this book is a success, but I would wonder whether Roche thinks their personal definition of success is better than the one with which we currently operate.
Review cross-listed here!
jugglingpup's review
1.0
To see more reviews check out MI Book Reviews.
I got an ARC of this book.
Here we go again. I just don’t seem to learn. I saw trans and I immediately wanted to read the book. I didn’t notice who the author was, that was my big mistake. If I would have place that name, I would not have wanted to read this book.
So all of the issues I had in the first book Roche wrote are alive and well in this book too. I started to get into the book, I was not 100% agreeing with Roche but I was loving the chance to see her view. Then BAM! Graphic description of her “wanking” and why the term “wanking” is more accurate than masturbating, because of sexism. I did not need to know or want to know what Roche’s erogenous zones are. This book is about claiming trans as an identity, not about the masturbation habits of one person.
So I started to skip pages and pages and pages. 20% into the book the first interview happened. By this point I am already over the book. This could have been a powerful book about accepting yourself and not limiting yourself, instead all I got was annoyed that Roche yet again made everything about her genitalia and sex. I get that sexuality is a huge part of identity. I have had my issues finding labels and communities that fit me. My transition is not about my sex life. It is not about my sexuality. I would not try and convince someone they are perfect by giving them graphic descriptions of my nipples.
Roche and I appear to be on totally different wavelengths, despite having similar ideas based on the backs of her books. I have been uncomfortable identifying as male or as a man for about a decade now. I have felt that trans has been a better label for me. So I can see where she is coming from, but her methods of explaining it have pushed me so far away that I won’t be able to see her point any more. Others seem to really like her book and this book in particular. I will be avoiding her for a while. I will try again in a few years. Kate Bornstein and I weren’t a good match for a long time. Now she makes perfect sense. So maybe Roche will be the same way. If my views change or my comfort level with surprise graphic details of someone else’s sex life and body, I will be sure to come back and update everyone.
I got an ARC of this book.
Here we go again. I just don’t seem to learn. I saw trans and I immediately wanted to read the book. I didn’t notice who the author was, that was my big mistake. If I would have place that name, I would not have wanted to read this book.
So all of the issues I had in the first book Roche wrote are alive and well in this book too. I started to get into the book, I was not 100% agreeing with Roche but I was loving the chance to see her view. Then BAM! Graphic description of her “wanking” and why the term “wanking” is more accurate than masturbating, because of sexism. I did not need to know or want to know what Roche’s erogenous zones are. This book is about claiming trans as an identity, not about the masturbation habits of one person.
So I started to skip pages and pages and pages. 20% into the book the first interview happened. By this point I am already over the book. This could have been a powerful book about accepting yourself and not limiting yourself, instead all I got was annoyed that Roche yet again made everything about her genitalia and sex. I get that sexuality is a huge part of identity. I have had my issues finding labels and communities that fit me. My transition is not about my sex life. It is not about my sexuality. I would not try and convince someone they are perfect by giving them graphic descriptions of my nipples.
Roche and I appear to be on totally different wavelengths, despite having similar ideas based on the backs of her books. I have been uncomfortable identifying as male or as a man for about a decade now. I have felt that trans has been a better label for me. So I can see where she is coming from, but her methods of explaining it have pushed me so far away that I won’t be able to see her point any more. Others seem to really like her book and this book in particular. I will be avoiding her for a while. I will try again in a few years. Kate Bornstein and I weren’t a good match for a long time. Now she makes perfect sense. So maybe Roche will be the same way. If my views change or my comfort level with surprise graphic details of someone else’s sex life and body, I will be sure to come back and update everyone.
gloomyboygirl's review
2.0
(I will be using they and she for the author here, in the last interview of the book they expressed a preference for they, but also expressed a lack of caring around pronouns used, but also the back of the book uses she for them, so I have no idea what to do here exactly.)
Oof, okay, a lot to unpack here. Let me start with the fact I really really wanted to like this and thought I would, especially after how much Gender Outlaws meant to me. I also really liked some of the takes on gendered structures here, like reconstructing the way trans people talk about and think about our genitals and the idea of moving away from binary centric language. The interviewees also all had very interesting stories and takes on gender I would have liked to see explored more rather than derailed.
But. The way this book was made is just... not helpful in any way. It seems like a series of chapters about the author searching for validation of her own conception of their personal identity in others, and trying to project their personal identity onto a community at large. Nearly every conversation, she spent paragraphs explaining their relationship to their genitalia and how allies never have sex with them and how trans is the extent of their label and seemingly trying to get the person being interviewed to agree with that in THEIR life.
The most egregious example was digging at nonbinary identity to someone who identifies as nonbinary. The person being interviewed didn't comment on it and she didn't circle back to the point, but it really jumped out at me because Jesus Christ. Or even pushing the narrative that trans allies never fuck trans people when speaking to a couple where only one of them is speaking on their transness and actively identifies with transness. I understand that the desexualization and otherizing of transness by allies is a genuine problem that comes from overarching issues around how transness is viewed, but also... not everyone experiences the same world!
(And the framing as "allies won't fuck me" when Juno explicitly is T4T is also very confusing for me, because then you aren't being rejected by allies?) (Also also, it's absolutely because that dating profile is absolutely bonkers, right? If my husband who I love and think is so sexy's entire profile when we met was a paragraph of queer theory with no other personal information, I would not be married today.)
On a different but similar note, I was very uncomfortable about how they approached sex and sexuality. I am assuming Michael knows and has consented to their entire chapter being about how Juno thinks about them kissing and having sex all the time even though they're just friends, but it was still uncomfortable to read about and see so much commentary on their thoughts not explored because she has a crush on them. (And also them saying that they jacked off to Kate and Barbara later, Jesus, I hope the couple was cool with that, I'd die if someone wrote that about ne after giving a personal interview about my identity)
Also, sorry, but if I told someone I have their back if there's a hatecrime or something and they told me to have sex with them and then framed my discomfort as transphobia I would LOSE MY MIND. That is so viscerally upsetting and degrading.
Also, there was, like, a lot of racism in this book? It was all very microaggressive but the framing that this stranger you have a parasocial relationship with would be friends with your dead friend seemingly on the basis they are both Black revolutionaries is SO deranged, and then to spend the entirety on your thoughts on them about how you're white and racism is bad??? It was... a lot.
I also noticed microaggressions in Glamarou's interview, specifically how whenever they talked about being hypersexualized as a brown person who's read as a man of color, Juno tied it back to her own sexual insecurities for validation. This was less egregious, and hopefully is me misunderstanding their responses, but it read... bad.
And, finally, EJ randomly saying all the men in Tokyo were androgynous. Jesus. Christ. They are just east asian oh my god.
Oof, okay, a lot to unpack here. Let me start with the fact I really really wanted to like this and thought I would, especially after how much Gender Outlaws meant to me. I also really liked some of the takes on gendered structures here, like reconstructing the way trans people talk about and think about our genitals and the idea of moving away from binary centric language. The interviewees also all had very interesting stories and takes on gender I would have liked to see explored more rather than derailed.
But. The way this book was made is just... not helpful in any way. It seems like a series of chapters about the author searching for validation of her own conception of their personal identity in others, and trying to project their personal identity onto a community at large. Nearly every conversation, she spent paragraphs explaining their relationship to their genitalia and how allies never have sex with them and how trans is the extent of their label and seemingly trying to get the person being interviewed to agree with that in THEIR life.
The most egregious example was digging at nonbinary identity to someone who identifies as nonbinary. The person being interviewed didn't comment on it and she didn't circle back to the point, but it really jumped out at me because Jesus Christ. Or even pushing the narrative that trans allies never fuck trans people when speaking to a couple where only one of them is speaking on their transness and actively identifies with transness. I understand that the desexualization and otherizing of transness by allies is a genuine problem that comes from overarching issues around how transness is viewed, but also... not everyone experiences the same world!
(And the framing as "allies won't fuck me" when Juno explicitly is T4T is also very confusing for me, because then you aren't being rejected by allies?) (Also also, it's absolutely because that dating profile is absolutely bonkers, right? If my husband who I love and think is so sexy's entire profile when we met was a paragraph of queer theory with no other personal information, I would not be married today.)
On a different but similar note, I was very uncomfortable about how they approached sex and sexuality. I am assuming Michael knows and has consented to their entire chapter being about how Juno thinks about them kissing and having sex all the time even though they're just friends, but it was still uncomfortable to read about and see so much commentary on their thoughts not explored because she has a crush on them. (And also them saying that they jacked off to Kate and Barbara later, Jesus, I hope the couple was cool with that, I'd die if someone wrote that about ne after giving a personal interview about my identity)
Also, sorry, but if I told someone I have their back if there's a hatecrime or something and they told me to have sex with them and then framed my discomfort as transphobia I would LOSE MY MIND. That is so viscerally upsetting and degrading.
Also, there was, like, a lot of racism in this book? It was all very microaggressive but the framing that this stranger you have a parasocial relationship with would be friends with your dead friend seemingly on the basis they are both Black revolutionaries is SO deranged, and then to spend the entirety on your thoughts on them about how you're white and racism is bad??? It was... a lot.
I also noticed microaggressions in Glamarou's interview, specifically how whenever they talked about being hypersexualized as a brown person who's read as a man of color, Juno tied it back to her own sexual insecurities for validation. This was less egregious, and hopefully is me misunderstanding their responses, but it read... bad.
And, finally, EJ randomly saying all the men in Tokyo were androgynous. Jesus. Christ. They are just east asian oh my god.
leadpal's review against another edition
emotional
hopeful
informative
inspiring
reflective
fast-paced
4.25
headfirstslides's review against another edition
funny
hopeful
informative
inspiring
reflective
medium-paced
5.0
the_literarylinguist's review against another edition
challenging
hopeful
inspiring
reflective
slow-paced
4.25
aztlan's review against another edition
i feel like this book was extremely powerful and impactful, except i didn't understand half of it. maybe it's because i haven't done a lot of reading about radical trans identities, but half the conversations felt like a lot of meta stuff that went wayyyyyy over my head. it didn't help that i hadn't read Juno's previous book, Queer Sex, and I wish i'd known to read that one first going in. however the bits that i did understand were absolutely fascinating to me, and i'll definitely be revisiting the interviews i enjoyed the most, as some of the things discussed really resonated with me