You need to sign in or sign up before continuing.
Take a photo of a barcode or cover
3.36 AVERAGE
3.36 AVERAGE
Review
Thought-provoking and even-handed. The book starts with an overview of the concepts of sex and gender, and how they are linked. This includes a re-assertion that sex exists as a binary, outside of which only a very small proportion of individuals fall (not grounds the dismantling the binary). This is then a foundation for talking about contemporary issues from a scientific lens.
This was one of the more interesting discussions. If being non-binary simply means that one engages in activities generally associated with the opposite gender (e.g. a man engaging in makeup and high heels - typically feminine behaviours), are we not all non-binary to varying degrees?
Nobody is a walking, talking personification of 'male' or 'female' with regards to gender - we subscribe mostly to one, while dabbling in the other. Suggesting that women who enjoy adventure and coding may not be women after all is strangely regressive.
Also interesting was the conversation about how we can be as inviting as possible to trans athletes wanting to compete at high levels in sports without disadvantaging those athletes who identify with their birth sex. This conversation is well referenced, and focuses a lot on the effects of testosterone exposure (both pre-natal and post-transition) and its down-stream effects. One study mentioned in the book found that:
The latter point here especially is naturally going to play a role how we introduce transgender women into female sports categories, especially at the highest levels. A more nuanced discussion than 'transwomen are women' is going to be needed to solved problems such as this one.
None of these issues have been fleshed out to the degree that points of view should be forced on others or on society. Heterodox opinions are needed and should be welcomed. I was surprised to hear about James Caspian in this book, a psychotherapist told by Bath Spa that his research into those who have undergone de-transitioning was being rejected because 'engaging in a potentially "politically incorrect" piece of research carries a risk to the university'.
Such impingements on academic freedom are concerning, as they limit the knowledge we're allowed to have on issues that affect peoples health. It worries me that political correctness and universities' cowardice can stop research being done that will better inform healthcare professionals with transgender patients. Such decisions will only hurt those they purport to support.
I think some areas of the book, especially at the beginning could have been better referenced, given that this book is marketed as being a book disputing myths with science. Many claims were made for which references could easily be found, making it more confusing to me why they were not included.
It's an enjoyable read that makes you think (and sometimes worry) about some of the conversations happening today.
Thought-provoking and even-handed. The book starts with an overview of the concepts of sex and gender, and how they are linked. This includes a re-assertion that sex exists as a binary, outside of which only a very small proportion of individuals fall (not grounds the dismantling the binary). This is then a foundation for talking about contemporary issues from a scientific lens.
What I find particularly sad is the number of gay men who have embraced the non-binary label. When asked in media interviews about how they knew they were non-binary, many profess a love of being a man, but also wearing makeup and high heels.
This was one of the more interesting discussions. If being non-binary simply means that one engages in activities generally associated with the opposite gender (e.g. a man engaging in makeup and high heels - typically feminine behaviours), are we not all non-binary to varying degrees?
There's no reason you can't be a feminine man or a masculine woman, but the non-binary label upholds the idea that there's only one way to be a man or a woman
Nobody is a walking, talking personification of 'male' or 'female' with regards to gender - we subscribe mostly to one, while dabbling in the other. Suggesting that women who enjoy adventure and coding may not be women after all is strangely regressive.
Also interesting was the conversation about how we can be as inviting as possible to trans athletes wanting to compete at high levels in sports without disadvantaging those athletes who identify with their birth sex. This conversation is well referenced, and focuses a lot on the effects of testosterone exposure (both pre-natal and post-transition) and its down-stream effects. One study mentioned in the book found that:
In line with what we expected, the transgender men increased muscle mass and strength significantly after 12 months of testosterone therapy. Perhaps more surprising was that the transgender women did not lose strength at all despite inhibited testosterone production.
The latter point here especially is naturally going to play a role how we introduce transgender women into female sports categories, especially at the highest levels. A more nuanced discussion than 'transwomen are women' is going to be needed to solved problems such as this one.
None of these issues have been fleshed out to the degree that points of view should be forced on others or on society. Heterodox opinions are needed and should be welcomed. I was surprised to hear about James Caspian in this book, a psychotherapist told by Bath Spa that his research into those who have undergone de-transitioning was being rejected because 'engaging in a potentially "politically incorrect" piece of research carries a risk to the university'.
Such impingements on academic freedom are concerning, as they limit the knowledge we're allowed to have on issues that affect peoples health. It worries me that political correctness and universities' cowardice can stop research being done that will better inform healthcare professionals with transgender patients. Such decisions will only hurt those they purport to support.
I think some areas of the book, especially at the beginning could have been better referenced, given that this book is marketed as being a book disputing myths with science. Many claims were made for which references could easily be found, making it more confusing to me why they were not included.
It's an enjoyable read that makes you think (and sometimes worry) about some of the conversations happening today.
I’m glad this book was published and I hope the general public reads it! That said, I really felt annoyed at how many times people who hold my views (read: uncontroversial moral beliefs held by the vast majority of people for hundreds of years) were implied to be right-wing anti science nuts. It’s tiring. I wasn’t really the intended audience, though, and overall I did enjoy the book. I just wish more center-left, classical liberal types could realize they are just as ideologically blind in regard to their own sacred cows (“good” feminism, homosexuality, etc) as the far leftists they criticize.
challenging
informative
reflective
medium-paced
This book wasn’t what I was expecting, and it became clear right off the bat that the author and I weren’t going to agree on much. Call me a delusional trans activist I guess. The author surely would. However I decided to keep reading anyways, because it’s good for me to read and learn about other viewpoints. I love science and I was interested in the scientific discussion of sexuality and gender. However, the author was a little too keen to blame biology for every little trait and preference, based on her own opinion, and write off important social and cultural factors with hardly more than a glance. I was a bit disappointed to find that the author was more fixated on her place in some culture war, instead of sharing scientific information.
However there were some parts I enjoyed and agreed with. So, the good:
I found the discussion of biological causes of homosexuality to be interesting and informative. Academic freedom is important, and we shouldn’t shy away from scientific inquiries just because of potential for misuse or misinterpretation. I also liked the discussion of the interaction between gender roles and gender identity. I agree with the author that there’s no one right way to be a man or a woman, and being gender nonconforming via clothes, interests, personality, etc doesn’t inherently make someone trans or nonbinary. There were also lots of interesting points about trans kids and the question of when, how, or even whether to allow transition.
Now, the not so good.
For a book that claims to be purely objective, I found it odd that most of it was dedicated to refuting arguments typically associated with the political left, while paying next to no attention to those of the right. Misconceptions and bias are rampant on both sides, so I think a true nonpartisan book would have been better balanced in its criticism.
The author also had some pretty awful things to say about nonbinary people that went past pure fact into the realm of personal bias and conjecture. Not backed up by any data, she claimed that nonbinary identities are merely phases of self-expression, much like being goth or punk, and asserted that people only identify as nonbinary to seem more interesting or unique. The idea that being trans is some form of social advantage doesn’t seem based on reality, as the author almost completely ignores the truth of transphobia in the real world. In fact, there is hardly any mention of transphobia throughout the entire book. Apparently it’s acceptable to discuss every aspect of a trans person’s life, except transphobia. Maybe she frequents online echo chambers where trans people are instantly and unconditionally accepted, but the real world is not like that. Trans people, especially teens, are regularly kicked out, beaten, and abused by family and peers for coming out. They do not often receive universal praise and support like she suggests. Apparently the author has forgotten this in her eagerness to push back against the perceived mob of SJWs. That, or it brings her explanation into question, and so she chooses to ignore it.
Also, I really didn’t enjoy the way the author pitted member of the LGBTQ+ community against each other and tokenized groups who agree with her while demonizing and dismissing those who don’t. None of the identities within the community are inherently contradictory. Trans people choosing to transition is not “exterminating” gay men and lesbians or “the new conversion therapy”. For that to be true, being trans would have to be more acceptable in society than being gay, and there is zero evidence to prove that’s the case. She argues that binary trans people prove the existence of the gender binary, while also criticizing trans people who identify outside of it. Trans people are only useful to her when they serve the binary. When they don’t, they are just “confused” or “attention-seeking”. As a member of the community myself, I don’t really take kindly to a straight woman trying to split us apart and blame us for the struggles we face in larger society. We aren’t enemies.
The author also has a bizarre aversion to the word “cisgender” which seems impractical for a sex researcher. The word was only used once or twice. For the rest of the book, she refers to cis women as “women who were born women”, “natal women”, “female-born women” and “non-transgender”. It’s wordy, awkward, and impractical. I still don’t really understand why she has such an issue with the word “cis”. I don’t think she ever explained it.
Overall, I don’t regret reading the book, but I wouldn’t really recommend it to anyone. If you’re wanting an overly self-victimizing treatise on cancel culture with a small side of science and some unwarranted dating advice, this is for you I guess.
However there were some parts I enjoyed and agreed with. So, the good:
I found the discussion of biological causes of homosexuality to be interesting and informative. Academic freedom is important, and we shouldn’t shy away from scientific inquiries just because of potential for misuse or misinterpretation. I also liked the discussion of the interaction between gender roles and gender identity. I agree with the author that there’s no one right way to be a man or a woman, and being gender nonconforming via clothes, interests, personality, etc doesn’t inherently make someone trans or nonbinary. There were also lots of interesting points about trans kids and the question of when, how, or even whether to allow transition.
Now, the not so good.
For a book that claims to be purely objective, I found it odd that most of it was dedicated to refuting arguments typically associated with the political left, while paying next to no attention to those of the right. Misconceptions and bias are rampant on both sides, so I think a true nonpartisan book would have been better balanced in its criticism.
The author also had some pretty awful things to say about nonbinary people that went past pure fact into the realm of personal bias and conjecture. Not backed up by any data, she claimed that nonbinary identities are merely phases of self-expression, much like being goth or punk, and asserted that people only identify as nonbinary to seem more interesting or unique. The idea that being trans is some form of social advantage doesn’t seem based on reality, as the author almost completely ignores the truth of transphobia in the real world. In fact, there is hardly any mention of transphobia throughout the entire book. Apparently it’s acceptable to discuss every aspect of a trans person’s life, except transphobia. Maybe she frequents online echo chambers where trans people are instantly and unconditionally accepted, but the real world is not like that. Trans people, especially teens, are regularly kicked out, beaten, and abused by family and peers for coming out. They do not often receive universal praise and support like she suggests. Apparently the author has forgotten this in her eagerness to push back against the perceived mob of SJWs. That, or it brings her explanation into question, and so she chooses to ignore it.
Also, I really didn’t enjoy the way the author pitted member of the LGBTQ+ community against each other and tokenized groups who agree with her while demonizing and dismissing those who don’t. None of the identities within the community are inherently contradictory. Trans people choosing to transition is not “exterminating” gay men and lesbians or “the new conversion therapy”. For that to be true, being trans would have to be more acceptable in society than being gay, and there is zero evidence to prove that’s the case. She argues that binary trans people prove the existence of the gender binary, while also criticizing trans people who identify outside of it. Trans people are only useful to her when they serve the binary. When they don’t, they are just “confused” or “attention-seeking”. As a member of the community myself, I don’t really take kindly to a straight woman trying to split us apart and blame us for the struggles we face in larger society. We aren’t enemies.
The author also has a bizarre aversion to the word “cisgender” which seems impractical for a sex researcher. The word was only used once or twice. For the rest of the book, she refers to cis women as “women who were born women”, “natal women”, “female-born women” and “non-transgender”. It’s wordy, awkward, and impractical. I still don’t really understand why she has such an issue with the word “cis”. I don’t think she ever explained it.
Overall, I don’t regret reading the book, but I wouldn’t really recommend it to anyone. If you’re wanting an overly self-victimizing treatise on cancel culture with a small side of science and some unwarranted dating advice, this is for you I guess.
Started reading this, thinking it was something different.
Turns out it's about a PhD student using her 'authority' as an academic to help fuel the right-wing IDPol grift because her dumb ideas got her yelled at on Twitter.
I had to stop pretty early into it out of sheer frustration. It was the way in which she disregards the possibility of her own bias playing a part in her work by using the tried and true - 'Science is Fact' talking point, while totally misrepresenting the other side in order to even have an argument. I haven't seen anybody say that sex is on a spectrum when talking about the gender spectrum, but that seems to be the foundation of her issue with Trans activists (other than the major one- They made her upset on Twitter).
She's arguing a strawman the whole time I was reading. She keeps conflating 'Gender is a Social Construct' with 'Socialization creates your Gender.' By creating that strawman, she actually ends up arguing so many of the points trans activists are making. She talks about gender being biological and based on testosterone expression on the brain in the womb, and thus binary. Then goes on to discuss intersex people, saying they're too rare to matter in the discussion. Without seeing the obvious point she's missing, that biological influences can change your gender expression. Just because the biological influences are from a binary source (male and female gametes) the levels with which you're influenced by those processes creates a SPECTRUM of possibilities. Both in sex (but not the argument) and in gender (what we're talking about).
She's a self-proclaimed liberal (shocker) that's, hilariously, somehow surprised at the allies she's made on the right. I stopped around the point where she talks about the left-mob cancelling her and Ben Shapiro.
Don't read if you want to avoid grinding your teeth in annoyance.
Turns out it's about a PhD student using her 'authority' as an academic to help fuel the right-wing IDPol grift because her dumb ideas got her yelled at on Twitter.
I had to stop pretty early into it out of sheer frustration. It was the way in which she disregards the possibility of her own bias playing a part in her work by using the tried and true - 'Science is Fact' talking point, while totally misrepresenting the other side in order to even have an argument. I haven't seen anybody say that sex is on a spectrum when talking about the gender spectrum, but that seems to be the foundation of her issue with Trans activists (other than the major one- They made her upset on Twitter).
She's arguing a strawman the whole time I was reading. She keeps conflating 'Gender is a Social Construct' with 'Socialization creates your Gender.' By creating that strawman, she actually ends up arguing so many of the points trans activists are making. She talks about gender being biological and based on testosterone expression on the brain in the womb, and thus binary. Then goes on to discuss intersex people, saying they're too rare to matter in the discussion. Without seeing the obvious point she's missing, that biological influences can change your gender expression. Just because the biological influences are from a binary source (male and female gametes) the levels with which you're influenced by those processes creates a SPECTRUM of possibilities. Both in sex (but not the argument) and in gender (what we're talking about).
She's a self-proclaimed liberal (shocker) that's, hilariously, somehow surprised at the allies she's made on the right. I stopped around the point where she talks about the left-mob cancelling her and Ben Shapiro.
Don't read if you want to avoid grinding your teeth in annoyance.
informative
reflective
medium-paced
A must-read for anyone interested in this topic or concerned about the narrowing definition of what it means to be a man or a woman. Much of the language is simple and repetitive if you are used to exploring 'difficult' books, or have a scientific/mathematical background. This, however, does not detract from the overall presentation of facts and statistics that can be used to help you understand gender, sex and biology and counter the narrative.
Super informative to those who don’t know a lot about the subject ( me). Written in easy to understand format. I got lost in the weeds a couple of times bc of scientific jargon and then would forget what a term meant and have to look it up again. Overall, she presented her writings and her take on the current cultural climate very clearly. I’m glad I read it
challenging
informative
medium-paced
Genuinely not sure if I've been bamboozled here. There are some good arguments within, but a few elements of the book struck me as suspect to a degree that I'm now doubtful of the info I read.
For one, the book could have lost 100 pages if the author kept her railing against cancel culture brief. I can understand why she would want to mention it, since this is a contentious topic and she reports an influx of oppressive gender ideology in academia, but we don't need to hear about this at every turn. I'm going to assume that saying 'gender is biological' and 'there are only two genders' is controversial and will be received with aggressive messages from the fringes of the opposition. This is true of any controversial statement, whether it takes aim at a topic endeared by the right or by the left. I suppose the author would say that the fringes of the left are reshaping the way we conduct and report research, which is the issue.
This may well be true, or it may be the author pandering to the center/right (or both). The review from Ben Shapiro on the back is evidence to that end, although there's a review from Pinker as well so go figure. Maybe this was all a move from the editor/publishing house to give the book a market. Either way, it's concerning that the author is willing to spend dozens of pages writing about spineless academics posturing for personal gain when she may well be guilty of doing the same. I digress - the point of what I'm saying is that books with bold claims require bold evidence and good faith from the proponent, and the author seemingly provides the former while somewhat failing to provide the latter. There is plenty of compassion and open mindedness in the book, but the excessive anti-woke digressions are distracting and repetitive to slog through.
On a structural note, the book is comprised of nine chapters which don't cohese super well. Oftentimes we get treated to "hey check out chapter X to see what I'm talking about here," which is frustrating to see. Why not compose the book so we learn important concepts as we go? If you need me to hop ahead to see what you're getting at, doesn't that mean you should have restructured the book to introduce the idea to me now rather than later? This is a pop-sci book, after all, it should be eminently readable.
So yeah. I have to read some more books on this before I come back and decide if this is three stars or not. It all depends on how solid the info is, and I don't know enough to tell at this point. I'd appreciate any reads on the biology of gender and sex which illuminate to what degree the former is socially constructed, if at all.
For one, the book could have lost 100 pages if the author kept her railing against cancel culture brief. I can understand why she would want to mention it, since this is a contentious topic and she reports an influx of oppressive gender ideology in academia, but we don't need to hear about this at every turn. I'm going to assume that saying 'gender is biological' and 'there are only two genders' is controversial and will be received with aggressive messages from the fringes of the opposition. This is true of any controversial statement, whether it takes aim at a topic endeared by the right or by the left. I suppose the author would say that the fringes of the left are reshaping the way we conduct and report research, which is the issue.
This may well be true, or it may be the author pandering to the center/right (or both). The review from Ben Shapiro on the back is evidence to that end, although there's a review from Pinker as well so go figure. Maybe this was all a move from the editor/publishing house to give the book a market. Either way, it's concerning that the author is willing to spend dozens of pages writing about spineless academics posturing for personal gain when she may well be guilty of doing the same. I digress - the point of what I'm saying is that books with bold claims require bold evidence and good faith from the proponent, and the author seemingly provides the former while somewhat failing to provide the latter. There is plenty of compassion and open mindedness in the book, but the excessive anti-woke digressions are distracting and repetitive to slog through.
On a structural note, the book is comprised of nine chapters which don't cohese super well. Oftentimes we get treated to "hey check out chapter X to see what I'm talking about here," which is frustrating to see. Why not compose the book so we learn important concepts as we go? If you need me to hop ahead to see what you're getting at, doesn't that mean you should have restructured the book to introduce the idea to me now rather than later? This is a pop-sci book, after all, it should be eminently readable.
So yeah. I have to read some more books on this before I come back and decide if this is three stars or not. It all depends on how solid the info is, and I don't know enough to tell at this point. I'd appreciate any reads on the biology of gender and sex which illuminate to what degree the former is socially constructed, if at all.