You need to sign in or sign up before continuing.
Take a photo of a barcode or cover
A review by julesreadsallsorts
Trans: When Ideology Meets Reality by Helen Joyce
3.0
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.