Scan barcode
A review by gloomyboygirl
Trans Power: Own Your Gender by Juno Roche
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.