Scan barcode
A review by jugglingpup
Burn the Binary!: Selected Writings on the Politics of Trans, Genderqueer and Nonbinary by Riki Wilchins
2.0
To see more reviews check out MI Book Reviews.
I got an ARC copy of this book.
This book was broken down into three sections. The first section was from online articles for The Advocate (all of which are free to read when you google them. I had read some of them while reading another of Wilchins’ books). There was nothing spectacular here. Nothing that drew me into wanting to read more. I was cringing and feeling put off by most of this section. If you read Transmetropolitan, then think a boring Spider. There were very few points that I could agree with or wanted to read more on. There were a few good points like that queer people need to validate your queer card before your word matters, which is why I often say that I am queer or trans before I start my ranting on here because I have to provide proof that my word matters. Then there is the issue of policing who is and is not trans (and what labels are allowed). I identify as a transsexual and have been told before that I can’t because it is offensive, mind you a cis gay male told me this so I just rated his workshop on the power of language badly as he went on to belittle me and kick me out because I had upset him with my own trans identity. Wilchins’ mentions that she was told that she couldn’t be a transsexual as that was an offensive term as well. I am surprise that is the only thing they called out with her, honestly. My view of transsexual is simple: my gender did not change or need to change, my sex did. Hence transsexual. Wilchins’ labels people whatever she likes all the time and bashes them into that label until it makes sense to her. So I am really surprised that she is only called out once that she mentions. This book also had that terrible trans dinosaur piece that equates passing and transitioning young as being transphobic and makes a person not trans. So no thank you to this section.
The next two sections were from her books. One is an anthology, which struck me as weird to pick from. The writing was clearly hers, so less weird in the end. It still didn’t make me want to read this book. The anthology is probably better than the sample given. The other book is her biggest book, from what I can tell. Those pieces were nice to read, but they were scattered and hard to follow at times. Wilchins’ tends to rant and rave. There is little theory, lots of playing victim. Constantly there is a push of us vs them, with the us ALWAYS being trans women and male cross dressers. At the end of the book, there is a section that says the trans movement follows only what trans women want and then lists things that are beneficial to so many more people, its like Wilchins forgets that trans men and gender queer people could want to have jobs and medical care. I get the point she was trying to make, but by blanketing it as “LOOK TRANS WOMEN” or in a more Wilchins’ fashion “MEN WITH TITS” argument it lost a lot of meaning. I was fired for being a trans man from a job I loved. So somehow her view that only trans women need anti-discrimination policies in a workplace really destroyed her arguments for me.
If you want to read what Wilchins’ did right, don’t read this one. Focus instead of “TRANS/gressive”, where she gives history and things helpful to queers that are willing to move forward instead of breeding infighting because of bad behavior.
I got an ARC copy of this book.
This book was broken down into three sections. The first section was from online articles for The Advocate (all of which are free to read when you google them. I had read some of them while reading another of Wilchins’ books). There was nothing spectacular here. Nothing that drew me into wanting to read more. I was cringing and feeling put off by most of this section. If you read Transmetropolitan, then think a boring Spider. There were very few points that I could agree with or wanted to read more on. There were a few good points like that queer people need to validate your queer card before your word matters, which is why I often say that I am queer or trans before I start my ranting on here because I have to provide proof that my word matters. Then there is the issue of policing who is and is not trans (and what labels are allowed). I identify as a transsexual and have been told before that I can’t because it is offensive, mind you a cis gay male told me this so I just rated his workshop on the power of language badly as he went on to belittle me and kick me out because I had upset him with my own trans identity. Wilchins’ mentions that she was told that she couldn’t be a transsexual as that was an offensive term as well. I am surprise that is the only thing they called out with her, honestly. My view of transsexual is simple: my gender did not change or need to change, my sex did. Hence transsexual. Wilchins’ labels people whatever she likes all the time and bashes them into that label until it makes sense to her. So I am really surprised that she is only called out once that she mentions. This book also had that terrible trans dinosaur piece that equates passing and transitioning young as being transphobic and makes a person not trans. So no thank you to this section.
The next two sections were from her books. One is an anthology, which struck me as weird to pick from. The writing was clearly hers, so less weird in the end. It still didn’t make me want to read this book. The anthology is probably better than the sample given. The other book is her biggest book, from what I can tell. Those pieces were nice to read, but they were scattered and hard to follow at times. Wilchins’ tends to rant and rave. There is little theory, lots of playing victim. Constantly there is a push of us vs them, with the us ALWAYS being trans women and male cross dressers. At the end of the book, there is a section that says the trans movement follows only what trans women want and then lists things that are beneficial to so many more people, its like Wilchins forgets that trans men and gender queer people could want to have jobs and medical care. I get the point she was trying to make, but by blanketing it as “LOOK TRANS WOMEN” or in a more Wilchins’ fashion “MEN WITH TITS” argument it lost a lot of meaning. I was fired for being a trans man from a job I loved. So somehow her view that only trans women need anti-discrimination policies in a workplace really destroyed her arguments for me.
If you want to read what Wilchins’ did right, don’t read this one. Focus instead of “TRANS/gressive”, where she gives history and things helpful to queers that are willing to move forward instead of breeding infighting because of bad behavior.