What do you think?
Rate this book
Gender Without Identity
Gender Without Identity offers an innovative and at times unsettling theory of gender formation. Rooted in the metapsychology of Jean Laplanche and in conversation with bold work in queer and trans studies, Avgi Saketopoulou and Ann Pellegrini jettison “core gender identity” to propose, instead, that gender is something all subjects acquire -- and that trauma sometimes has a share in that acquisition. Conceptualizing trauma alongside diverse genders and sexualities is thus not about invalidating transness and queerness, but about illuminating their textures to enable their flourishing. Written for readers both in and outside psychoanalysis, Gender Without Identity argues for the ethical urgency of recognizing that wounding experiences and traumatic legacies may be spun into gender. Such “spinning” involves self-theorizations that do not proceed from a centered self, but are nevertheless critical to psychic autonomy. Saketopoulou and Pellegrini draw on these ideas to offer clinical resources for working with gender complexity and for complexifying (what is seen as) gender normativity.
223 pages, Paperback
Published May 20, 2023
42 people are currently reading
1474 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 35 reviews
January 30, 2024
When you really think about it, the idea of gender is such a fraught concept. How can we ever really know our gender? What even is gender, anyway? It shouldn’t be surprising I have spent a great deal of time in recent years thinking about this, yet I don’t know that I am any closer to an answer. So I was very intrigued by Gender Without Identity, by Avgi Saketopoulou and Ann Pellegrini. This discussion of gender formation from a psychoanalytical perspective, along with thoughts on practical application to the field of analysis, seeks to challenge a lot of ideas about what’s “normal” for gender. I received a review copy.
I went into this book hoping to be challenged. It has been almost four years now since I transitioned. Much of that time has been spent rebuilding my identity around my new understanding of my gender. It isn’t easy. I know, and am confirmed in this knowledge with each passing day, that I am much, much happier living as a woman in this world (despite all the challenges attendant in our misogynistic, patriarchal, transphobic society). Transition has not only been a joyful experience for me; it has provided me with perspective and courage to grow in ways beyond or in addition to gender. At the same time, four years in, I’m not sure I have any better grasp on what gender actually means to me. Am I a woman because the label of “woman” enables me to feel more comfortable expressing myself in the ways I want to express myself? Am I a woman because there is, deep down within me, something intrinsically and ineffably feminine? I just don’t know.
Gender Without Identity takes the perhaps unsettling position that this uncertainty is irrelevant, because gender itself is process rather than permanence. Key to this book is Saketopoulou and Pellegrini approach to gender, which rejects what they call “core gender identity” in favour of
They are quick to establish, however, that they are not seeking to invalidate how queer and trans people express the “story of their own origin” even if it includes “born this way” or other such core narratives. Rather, their approach to gender without identity is one of psychoanalytical praxis: it is most useful, they argue, for analysts to look at gender in this way, whether the subject they are working with identifies as cis or trans.
Reading this made me think of Julia Serano and her theory of intrinsic inclination as outlined in Whipping Girl . Serano, a biologist, was unsatisfied with the idea that trans people’s identities are purely social construct yet also thought that locating transness within a purely biological cause was insufficient as well. At first glance, one might think this is incompatible with Saketopoulou and Pellegrini’s conception of gender as experience rather than identity. I’m not so sure. I think that both interpretations have value. Certainly, I recognize now in hindsight that I have always had inclinations towards the feminine long before I understood that being transgender was an option for how to label myself. On the other hand, Saketopoulou and Pellegrini’s framework helps elucidate why so many trans people, myself included, only come to realize ourselves later in life. It isn’t just that I didn’t know that being trans was an option; additionally, I hadn’t yet reached a point where I was ready to improvise in that way.
So I appreciate that this book did indeed challenge me to think carefully about what I even mean when I say “gender.” I also appreciate Saketopoulou and Pellegrini’s unequivocal affirmation of the validity of trans and nonbinary identities:
I am not at all familiar with psychoanalysis and am perhaps wary of it (or maybe just wary of Freud, let’s be honest). My experiences with psychotherapy have been positive. Nevertheless, I know I am an outlier among trans people in that regard, and it doesn’t surprise me to learn that psychoanalysis as a field needs to grow. Hopefully books like Gender Without Identity have the desired effect in that regard.
For those of us outside the field, this book can still be useful (as my earlier musings demonstrate). However, be forewarned that the writing is clinical, full of jargon and vocabulary that, quite honestly, challenged even me. Saketopoulou and Pellegrini are not writing for a general audience—which is fine, not a criticism of the book but definitely a caution for the general reader. I won’t pretend I understood fully everything that they discuss in the book. But I did enjoy this glimpse into how analysts and therapists approach these concepts, as well as the challenges of dragging the field kicking and screaming into the twenty-first century.
So from this position, I found Gender Without Identity to be what I expected: challenging, occasionally inscrutable, yet altogether quite clever and thought-provoking. While I can’t wholeheartedly recommend it to just anyone, for someone who is curious about the intersections of psychology and gender, I think this is an important and powerful read.
Originally posted on Kara.Reviews.
I went into this book hoping to be challenged. It has been almost four years now since I transitioned. Much of that time has been spent rebuilding my identity around my new understanding of my gender. It isn’t easy. I know, and am confirmed in this knowledge with each passing day, that I am much, much happier living as a woman in this world (despite all the challenges attendant in our misogynistic, patriarchal, transphobic society). Transition has not only been a joyful experience for me; it has provided me with perspective and courage to grow in ways beyond or in addition to gender. At the same time, four years in, I’m not sure I have any better grasp on what gender actually means to me. Am I a woman because the label of “woman” enables me to feel more comfortable expressing myself in the ways I want to express myself? Am I a woman because there is, deep down within me, something intrinsically and ineffably feminine? I just don’t know.
Gender Without Identity takes the perhaps unsettling position that this uncertainty is irrelevant, because gender itself is process rather than permanence. Key to this book is Saketopoulou and Pellegrini approach to gender, which rejects what they call “core gender identity” in favour of
gender as a wildly improvisational process, which is not rooted in any “observable” or “objective” fact (e.g., body morphology or chromosomes), nor in any imaginary interiorized idea (e.g., core gender identity).
They are quick to establish, however, that they are not seeking to invalidate how queer and trans people express the “story of their own origin” even if it includes “born this way” or other such core narratives. Rather, their approach to gender without identity is one of psychoanalytical praxis: it is most useful, they argue, for analysts to look at gender in this way, whether the subject they are working with identifies as cis or trans.
Reading this made me think of Julia Serano and her theory of intrinsic inclination as outlined in Whipping Girl . Serano, a biologist, was unsatisfied with the idea that trans people’s identities are purely social construct yet also thought that locating transness within a purely biological cause was insufficient as well. At first glance, one might think this is incompatible with Saketopoulou and Pellegrini’s conception of gender as experience rather than identity. I’m not so sure. I think that both interpretations have value. Certainly, I recognize now in hindsight that I have always had inclinations towards the feminine long before I understood that being transgender was an option for how to label myself. On the other hand, Saketopoulou and Pellegrini’s framework helps elucidate why so many trans people, myself included, only come to realize ourselves later in life. It isn’t just that I didn’t know that being trans was an option; additionally, I hadn’t yet reached a point where I was ready to improvise in that way.
So I appreciate that this book did indeed challenge me to think carefully about what I even mean when I say “gender.” I also appreciate Saketopoulou and Pellegrini’s unequivocal affirmation of the validity of trans and nonbinary identities:
It is time for analysts and therapists to stop debating trans people’s right to exist, which is what we actually do when we question whether or gender nonconformity is but a manifestation of something else.
I am not at all familiar with psychoanalysis and am perhaps wary of it (or maybe just wary of Freud, let’s be honest). My experiences with psychotherapy have been positive. Nevertheless, I know I am an outlier among trans people in that regard, and it doesn’t surprise me to learn that psychoanalysis as a field needs to grow. Hopefully books like Gender Without Identity have the desired effect in that regard.
For those of us outside the field, this book can still be useful (as my earlier musings demonstrate). However, be forewarned that the writing is clinical, full of jargon and vocabulary that, quite honestly, challenged even me. Saketopoulou and Pellegrini are not writing for a general audience—which is fine, not a criticism of the book but definitely a caution for the general reader. I won’t pretend I understood fully everything that they discuss in the book. But I did enjoy this glimpse into how analysts and therapists approach these concepts, as well as the challenges of dragging the field kicking and screaming into the twenty-first century.
So from this position, I found Gender Without Identity to be what I expected: challenging, occasionally inscrutable, yet altogether quite clever and thought-provoking. While I can’t wholeheartedly recommend it to just anyone, for someone who is curious about the intersections of psychology and gender, I think this is an important and powerful read.
Originally posted on Kara.Reviews.
December 12, 2023
‘If we can resist the fiction that there’s something bedrock about trans- or any other gender-conventional or gender-expansive experience for that matter, psychoanalysis has a chance of discussion more openly and with less shame that all gender, is both delightfully stranger and more savagely violent than our theories can imagine.’
This hit hard! The authors don’t shy away from contentious topics (the role of trauma in gender formation, the etiologies of trans and queer life, the ‘born this way’ idea of core gender identity), to the book’s merit. Often these conversations get avoided because of worries about their manipulation and weaponisation against trans people, but their point that it’s actually because so much is at stake that we need to have thoughtful conversations about the psyche and gender formation was really compelling to me.
I really loved how celebratory the book was of gender difference and diversity, and their insistence that psychoanalysis can support the flourishing of queer and trans life.
The case study of Orphy was incredibly moving too. Hearing about such a gentle, curious, supportive exploration of their gender expression really touched me. The thought of having a similar experience in the therapy room made me resolve to talk more about gender in my psychotherapy too. My gender and gender history often feels so complex and nebulous and confusing, the idea of having someone sit with me through all of that is a comforting prospect!!
NB didn’t read the Laplanche chapter much I have to say, because I am lazy!
This hit hard! The authors don’t shy away from contentious topics (the role of trauma in gender formation, the etiologies of trans and queer life, the ‘born this way’ idea of core gender identity), to the book’s merit. Often these conversations get avoided because of worries about their manipulation and weaponisation against trans people, but their point that it’s actually because so much is at stake that we need to have thoughtful conversations about the psyche and gender formation was really compelling to me.
I really loved how celebratory the book was of gender difference and diversity, and their insistence that psychoanalysis can support the flourishing of queer and trans life.
The case study of Orphy was incredibly moving too. Hearing about such a gentle, curious, supportive exploration of their gender expression really touched me. The thought of having a similar experience in the therapy room made me resolve to talk more about gender in my psychotherapy too. My gender and gender history often feels so complex and nebulous and confusing, the idea of having someone sit with me through all of that is a comforting prospect!!
NB didn’t read the Laplanche chapter much I have to say, because I am lazy!
April 4, 2025
This was such an interesting experience. While I knew more about psychoanalysis than the average person, I am far from an expert. So, I watched a conference pannel and a couple of interviews before reading this, which was very helpful. This is a really important perspective within the community of psychoanalysts and at least being aware of what is going on there is really relevant to the anti-trans movement we are seeing in multiple countries. I also think that while a lot of the details are particular to psychoanalysis, much of this is actually relevant to psychologists at large and other people who work directly with trans people (be it social workers, educators, etc.) I may revisit this after learning more as well (I was very in it, but unfortunately had a family crisis, then came back to it, so many of my thoughts have been lost to the brain-as-swiss-cheese stages of greif. So perhaps later, I can articulate more). So while I wouldn't recommend this for the casual reader, I would definitely recommend it to people who have this in their wheelhouse or are willing to branch out to it.
September 13, 2025
i never wrote a review of this book because when i finished it (i did not read the Laplanche chapter… sorry… maybe one day), i immediately went to book club to discuss it. probably the most interesting idea that came out of this book for me is the concept that gender and sexuality (as identities and expressions) is always shaped by personal and environmental experiences. i think its fairly easy to understand how normative gender is both learned and performed, but it was kind of cool to think of it on a larger scale. i forget all the details but i was also very intrigued by how they discussed ‘cisness’ and kind of pushed back against the idea of being cisgender. on a similar note, i think about this every now and then in feminist spaces because one could say a lot of feminists identify as women but then individual experiences and understandings of what it means to be a woman really run the gamut. and i think that online and sometimes in real life; there is this idea that women are innately better at specific tasks or pre-disposed to handle certain situations… and while i cannot lie and say i don’t believe this to a certain degree; this superiority mindset can be really limiting and misogynistic? i digress… my book club discussion was interesting because there was significant discussion on the theories of freud and laplanche and maybe a third psychoanalyst? which was really helpful. also my book club discussed gender abolitionism; which i really don’t know much about. i think i really enjoyed reading the introduction and the first chapter about Ory the most. i think i approached reading the book expecting to get the COLD HARD FACTS; answers about my identity and what core experiences made me the way i am. i don’t think i got that; for that i should probably just go to therapy…
November 25, 2023
Mostly written for psychoanalysts by psychoanalysts, yet I am so thankful to have visited. It’s a provocative book, but one I truly hope signals the future to come. The authors beautifully use a Laplanchean framework to give alternative ways of thinking about gender and sexuality - the main essay touched both my brain and my heart.
On the acknowledgements - I very selfishly hope AS keeps breaking promises to herself about not writing more books. Her and AP’s writing is always searing, touching something.
On the acknowledgements - I very selfishly hope AS keeps breaking promises to herself about not writing more books. Her and AP’s writing is always searing, touching something.
December 21, 2023
As another reviewer mentioned, Gender Without Identity seems to be a book written by analysts for analysts, and as so (as a non-analyst) maybe the book wasn't for me. I do like to read about psychoanalysis as a hobby and I work with homeless youth in my community who are frequently trans and non-binary so I thought this would still be right up my alley, but I'm left feeling like it wasn't. That's okay!
It's basically a book in five parts: an introduction on why the book exists—mostly because the state of psychoanalysis today is trans-and-non-binary-phobic and the powers at be tried to suppress the essay this book stemmed from. I skimmed this because I am not that interested in the politics of psychoanalytic journals, but this introduction is very important—I'll come back to this.
The second part is a thought-provoking essay in the genre of modern psychoanalytic clinical studies that starts with Greek mythology, gets to an interesting clinical study of a young boy who is perhaps a proto-trans woman living in a Jewish orthodox family and ends with kind of a lot of strained ambiguity about what gender the patient was, how his mother affected it from her trauma as a child and if it's possible for gender to be affected by others or not, heavily cognizant of the fact that perhaps anything they say could be used against them—and other trans folks—by transphobic analysts. I appreciated learning that Freud himself claimed gender was an achievement well before second wave feminism popularized the concept. I thought it was a good essay that questioned if "born this way" is a helpful framework or not that was made difficult to read by how excessively self-aware it was, but difficulty isn't necessarily a problem. Many of the claims, for example, about trans or non-binary identities were footnoted by saying basically, "Just because we made this claim doesn't mean we don't also mean the opposite." It was just so careful. I appreciate how difficult this whole ordeal must have been for the authors.
The third part was an essay about what you should do as an analyst if your client asks you to use they pronouns when referring to them. I found this to be a very strange essay as a non-analyst with clients who ask me to use non-traditional pronouns often. I wouldn't say I have an excellent education when it comes to this, but it seems pretty elementary that you just call someone the pronouns they want to be called if you want to have a good relationship with that person. I was disappointed with this essay because it used sort of trite "don't be an ally, be an accomplice" performative language and even makes an argument about how using they pronouns isn't actually grammatically incorrect. This essay obviously wasn't written for me, but I wonder who it was written for—Boomer or otherwise conservative analysts who need this sort of sophomoric pronouns education? If so, are they really going to be reading this book? This is where the introduction I admittedly skimmed really proves important. I am ignorant, apparently, of just how transphobic the psychoanalytic world is if this essay needs to be written. So, uh, that's sad. I guess I'm glad it was written even if I didn't particularly enjoy it.
Part four is an essay written by Jean Laplanche on sex, sexuality, and gender that is referenced in part two that was in the genre of very difficult to read psychoanalytic texts. I appreciated it being included because often you read criticism that assumes you have read texts that maybe you haven't, so this was convenient. Some may love it.
Part five is a conclusion that is literally subtitled with the medium-transcending hashtags #DOBETTER and #NOTALLPSYCHOANALYSTS. I'm not going to add any commentary.
What I like about reading about psychoanalysis is how mind-bending the concepts introduced can be. I didn't find this particular book very mind-bending, save for the first essay and, in a meta way, the reason the book exists. Because if this is book is considered radical in this field, psychoanalysis as a discipline is mind-bendingly conservative. If the book exists because its main essay was censored by evidently one of the most progressive official publishing bodies in psychoanalysis, then I'm glad it exists, at least for those people who need to read it (if they do?)
Ultimately, I would only really recommend this book to someone who is newly interested in psychoanalysis but is worried about its transphobia to show them there are analysts actively fighting it. But I would probably also just recommend they subscribe to Parapraxis from the Psychosocial Foundation. I wouldn't necessarily recommend this book to anyone to learn more about trans or non-binary identities and how psychoanalysis might "explain" them, except maybe with the caveat that they should just read the first essay and that it might not bend their mind. Ironically, the authors seemingly wrote the book specifically for analysts who complained trans and non-binary genders literally hurt their heads, so maybe it was supposed to unbend minds and that's why I'm not satisfied.
I'm left feeling ambiguous. I liked parts, didn't like others, thought it was both progressive and borderline regressive at times . . . and I'm reminded that this is the way a lot of great psychoanalytic texts have made me feel. I would have rated this higher if it were just the main essay, but it's not. I feel like I should like this more, but I don't.
It's basically a book in five parts: an introduction on why the book exists—mostly because the state of psychoanalysis today is trans-and-non-binary-phobic and the powers at be tried to suppress the essay this book stemmed from. I skimmed this because I am not that interested in the politics of psychoanalytic journals, but this introduction is very important—I'll come back to this.
The second part is a thought-provoking essay in the genre of modern psychoanalytic clinical studies that starts with Greek mythology, gets to an interesting clinical study of a young boy who is perhaps a proto-trans woman living in a Jewish orthodox family and ends with kind of a lot of strained ambiguity about what gender the patient was, how his mother affected it from her trauma as a child and if it's possible for gender to be affected by others or not, heavily cognizant of the fact that perhaps anything they say could be used against them—and other trans folks—by transphobic analysts. I appreciated learning that Freud himself claimed gender was an achievement well before second wave feminism popularized the concept. I thought it was a good essay that questioned if "born this way" is a helpful framework or not that was made difficult to read by how excessively self-aware it was, but difficulty isn't necessarily a problem. Many of the claims, for example, about trans or non-binary identities were footnoted by saying basically, "Just because we made this claim doesn't mean we don't also mean the opposite." It was just so careful. I appreciate how difficult this whole ordeal must have been for the authors.
The third part was an essay about what you should do as an analyst if your client asks you to use they pronouns when referring to them. I found this to be a very strange essay as a non-analyst with clients who ask me to use non-traditional pronouns often. I wouldn't say I have an excellent education when it comes to this, but it seems pretty elementary that you just call someone the pronouns they want to be called if you want to have a good relationship with that person. I was disappointed with this essay because it used sort of trite "don't be an ally, be an accomplice" performative language and even makes an argument about how using they pronouns isn't actually grammatically incorrect. This essay obviously wasn't written for me, but I wonder who it was written for—Boomer or otherwise conservative analysts who need this sort of sophomoric pronouns education? If so, are they really going to be reading this book? This is where the introduction I admittedly skimmed really proves important. I am ignorant, apparently, of just how transphobic the psychoanalytic world is if this essay needs to be written. So, uh, that's sad. I guess I'm glad it was written even if I didn't particularly enjoy it.
Part four is an essay written by Jean Laplanche on sex, sexuality, and gender that is referenced in part two that was in the genre of very difficult to read psychoanalytic texts. I appreciated it being included because often you read criticism that assumes you have read texts that maybe you haven't, so this was convenient. Some may love it.
Part five is a conclusion that is literally subtitled with the medium-transcending hashtags #DOBETTER and #NOTALLPSYCHOANALYSTS. I'm not going to add any commentary.
What I like about reading about psychoanalysis is how mind-bending the concepts introduced can be. I didn't find this particular book very mind-bending, save for the first essay and, in a meta way, the reason the book exists. Because if this is book is considered radical in this field, psychoanalysis as a discipline is mind-bendingly conservative. If the book exists because its main essay was censored by evidently one of the most progressive official publishing bodies in psychoanalysis, then I'm glad it exists, at least for those people who need to read it (if they do?)
Ultimately, I would only really recommend this book to someone who is newly interested in psychoanalysis but is worried about its transphobia to show them there are analysts actively fighting it. But I would probably also just recommend they subscribe to Parapraxis from the Psychosocial Foundation. I wouldn't necessarily recommend this book to anyone to learn more about trans or non-binary identities and how psychoanalysis might "explain" them, except maybe with the caveat that they should just read the first essay and that it might not bend their mind. Ironically, the authors seemingly wrote the book specifically for analysts who complained trans and non-binary genders literally hurt their heads, so maybe it was supposed to unbend minds and that's why I'm not satisfied.
I'm left feeling ambiguous. I liked parts, didn't like others, thought it was both progressive and borderline regressive at times . . . and I'm reminded that this is the way a lot of great psychoanalytic texts have made me feel. I would have rated this higher if it were just the main essay, but it's not. I feel like I should like this more, but I don't.
August 20, 2024
Nog een stukje van de puzzel ofzo :) grootste deel is zeker te begrijpen, naar einde toe veel jargon! Suuuper interessante ideeën (maar had het liefst nog concreter gezien?)
January 9, 2025
A fascinating and frustrating book which charges commendably into highly charged and heavily politicised territory, but which also suffers in many respects from the effects of being written from such a tensional state.
The book is centrally organised around an award-winning piece of scholarship by its two authors, which was subjected to a bizarre sequence of repressions by the International Journal of Psychoanalysis over their inclusion of some fairly moderate criticism of the psychoanalytic field's problematic history in dealing with queerness. This deals centrally with the case study of the botched analysis of a gender non-conforming adolescent in a repressive religious community, upon which the authors hang a series of complex insights into gender formation, rooted in the psychoanalytic theory of Jean Laplanche.
The honesty and frankness with which the analyst's own failures of attunement are foregrounded and put to theoretical work are commendable, and the theoretical insights gleaned are rich. What is striking and frustrating, though, is the authors' apparent inability to notice that none of it has any relation to any reported utterance by the child at the centre of the whole drama whatsoever!
What we are presented with is the case of a 12 year old child, socially designated a boy, whose habitual behaviours - limp wrist, shy gentle manner, interest in fashion and the tactility of fabrics, and obsession with the care of orchids - set off a flurry of agitation in the world of adults, including multiple analysts, who become obsessed with the supposed runic relationship of these interests to some entity or quality called his 'gender'.
What follows is a heartbreaking story of the analyst first providing this child with an apparent refuge from the obsessive overcoding of his interests and its attendant harassments, only for the whole edifice to collapse in response to an intrusive and unnecessary interpretation from the analyst, causing the child to flee the therapy. Much is made from the effort to understand this failure without ever noticing that this child has (at least on the information presented) said nothing whatsoever about 'gender', but rather a lot about orchids and fabrics and other effete dainty things, and may well want nothing more than the freedom to pursue his interests without adults convening a bizarre and threatening circus around it - which includes the compulsively oedipalising gaze of his analyst.
To me, this speaks to one of the limitations of politics itself as a vector of freedom, and throws into question the presupposed value of stance-taking, radicality, forthrightness, the necessity of having a theory, a better more liberatory ontology or metapsychology or whatever... Freedom from these things may also be desirable, and queer liberation (or whatever) may just as well take the form of antipolitics as politics, contingently and situationally. Sometimes gender freedom means freedom from gender, rather than in or through it.
The book is at its strongest when it deals directly with ethical questions regarding clinical encounters with non-normative genders, which is ultimately what the authors are hoping their theorising will support. The book is ultimately an ethical call for the right to acknowledge trauma and other intrusive effects of the other in one's gender formation without punishment or rejection, which often takes insidious backhanded forms in therapeutic discourses whose police function is typically disavowed. This call is forceful, and its theoretical argumentative basis both persuasive and enlightening.
It is most frustrating when it tries hardest to not "merely" be a work of psychoanalytic theory or ethics but to demonstrate its status as a queer text and a work of queer theory, often involving recitation of often tangential cultural shibboleths and calls for psychoanalysis to adopt queer theory's normative and evaluative stances. Psychoanalysis absolutely does not "[need] to match the spirit of the Stonewall Riots", for instance. Its virtue as a cultural space and practice is precisely its irreducibility to politics, which allows the opening of another kind of space for subversion and experiment other than the repertoire of political contestation and the pressures and problematics of mobilisation and collective action, which inevitably involve a measure of mutual pressure and policing, and which psychoanalysis cannot simply collapse into without compromising its core virtues.
The book is centrally organised around an award-winning piece of scholarship by its two authors, which was subjected to a bizarre sequence of repressions by the International Journal of Psychoanalysis over their inclusion of some fairly moderate criticism of the psychoanalytic field's problematic history in dealing with queerness. This deals centrally with the case study of the botched analysis of a gender non-conforming adolescent in a repressive religious community, upon which the authors hang a series of complex insights into gender formation, rooted in the psychoanalytic theory of Jean Laplanche.
The honesty and frankness with which the analyst's own failures of attunement are foregrounded and put to theoretical work are commendable, and the theoretical insights gleaned are rich. What is striking and frustrating, though, is the authors' apparent inability to notice that none of it has any relation to any reported utterance by the child at the centre of the whole drama whatsoever!
What we are presented with is the case of a 12 year old child, socially designated a boy, whose habitual behaviours - limp wrist, shy gentle manner, interest in fashion and the tactility of fabrics, and obsession with the care of orchids - set off a flurry of agitation in the world of adults, including multiple analysts, who become obsessed with the supposed runic relationship of these interests to some entity or quality called his 'gender'.
What follows is a heartbreaking story of the analyst first providing this child with an apparent refuge from the obsessive overcoding of his interests and its attendant harassments, only for the whole edifice to collapse in response to an intrusive and unnecessary interpretation from the analyst, causing the child to flee the therapy. Much is made from the effort to understand this failure without ever noticing that this child has (at least on the information presented) said nothing whatsoever about 'gender', but rather a lot about orchids and fabrics and other effete dainty things, and may well want nothing more than the freedom to pursue his interests without adults convening a bizarre and threatening circus around it - which includes the compulsively oedipalising gaze of his analyst.
To me, this speaks to one of the limitations of politics itself as a vector of freedom, and throws into question the presupposed value of stance-taking, radicality, forthrightness, the necessity of having a theory, a better more liberatory ontology or metapsychology or whatever... Freedom from these things may also be desirable, and queer liberation (or whatever) may just as well take the form of antipolitics as politics, contingently and situationally. Sometimes gender freedom means freedom from gender, rather than in or through it.
The book is at its strongest when it deals directly with ethical questions regarding clinical encounters with non-normative genders, which is ultimately what the authors are hoping their theorising will support. The book is ultimately an ethical call for the right to acknowledge trauma and other intrusive effects of the other in one's gender formation without punishment or rejection, which often takes insidious backhanded forms in therapeutic discourses whose police function is typically disavowed. This call is forceful, and its theoretical argumentative basis both persuasive and enlightening.
It is most frustrating when it tries hardest to not "merely" be a work of psychoanalytic theory or ethics but to demonstrate its status as a queer text and a work of queer theory, often involving recitation of often tangential cultural shibboleths and calls for psychoanalysis to adopt queer theory's normative and evaluative stances. Psychoanalysis absolutely does not "[need] to match the spirit of the Stonewall Riots", for instance. Its virtue as a cultural space and practice is precisely its irreducibility to politics, which allows the opening of another kind of space for subversion and experiment other than the repertoire of political contestation and the pressures and problematics of mobilisation and collective action, which inevitably involve a measure of mutual pressure and policing, and which psychoanalysis cannot simply collapse into without compromising its core virtues.
February 11, 2024
Life-changing!
October 4, 2024
The core essay, "A Feminine Boy: Trauma as Resource for Self-Theorization," is definitely worth reading. The essay is split into two parts, a kind of memoirish recounting of one of the author's experiences talking with a gender nonconforming child of conservative religious parents, and then a theoretical framework for understanding gender. The anecdote about the gender nonconforming child was surprisingly touching. The authors consider some of the difficulties involved in that situation--clearly you don't want to help the parents repress their child's gender but you also don't necessarily want to encourage the child to embrace gender non-conformity when that could alienate them from their family and community. Their depiction of this struggle is poignant and effective. The theoretical discussion that follows is also interesting. In it they attempt to sketch out a theory of gender that is neither biologically deterministic nor purely voluntarist. They view gender as a kind of self-interpretive, self-creative thing which is not static but constantly developing and changing. Both halves of the essay are engaging and thought-provoking. They are unfortunately not connected particularly well. There is substantial thematic overlap, but the authors know so little about the object of their case study that they can't say with any confidence that anything they are saying applies to the child. They say "We offer this framework for Ory's case not because we are convinced that the operations we describe are accurate accounts of what *actually* occured for him or how his gender developed. Rather, we offer our formulations *provisionally* . . . [We are] more invested in the opportunity this case provides for illustrating a nuanced model of how developmental dynamics, familial history, and intergenerational transmission may bear on gender formation." The problem is the case study doesn't illustrate much because they hardly know anything concrete about him except the very basic problem that he is gender nonconforming and has conservative religious parents. The case study doesn't illuminate the analysis more than a brief hypothetical case would. Despite this disconnect, both halves are still effective, if effective more or less independently.
The real problem is that this excellent core essay is only about 30% of the book. The rest is taken up by introductory material, a difficult essay by Laplanche, and a second essay by the authors which basically amounts to saying psychoanalysts should use they/them pronouns when they are asked to--a point which is correct but trivial and which they don't add much insight to. Most of the rest of the book is addressed to other psychoanalysts. The Laplanche essay assumes more familiarity with Freudian jargon than I have. The prefatory material and the epilogue are short polemics against transphobia within psychoanalysis--a perfectly good thing to advocate but of little consequence to people who are not invested in their fringe research field. "A Feminine Boy" is a very strong essay with much to recommend itself, but it is difficult to recommend the rest of the book unless you are already much more interested in psychoanalysis than I am (admittedly not a high bar).
The real problem is that this excellent core essay is only about 30% of the book. The rest is taken up by introductory material, a difficult essay by Laplanche, and a second essay by the authors which basically amounts to saying psychoanalysts should use they/them pronouns when they are asked to--a point which is correct but trivial and which they don't add much insight to. Most of the rest of the book is addressed to other psychoanalysts. The Laplanche essay assumes more familiarity with Freudian jargon than I have. The prefatory material and the epilogue are short polemics against transphobia within psychoanalysis--a perfectly good thing to advocate but of little consequence to people who are not invested in their fringe research field. "A Feminine Boy" is a very strong essay with much to recommend itself, but it is difficult to recommend the rest of the book unless you are already much more interested in psychoanalysis than I am (admittedly not a high bar).
July 26, 2024
Για μένα, η ψυχανάλυση και ο ψυχαναλυτικός λόγος έχει νόημα μόνο όταν μπορεί να χαρακτηριστεί με τα δύο εξής επίθετα: α) κλινική και β) πολιτική. Ελάχιστα με ενδιαφέρει οποιαδήποτε ψυχαναλυτική οπτική δεν έχει πάντοτε στο νου της (αν όχι στο επίκεντρό της) την κλινική εφαρμογή της, ή/και δεν τοποθετείται πολιτικά. Η Σακετοπούλου και το Πελεγκρίνι, σε αυτό το κείμενο, αποτελούν παραδείγματα προς μίμηση, όσον αφορά τα παραπάνω. Είμαι σίγουρη πως δεν μπορώ να αποδώσω με σαφήνεια το ποσό αξιοθαύμαστα πολιτικοποιημένο, κουίρ, φεμινιστικό είναι αυτό το κείμενο, πόσο ευαίσθητα ξεδιπλώνει τον λόγο του για το κουίρ, το Κουίρ. Ήδη, όσα έγραψα μου φαίνονται ξύλινα και άγαρμπα μπροστά του. Παραθέτω μερικά αποσπάσματα, σε μια προσπάθεια να αφήσω το κείμενο να μιλήσει για το εαυτό του, με πλήρη αντίληψη πως ακόμα και αυτή η επιλογή αποτελεί κουτσούρεμα και περιορισμό των όσων λέγονται, αφού τους στερεί το πλαίσιό τους.
"We're pushing back against the assumption that gender is immune to trauma, or that gender in order to be healthy, is uncontaminated by early traumatic intrusions, by adult interventions, or by the emotional debris of intergenerational pressures." (σ. 29).
" [...] what makes one's gender feel one's own is not its independence from the object, but the freedom to weave together mythosymbolic codes, including the ones related to the parent's trauma with relative autonomy from the other's control." (σ. 69).
" [...] labor [ is ] required to translate and elaborate any gender including cis gender formations. [...] cis genders are not expectable, natural genders: they too are genders that coagulate into a sense of self through considerable translational psychic work. That this psychic work is rendered invisible by virtue of its normativity does not mean that such labor does not exist, only that it's not easily apparent." (σ. 79). "[...] the category of cisness is neither spontaneous nor the default, and it requires a level of violence and dissociation for its maintenance." (σ. 81).
Αλλά και:
"Gender is, [...] about how something psychic appears phenomenally. What makes gender experience real is that it exists on the level of psychic reality, where, experienced as truth, it becomes central to one's sense of self. Even as a psychic reality, however, gender identification also requires the oxygen of relational recognition [...]." (σ. 25).
"Gender is not a private language; it is relational, requiring at least two parties [...]. Gender implicates us with others, makes us vulnerable to their address, to the way they do and do not call our names, the ways the do and do not hold us in mind, the ways they do and do not lust after us." (σ. 96).
Δεν το προτείνω για άτομα που δεν έχουν καμία εμπειρία στην ανάγνωση ψυχαναλυτικών κειμένων, πιστεύω θα τα κουράσει. Για όσα έχουν, είναι απαραίτητο, αναγκαίο ανάγνωσμα. Νιώθω ειλικρινά ευγνώμων που έφτασε στα χέρια μου.
"We're pushing back against the assumption that gender is immune to trauma, or that gender in order to be healthy, is uncontaminated by early traumatic intrusions, by adult interventions, or by the emotional debris of intergenerational pressures." (σ. 29).
" [...] what makes one's gender feel one's own is not its independence from the object, but the freedom to weave together mythosymbolic codes, including the ones related to the parent's trauma with relative autonomy from the other's control." (σ. 69).
" [...] labor [ is ] required to translate and elaborate any gender including cis gender formations. [...] cis genders are not expectable, natural genders: they too are genders that coagulate into a sense of self through considerable translational psychic work. That this psychic work is rendered invisible by virtue of its normativity does not mean that such labor does not exist, only that it's not easily apparent." (σ. 79). "[...] the category of cisness is neither spontaneous nor the default, and it requires a level of violence and dissociation for its maintenance." (σ. 81).
Αλλά και:
"Gender is, [...] about how something psychic appears phenomenally. What makes gender experience real is that it exists on the level of psychic reality, where, experienced as truth, it becomes central to one's sense of self. Even as a psychic reality, however, gender identification also requires the oxygen of relational recognition [...]." (σ. 25).
"Gender is not a private language; it is relational, requiring at least two parties [...]. Gender implicates us with others, makes us vulnerable to their address, to the way they do and do not call our names, the ways the do and do not hold us in mind, the ways they do and do not lust after us." (σ. 96).
Δεν το προτείνω για άτομα που δεν έχουν καμία εμπειρία στην ανάγνωση ψυχαναλυτικών κειμένων, πιστεύω θα τα κουράσει. Για όσα έχουν, είναι απαραίτητο, αναγκαίο ανάγνωσμα. Νιώθω ειλικρινά ευγνώμων που έφτασε στα χέρια μου.
February 18, 2025
On the good side, this book makes critical interventions in pop queer discourse by speaking to the mutability of identity, the agency that individuals harbor in gendered self-making, and the import psycho-analysis may have toward untangling knots in these formations in the pursuit of an expanded freedom…
But it’s all rendered through a narrative and methodology that feels at times bizarre, hermetic, cold, and “I need to touch grass”
The book spends most of its runtime psycho-analyzing the possible etiology of a child’s gender non-conformity in a way that recalls/shadows pathologizing rhetorics… I would find their arguments less unsettling if they actually gave equal time/weight to picking apart the genders of cis patients, rather than constantly appending a reassurance that the same level of analysis may be applied to normative genders as well
This is not just an issue of optics, but of superficiality… The ultimate argument feels so defanged, incomplete, and normative when it fails to begin from a clear analysis of the coercive social production of cishet subjects
So much is communicated in Avgi and Ann’s rhetorical restraints, their self-inhibitive twists of phrase. "Isn’t Ilana, too, in her normative cis gender experience and presentation, also partially a by- product of others’ idea of what gender is?" they write. At another point: “one should not underestimate the violence that creates cis-ness”.
"Isn't she too…? Partially?" /// "one should not underestimate"
It feels weak-kneed. Instead of bracketing these points as addendums in a book that centers on a quasi-pathologizing case study of one child’s trans-gendered formation, what if their arguments began with the position that violence is the fundamental basis of producing cis-ness, the basis of the very ontological formation of the "person" thru the fabric of gender & the heterosexual matrix?
That’s perhaps the strangest part of the book: In their hyper-focus on the psycho-analytic, there is a bizarre erasure of the coercive violence that constitutes people’s genders
By the end of the book, instead of using actively queer-affirming pronouns for their child patient, they continue to use “he.” What? The writers explain this saying they "wish to sustain an open space for Ory’s unfolding gendered possibilities", implying that this space was ever "open" to begin with (THIS is my major stumbling point I can't get over with this book); I agree that Ory's gender is a realm of indeterminate unfolding, but their rhetoric coldly erases the immense pressure, policing, and shame the kid faces from homophobic parents, Jewish Orthodoxy, etc, that clearly obstructs her from making fully agential claims about her own identity now and in the future
Instead of their mode of “patient affirmation”, why not engage in active affirmation that offers possibilities to their child-patient? Possibilities that might expand the agency she is constantly deprived of in a bigoted social upbringing?
I don't feel like I'm reading lesbians talking about a queer child going through homophobic trauma, I feel like I'm reading psycho-analysts talking about a patient from a detached position of extraction, more concerned with "being right" and therefore ending up as deeply incorrect… It feels unsettling honestly
I think the explanation is that in their deference to the limits of the psycho-analytic institution, there is a myopia of imagination and some level of unresolved ideologically-status-quo “neutral objectivity”… This is disappointing to feel when reading an author I generally perceive as rejecting the propriety of mainstream rhetorics in favor of making audacious vital claims
This book speaks eloquently to smth that has not been written enough, but the critique ultimately feels rather domesticated, timid, and sterile to me, and didn't bring me anywhere new. I loved how psycho-analysis was used as a methodology in Sexuality Beyond Consent, it was incredible and audacious; but in this book, it feels like it hinders these writers from making claims that might be… less boring. and less robotic.
But it’s all rendered through a narrative and methodology that feels at times bizarre, hermetic, cold, and “I need to touch grass”
The book spends most of its runtime psycho-analyzing the possible etiology of a child’s gender non-conformity in a way that recalls/shadows pathologizing rhetorics… I would find their arguments less unsettling if they actually gave equal time/weight to picking apart the genders of cis patients, rather than constantly appending a reassurance that the same level of analysis may be applied to normative genders as well
This is not just an issue of optics, but of superficiality… The ultimate argument feels so defanged, incomplete, and normative when it fails to begin from a clear analysis of the coercive social production of cishet subjects
So much is communicated in Avgi and Ann’s rhetorical restraints, their self-inhibitive twists of phrase. "Isn’t Ilana, too, in her normative cis gender experience and presentation, also partially a by- product of others’ idea of what gender is?" they write. At another point: “one should not underestimate the violence that creates cis-ness”.
"Isn't she too…? Partially?" /// "one should not underestimate"
It feels weak-kneed. Instead of bracketing these points as addendums in a book that centers on a quasi-pathologizing case study of one child’s trans-gendered formation, what if their arguments began with the position that violence is the fundamental basis of producing cis-ness, the basis of the very ontological formation of the "person" thru the fabric of gender & the heterosexual matrix?
That’s perhaps the strangest part of the book: In their hyper-focus on the psycho-analytic, there is a bizarre erasure of the coercive violence that constitutes people’s genders
By the end of the book, instead of using actively queer-affirming pronouns for their child patient, they continue to use “he.” What? The writers explain this saying they "wish to sustain an open space for Ory’s unfolding gendered possibilities", implying that this space was ever "open" to begin with (THIS is my major stumbling point I can't get over with this book); I agree that Ory's gender is a realm of indeterminate unfolding, but their rhetoric coldly erases the immense pressure, policing, and shame the kid faces from homophobic parents, Jewish Orthodoxy, etc, that clearly obstructs her from making fully agential claims about her own identity now and in the future
Instead of their mode of “patient affirmation”, why not engage in active affirmation that offers possibilities to their child-patient? Possibilities that might expand the agency she is constantly deprived of in a bigoted social upbringing?
I don't feel like I'm reading lesbians talking about a queer child going through homophobic trauma, I feel like I'm reading psycho-analysts talking about a patient from a detached position of extraction, more concerned with "being right" and therefore ending up as deeply incorrect… It feels unsettling honestly
I think the explanation is that in their deference to the limits of the psycho-analytic institution, there is a myopia of imagination and some level of unresolved ideologically-status-quo “neutral objectivity”… This is disappointing to feel when reading an author I generally perceive as rejecting the propriety of mainstream rhetorics in favor of making audacious vital claims
This book speaks eloquently to smth that has not been written enough, but the critique ultimately feels rather domesticated, timid, and sterile to me, and didn't bring me anywhere new. I loved how psycho-analysis was used as a methodology in Sexuality Beyond Consent, it was incredible and audacious; but in this book, it feels like it hinders these writers from making claims that might be… less boring. and less robotic.
June 26, 2024
The message of this book is amazing and (apparently) bold. They are putting up a fight in an academic field that is very conservative and very queer and transphobic, which is nothing short of laudable.
The actual contents of the book, however, were rather tame for someone that has been immersed in more queer aligned theoretical (online) spaces. I guess the message boils down to: "what if, instead, we actually did not condemn, force or persuade queer and trans people, took them seriously, and helped them find whoever they want to be and help them being able to keep changing whenever they want in the future". A beautiful message for sure, but sad that this is as cutting-edge as it appears to be.
A lot of the more hard-line psychoanalytic theory in the book is also more than a little lost on me, I am also weary of older and more established psychoanalytic reasoning but I knew this would be an issue even before I picked up the book.
However, the book embracing and promoting, even celebrating, non-normativity and diversity, especially in queerness but you can read it in more broad terms as well, was extremely empowering, validating, and cathartic. I am glad I read the book, I think I am better equipped at thinking about myself, how I got here, where I want to go and how to get there. I'd definitely recommend parts of the book to anyone dabbling in progressive and intellectual queer spaces.
The actual contents of the book, however, were rather tame for someone that has been immersed in more queer aligned theoretical (online) spaces. I guess the message boils down to: "what if, instead, we actually did not condemn, force or persuade queer and trans people, took them seriously, and helped them find whoever they want to be and help them being able to keep changing whenever they want in the future". A beautiful message for sure, but sad that this is as cutting-edge as it appears to be.
A lot of the more hard-line psychoanalytic theory in the book is also more than a little lost on me, I am also weary of older and more established psychoanalytic reasoning but I knew this would be an issue even before I picked up the book.
However, the book embracing and promoting, even celebrating, non-normativity and diversity, especially in queerness but you can read it in more broad terms as well, was extremely empowering, validating, and cathartic. I am glad I read the book, I think I am better equipped at thinking about myself, how I got here, where I want to go and how to get there. I'd definitely recommend parts of the book to anyone dabbling in progressive and intellectual queer spaces.
This entire review has been hidden because of spoilers.
June 21, 2023
I've never cried this hard from reading a book on the theories of psychoanalysis. Not because that was the goal purpose of the authors, Avgi Saketopoulou and Ann Pellegrini, but by putting this out there against the unspeakable censorship that we all know, they lead by doing as practitioners. As psychoanalysts who are willing to go not only where they should, they put themselves at risk not just as allies, but as accomplices, to where we must.
Despite the specificity of this book, dealing with the issues of gender and identity within the conservatives of psychoanalysis, it is immediately evident the implications of how this shapes the perceptions of our reality and how much this conversation is needed despite being the elephant in the room. It is within the specificity that makes me reflect on how this challenges the macro perceptions, vacillating continuously between the personal and the political.
I write this with nothing but admiration for the humility of Saketopoulou and Pellegrini for daring to go against the laziness of conformity. During this epoch of interpretation, where we all try to shield ourselves behind layers of protection and separation in the guise of professionalism, I echo the words from the book, "Yes, I will embark on this adventure with you."
Despite the specificity of this book, dealing with the issues of gender and identity within the conservatives of psychoanalysis, it is immediately evident the implications of how this shapes the perceptions of our reality and how much this conversation is needed despite being the elephant in the room. It is within the specificity that makes me reflect on how this challenges the macro perceptions, vacillating continuously between the personal and the political.
I write this with nothing but admiration for the humility of Saketopoulou and Pellegrini for daring to go against the laziness of conformity. During this epoch of interpretation, where we all try to shield ourselves behind layers of protection and separation in the guise of professionalism, I echo the words from the book, "Yes, I will embark on this adventure with you."
July 16, 2024
Maybe the best and most all-encompassing overview on transpsychoanalytic research I've read, remaining accessible with a high concentration of relevant insights, what can I say, I am a huge fan of Avgi Saketopoulou. Two things that irked me where (a) the surreally short rebuttal of hormones influencing gendered behaviour in a meaningful way (if you use one source and only 100 words, that should be a sign you're not engaged enough with the subject) and (b) the... uncritical attempt at masking trans- and homophobic violence at the hands of female perpetrators (at the bottom of p. 7), when in the recent years there's been a lot of qualitive research overviews of playing along with the erasure of female perpetratorship being a huge issue as it is ~reiterating a cornerstone belief that upholds and thus perpetuates the gender binary~ in understanding gender culturally (and thus also in gender theory). "Way to tell me millenials wrote this", "I thought we've been over this but it seems we never will, sigh", but yeah, otherwise great.
October 28, 2025
The work by Saketopoulou and Pellegrini is really excellent—the thesis in the first major essay "A Feminine Boy," is subtle; it seems obvious, at first, to anyone who's read enough post-Butler gender theory (there's no core gender identity, etc, etc), but it's actually suggesting something quite compellingly distinct. Saketopoulou is so good when she writes about actual case studies. This avoids the worst parts of Sexuality Beyond Consent, which were when she starts analyzing art, etc.
The chapter about nonbinary pronouns and the analytic situation was really interesting. Far more practical than the other parts of the book—which I appreciated.
The Laplanche essay was fine. Nice to have it included. The appendix on Stoller was probably the most interesting part.
The introduction to the first essay by the leader of the Tiresias award committee was not particularly illuminating; the introduction by AS and AP was more interesting regarding the context of the paper's withdrawal and the IJP's censorship.
The chapter about nonbinary pronouns and the analytic situation was really interesting. Far more practical than the other parts of the book—which I appreciated.
The Laplanche essay was fine. Nice to have it included. The appendix on Stoller was probably the most interesting part.
The introduction to the first essay by the leader of the Tiresias award committee was not particularly illuminating; the introduction by AS and AP was more interesting regarding the context of the paper's withdrawal and the IJP's censorship.
July 4, 2025
Thankfully, the psychoanalytic language in this book was well-explained and decently easy to interpret with context. The writing style was also surprisingly nice to read, with concrete anecdotes and examples providing much needed clarity to abstract concepts :)
I found this book to be a very thought-provoking take on gender. The premise of the theory sounds controversial and somewhat scary (rejecting the concept of a “core gender identity” removes the basis of many longstanding arguments that trans people use to defend their existence), but it also adds so much depth to the parts of gendered experience that sometimes feel too nuanced to put into words. I’m sure much of the content went over my head, but that which I did take away from this book feels like a much stronger, more meaningful framework for understanding gender.
I found this book to be a very thought-provoking take on gender. The premise of the theory sounds controversial and somewhat scary (rejecting the concept of a “core gender identity” removes the basis of many longstanding arguments that trans people use to defend their existence), but it also adds so much depth to the parts of gendered experience that sometimes feel too nuanced to put into words. I’m sure much of the content went over my head, but that which I did take away from this book feels like a much stronger, more meaningful framework for understanding gender.
August 5, 2023
A brilliant, humanist, daring critique of the history, limitations, and opportunities within the field of psychoanalysis with its heteronormative, misogynistic and binary biases. The authors “Queer” previously entrenched views of trauma, sexuality and gender by giving survivors and non-heteronormative persons agency in their own identity development. They risk the potential irrelevance of their field of expertise by tearing down what have been considered foundational truths, with an invitation to rebuild analytical processes in a way more organic, inclusive, and empowering for both clients and therapists. A bold, fascinating read.
March 28, 2024
i spent my afternoon finishing this book. i couldn’t put it down- which is rare with a theoretical text. this psychoanalytic (or, to be more precise, Laplanchian) account of gender formation is fascinating. it welcomes the trauma, intergenerational debris, cultural myths and symbols, and experimental self-theorizations that are all spun into gender. i think it’s a wonderful way of rethinking trauma in relation to gender and overall an account that resists identity politics and the fixity that comes with it by advocating for “gender as a becoming”. a quick read, and a great one!
December 20, 2025
I don't think I disagree with the central idea in this text, but after reading a couple of interviews and the forward material about how important this work was and how intensely its release was suppressed, I was very underwhelmed. The main thrust of the idea seems like it fits in about a sentence, and the case study about one child the author saw as a client for a few months is profoundly uninspiring. Surprised and disappointed.
June 17, 2024
Táto kniha má obrovský potenciál sa stať novým must read kusom literatúry kvir teórie. Gratulujem autorstvu že nepadli do "butlerovskej" pasce lingvistickej komplexnosti, gratulujem že neopakovali staré tezy ale mali odvahu ísť proti prúdu, takto si predstavujem vedu, osobnú, ľudskú, milú, bez nezmyselných ideálov pohľadu odnikiaľ.
April 20, 2025
Captivating and insightful and also useful which in this era can also mean necessary. There is a risk to abandoning the notion of a “core gender” that is the crux of the “born this way” of gender essentialist notions. But this book treads fearlessly if not compassionately cautious so as to show what has always been its limits and to glide across new possibilities of a gendered unfolding.
August 9, 2024
Read this for a queer psychoanalytic seminar and loved the profound, solid direction of the first section, pushing my thought while remaining elegant and readable. The latter sections didn't add a lot, but I am sure some people will enjoy them, too. Also want to shout out this is a visually beautiful book, with great use of the inside covers and thoughtful graphic design throughout.
February 6, 2025
Very helpful reflection on Laplanchian considerations of queer theory. I’m not sure it sold me on Laplanche but I did take away a deepened personal respect on the personal nature of language and definitions. It’s a fairly short read, just a few heavy hitting essays and a laplanche essay.
July 22, 2023
Brilliantly written.
September 1, 2023
ushering psychoanalytic inquiry into 2023. a necessary & admirable contribution
October 16, 2023
The Lapache part is too opaque to be useful but I really really love the central essay. So smart. I can feel this permeating my work (in my own understanding of myself even!) already.
July 14, 2024
An interesting look on how ALL gender can be affected by experience
July 16, 2024
Turns out you were important gay, but your parents absolutely annoyed you into being gay. And that's okay.
August 1, 2024
lo q entendí me encantó:p
Displaying 1 - 30 of 35 reviews