What do you think?
Rate this book
A Short History of Trans Misogyny
An accessible, bold new vision for the future of intersectional trans feminism, called "one of the best books in trans studies in recent years" by Susan Stryker
Why are trans women the most targeted of LGBT people? Why are they in the crosshairs of a resurgent anti-trans politics around the world? And what is to be done about it by activists, organizers, and allies?
A Short History of Transmisogyny is the first book-length study to answer these urgent but long overdue questions. Combining new historical analysis with political and activist accessibility, the book shows why it matters to understand trans misogyny as a specific form of violence with a documentable history. Ironically, it is through attending to the specificity of trans misogyny that trans women are no longer treated as inevitably tragic figures. They emerge instead as embattled but tenacious, locked in a struggle over the meaning and material stakes of gender, labor, race, and freedom.
The book travels across bustling port cities like New York, New Orleans, London and Paris, the colonial and military districts of the British Raj, the Philippines, and Hawai'i, and the lively travesti communities of Latin America.
The book shows how trans femininity has become legible as a fault line of broader global histories, including colonial government, the sex work industry, the policing of urban public space, and the line between the formal and informal economy. This transnational and intersectional approach reinforces that trans women are not isolated social subjects who appear alone; they are in fact central to the modern social world.
Why are trans women the most targeted of LGBT people? Why are they in the crosshairs of a resurgent anti-trans politics around the world? And what is to be done about it by activists, organizers, and allies?
A Short History of Transmisogyny is the first book-length study to answer these urgent but long overdue questions. Combining new historical analysis with political and activist accessibility, the book shows why it matters to understand trans misogyny as a specific form of violence with a documentable history. Ironically, it is through attending to the specificity of trans misogyny that trans women are no longer treated as inevitably tragic figures. They emerge instead as embattled but tenacious, locked in a struggle over the meaning and material stakes of gender, labor, race, and freedom.
The book travels across bustling port cities like New York, New Orleans, London and Paris, the colonial and military districts of the British Raj, the Philippines, and Hawai'i, and the lively travesti communities of Latin America.
The book shows how trans femininity has become legible as a fault line of broader global histories, including colonial government, the sex work industry, the policing of urban public space, and the line between the formal and informal economy. This transnational and intersectional approach reinforces that trans women are not isolated social subjects who appear alone; they are in fact central to the modern social world.
182 pages, Hardcover
First published January 30, 2024
214 people are currently reading
6115 people want to read
About the author
Jules Gill-Peterson
8 books107 followersJules Gill-Peterson is Associate Professor of History at Johns Hopkins University. She earned her PhD from Rutgers University and has held fellowships from the Radcliffe Institute for Advanced Study at Harvard University, the American Council of Learned Societies, and the Kinsey Institute. She was honored with the Chancellor’s Distinguished Research Award from the University of Pittsburgh in 2020.
Jules is the author of Histories of the Transgender Child (University of Minnesota Press, 2018), the first book to shatter the widespread myth that transgender children are a brand new generation in the twenty-first century. Uncovering a surprising archive dating from the 1920s through 1970s, Histories of the Transgender Child shows how the concept of gender relies on the medicalization of children's presumed racial plasticity, challenging the very terms of how we talk about today's medical model. The book was awarded a Lambda Literary Award for Transgender Nonfiction and the Children’s Literature Association Book Award.
Her next book, coming in January 2024 from Verso Books, is A Short History of Trans Misogyny.
Jules has also written for The New York Times, CNN, The Lily (by The Washington Post), Jewish Currents, The New Inquiry, The Funambulist, and more. She has been interviewed extensively in The Guardian, CBS, NPR, and Xtra Magazine. She also serves as a General Co-Editor at TSQ: Transgender Studies Quarterly.
Jules is currently working on Gender Underground: A History of Trans DIY, a book that reframes the trans twentieth century not through institutional medicine, but the myriad do-it-yourself practices of trans people that forged parallel medical and social worlds of transition.
Jules also writes a regular Substack newsletter, Sad Brown Girl. She is a member of the Death Panel podcast and a co-host of the Outward podcast.
Jules is the author of Histories of the Transgender Child (University of Minnesota Press, 2018), the first book to shatter the widespread myth that transgender children are a brand new generation in the twenty-first century. Uncovering a surprising archive dating from the 1920s through 1970s, Histories of the Transgender Child shows how the concept of gender relies on the medicalization of children's presumed racial plasticity, challenging the very terms of how we talk about today's medical model. The book was awarded a Lambda Literary Award for Transgender Nonfiction and the Children’s Literature Association Book Award.
Her next book, coming in January 2024 from Verso Books, is A Short History of Trans Misogyny.
Jules has also written for The New York Times, CNN, The Lily (by The Washington Post), Jewish Currents, The New Inquiry, The Funambulist, and more. She has been interviewed extensively in The Guardian, CBS, NPR, and Xtra Magazine. She also serves as a General Co-Editor at TSQ: Transgender Studies Quarterly.
Jules is currently working on Gender Underground: A History of Trans DIY, a book that reframes the trans twentieth century not through institutional medicine, but the myriad do-it-yourself practices of trans people that forged parallel medical and social worlds of transition.
Jules also writes a regular Substack newsletter, Sad Brown Girl. She is a member of the Death Panel podcast and a co-host of the Outward podcast.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 174 reviews
February 29, 2024
I decided to do a review on this book because I have a lot of thoughts about it and some mixed feelings.
I want to emphasize that nothing I say is an attack on Jules Gill-Peterson at all, they are just my thoughts after reading her book, which I actually quite enjoyed.
This book has been something interesting to read because the few books there are about how transmisogyny works or what people generally call plain transphobia, without specifying, never address the origin of how this very specific violence was created, because even though can become very "ambiguous" in the sense that it seems to affect many people, it does have a specific target, although those people can identify themselves in many ways. And I also liked that when reading this book because Jules has made a contribution that I feel is very useful and that is that she has brought up the word "transfeminized", because in the end transfem people, trans women or other people who do not fit with any Western term, we don't choose to be oppressed by transmisogyny, we simply end up there, shaped by colonization and the state
And the whole book is about colonization and white supremacy, and the effects it had on groups of people who were eventually transfeminized without their consent. And it is what I liked most about reading this book, because it adds to a lot of information that I have about the colonization of gender, which destroyed so many ways of organizing gender that many societies around the world had, to make what it is today, something binary that imprisons and punishes people and their bodies, some more than others. It was really enriching to read her research on this whole topic, which is crucial to understanding how transmisogyny works and its construction.
However, later I began to have a lot of mixed feelings, because the author very much defines transfeminity or trans womanhood as something that is oriented towards being feminine, which only revolves around people perceived as having masculine bodies who decide to exalt their femininity and are punished for it, for do it. Because not all transfem people or trans women are feminine or want to be, because there are many who are masculine and that masculinity also places them in the same violence, which is transmisogyny.
And I've been thinking a lot about it, while reading the book, and I've come up with an idea trying to go along with Jules' conclusions:
Perhaps our masculinity is also perceived as effeminate in a certain way. The masculinity of a trans woman is not that of a cis man, not even that of a transmasc person, it is something different, we mold it in such a way that other people could perceive that we are not transitioning or that we are still stuck in a limbo. And this masculinity is especially true of lesbian trans women. To give an example: it is common for masculine lesbians to have short hair, and many trans lesbians decide to leave it long, and this can perhaps be interpreted as something effeminate. However, that does not mean that trans women are hyper feminized. On the contrary, according to my experience and that of many, we are hyper masculinized to such an extent that we are perceived as monsters who are abusers and predators, and that we are worse than any cis man. And that's why I use the word "effeminate" instead of feminization
Perhaps trans women who have decided to be masculine are perceived as effeminate, at the same time that they are punished for deciding not to be a man and still continue to “steal” their masculinity and perform it monstrously, not in the "correct" way.
So probably in a certain way the author is right, but it is still somewhat sad that at no time was it considered that there are other types of transfemininity that do not imply femininity.
It is especially annoying me because the last chapter is dedicated to Latin American transvestites, who have always defined themselves as "neither man nor woman", and it was never possible to mention that trans women who have chosen masculinity, many of them are also outside of gender binarism. More because many of them are lesbian or bisexual, and that positions them in a similar territory of not being women or men, having a complex relationship with gender.
And that also left me somewhat upset about it, because the entire book focuses on a transfemininity that translates into heterosexual and it never talks about trans women who shared (and share) spaces with lesbians or bisexuals, because yes, they existed, many of them were femmes or high femmes, they not only exclusively shared spaces with gay community
And yes, it is very common that trans women are usually related to being a faggot, and I understand that it is a little easier to do research if you go by "general" experiences, in the end it was also my experience before coming out as trans.
But I feel that to trace a history of transmisogyny, and how it works, it is necessary to look at a broader map, otherwise trying to define transmisogyny is quite incomplete.
And I guess that's what I felt when I finished reading it, that it is incomplete. The author has indeed given good contributions to continue understanding transmisogyny, but I think that the understanding of this violence can be greatly enriched when you look in places that are more outside of the "conventional"
I want to emphasize that nothing I say is an attack on Jules Gill-Peterson at all, they are just my thoughts after reading her book, which I actually quite enjoyed.
This book has been something interesting to read because the few books there are about how transmisogyny works or what people generally call plain transphobia, without specifying, never address the origin of how this very specific violence was created, because even though can become very "ambiguous" in the sense that it seems to affect many people, it does have a specific target, although those people can identify themselves in many ways. And I also liked that when reading this book because Jules has made a contribution that I feel is very useful and that is that she has brought up the word "transfeminized", because in the end transfem people, trans women or other people who do not fit with any Western term, we don't choose to be oppressed by transmisogyny, we simply end up there, shaped by colonization and the state
And the whole book is about colonization and white supremacy, and the effects it had on groups of people who were eventually transfeminized without their consent. And it is what I liked most about reading this book, because it adds to a lot of information that I have about the colonization of gender, which destroyed so many ways of organizing gender that many societies around the world had, to make what it is today, something binary that imprisons and punishes people and their bodies, some more than others. It was really enriching to read her research on this whole topic, which is crucial to understanding how transmisogyny works and its construction.
However, later I began to have a lot of mixed feelings, because the author very much defines transfeminity or trans womanhood as something that is oriented towards being feminine, which only revolves around people perceived as having masculine bodies who decide to exalt their femininity and are punished for it, for do it. Because not all transfem people or trans women are feminine or want to be, because there are many who are masculine and that masculinity also places them in the same violence, which is transmisogyny.
And I've been thinking a lot about it, while reading the book, and I've come up with an idea trying to go along with Jules' conclusions:
Perhaps our masculinity is also perceived as effeminate in a certain way. The masculinity of a trans woman is not that of a cis man, not even that of a transmasc person, it is something different, we mold it in such a way that other people could perceive that we are not transitioning or that we are still stuck in a limbo. And this masculinity is especially true of lesbian trans women. To give an example: it is common for masculine lesbians to have short hair, and many trans lesbians decide to leave it long, and this can perhaps be interpreted as something effeminate. However, that does not mean that trans women are hyper feminized. On the contrary, according to my experience and that of many, we are hyper masculinized to such an extent that we are perceived as monsters who are abusers and predators, and that we are worse than any cis man. And that's why I use the word "effeminate" instead of feminization
Perhaps trans women who have decided to be masculine are perceived as effeminate, at the same time that they are punished for deciding not to be a man and still continue to “steal” their masculinity and perform it monstrously, not in the "correct" way.
So probably in a certain way the author is right, but it is still somewhat sad that at no time was it considered that there are other types of transfemininity that do not imply femininity.
It is especially annoying me because the last chapter is dedicated to Latin American transvestites, who have always defined themselves as "neither man nor woman", and it was never possible to mention that trans women who have chosen masculinity, many of them are also outside of gender binarism. More because many of them are lesbian or bisexual, and that positions them in a similar territory of not being women or men, having a complex relationship with gender.
And that also left me somewhat upset about it, because the entire book focuses on a transfemininity that translates into heterosexual and it never talks about trans women who shared (and share) spaces with lesbians or bisexuals, because yes, they existed, many of them were femmes or high femmes, they not only exclusively shared spaces with gay community
And yes, it is very common that trans women are usually related to being a faggot, and I understand that it is a little easier to do research if you go by "general" experiences, in the end it was also my experience before coming out as trans.
But I feel that to trace a history of transmisogyny, and how it works, it is necessary to look at a broader map, otherwise trying to define transmisogyny is quite incomplete.
And I guess that's what I felt when I finished reading it, that it is incomplete. The author has indeed given good contributions to continue understanding transmisogyny, but I think that the understanding of this violence can be greatly enriched when you look in places that are more outside of the "conventional"
February 6, 2024
Gill-Peterson’s book is a kick in the ass for exhausted warriors of today’s gender wars. She has written a paean to gender and sexual liberation that pulls its power from a deep dive into the global queer archive and contemporary queer practice.
She asks hard questions: What if we recollapsed the gender-sexual orientation binary and instead celebrated queer expression in all its messy, cross-pollinated excess? What if we stopped fearing femininity and instead praised its splendor and sticky joy? What if we embraced ever-changing forms of identity and expression rather than hiding behind acronyms and neat, academic definition?
If we stop dissecting every detail of our gendered and sexed lives and settle for the sloppy “good enough” (while pushing for a more liberating definition of “good enough”), Gill-Peterson reckons we’ll all live more joyous and content lives. I think she’s right.
She asks hard questions: What if we recollapsed the gender-sexual orientation binary and instead celebrated queer expression in all its messy, cross-pollinated excess? What if we stopped fearing femininity and instead praised its splendor and sticky joy? What if we embraced ever-changing forms of identity and expression rather than hiding behind acronyms and neat, academic definition?
If we stop dissecting every detail of our gendered and sexed lives and settle for the sloppy “good enough” (while pushing for a more liberating definition of “good enough”), Gill-Peterson reckons we’ll all live more joyous and content lives. I think she’s right.
Read
January 5, 2024Separated into three detailed chapters, and bookended by a compelling introduction and an assertive conclusion, A Short History of Trans Misogyny blends history, philosophy, politics, and anthropology to paint a vivid picture of trans misogyny, beginning in the early decades of the 19th century. In its introduction, Gill-Peterson defines trans misogyny, tethers it to broader issues of misogyny, racism, classism, and sets out a few modern examples.
My full thoughts: https://booksandbao.com/transgender-s...
My full thoughts: https://booksandbao.com/transgender-s...
Read
February 20, 2024Reading in the acknowledgements that this is a work of public scholarship made sense to me — I’m not the specific audience for this book, as someone embedded in trans studies. For that reason, despite some brilliant moments, and a much-appreciated summation of terf illogics I will definitely be sharing with those unfamiliar, this book felt pretty anemic. I really wish Gill-Peterson had a more sustained engagement both with the historical scenes she depicts and theoretical work on transmisogyny, queer/trans opacity, etc. But in this, I think I’m wishing for a completely different book.
Read
May 11, 2024a deeply conflicting read, and i say this not to detract from what gill-peterson achieves—the introduction of this book is breathtaking and inspiring for so many reasons, and i think what is conflicting about the book is the kind of intractable contradictions of transness and gender/sexuality writ large that gills-peterson is trying to map out. like, for example, that a universalised history of trans misogyny is equally impossible as a universalised articulation of trans womanhood , and that at times gill-peterson maybe overcorrects in pointing to the power and role of the white / western colonial nation-state in conversations about the global south. or, most potently felt (to me), the contradiction between a historical project to map out trans misogyny and trans feminisation, and a kind of future-oriented articulation of trans woman solidarity and strategy. so many times it felt like gill-peterson articulates a rhetorical pitfall that she then falls into, consciously or not. some that i felt emerge more pointedly: a kind of clumsiness in discussing sex work, positioned between articulations of agency and empowerment and descriptions of historical conditions of precarity, coercion, and violence that i do not think neatly resolve all the way through. a call to not overindex trans womanhood and to focus on the lives and voices of trans women, vs a book project that is about the symbolic & political value of the trans feminine, that often resolves in media analysis of images & representations of trans women, and discussions of symbolic power and transcendence. a call to invest in centering trans womanhood, but then a conclusion that looks toward blurring the boundaries between trans womanhood and other forms of gender/sex transgression that seems to occlude both the current political specificity of trans womanhood and the various ways in which people enter into transness (for example, much of the book focuses on trans women who have sex with men/are configured as feminine through sex with men). on one hand, a chiding of the rigidity and fixedness of the archetypal image of the trans woman, but then an ending that often celebrates and tries to restore that same image as one that is materially real.
im not sure if all these hesitations and dilemmas are valid, but i think what they point to is, i guess, a sense of frustration at the impossibility of a global history of transmisogyny. the parts of the book i resonated with the most were points where it could really put a point on the specific ways in which labour, economy, and race co constituted gender & sex. i wished for a more open and flexible articulation of what could constitute lineage, transness and a political identity of trans womanhood rather than a total repudiation of identity politics and generic calls toward material solidarity. i agreed with gills-peterson’s multiple concluding summations but couldnt help but wonder sometimes how exactly we had gotten here, in these platitudes and aphorisms that materialised seemingly separate from the various strands of historical analysis. what exactly would this idea of excess and high femininity look like if we took it seriously and developed a more robust understanding of what constitutes woman-ness beyond ideas of the feminine shored up in transactions of sex & violence with men? yes, all that is historical—but what about now? where does that leave us now?
im not sure if all these hesitations and dilemmas are valid, but i think what they point to is, i guess, a sense of frustration at the impossibility of a global history of transmisogyny. the parts of the book i resonated with the most were points where it could really put a point on the specific ways in which labour, economy, and race co constituted gender & sex. i wished for a more open and flexible articulation of what could constitute lineage, transness and a political identity of trans womanhood rather than a total repudiation of identity politics and generic calls toward material solidarity. i agreed with gills-peterson’s multiple concluding summations but couldnt help but wonder sometimes how exactly we had gotten here, in these platitudes and aphorisms that materialised seemingly separate from the various strands of historical analysis. what exactly would this idea of excess and high femininity look like if we took it seriously and developed a more robust understanding of what constitutes woman-ness beyond ideas of the feminine shored up in transactions of sex & violence with men? yes, all that is historical—but what about now? where does that leave us now?
March 24, 2024
loved this book which may be short but packs a big punch.
April 16, 2025
really invested in the history portions and the global connections and the conversations about categories like trans feminized vs trans woman vs gay man (or if it’s even vs in some places) etc etc. the conversation about the expectations we place on black trans women and other trans women of colour was especially powerful for me! i gotta rewatch paris is burning man omg…
not to sure how i feel about some conclusions coming down to the end and how sex work is talk about but perhaps when i discuss this in the book club i read it for ill change my outlook. would’ve also liked at least a side something on how lesbian trans women navigate and fit into this because examples and explanations are very hetero focused which fair cuz that’s probably the majority but still would’ve been an interesting insight to see.
not to sure how i feel about some conclusions coming down to the end and how sex work is talk about but perhaps when i discuss this in the book club i read it for ill change my outlook. would’ve also liked at least a side something on how lesbian trans women navigate and fit into this because examples and explanations are very hetero focused which fair cuz that’s probably the majority but still would’ve been an interesting insight to see.
June 12, 2025
"When a straight man lashes out after dating or having sex with a trans woman, he is often afraid of the implication that his sexuality will be joined to hers. When a gay man anxiously keeps trans women out of his activism or social circles, he is often fearful of their common stigma as feminine. And when a non-trans feminist claims she is erased by trans women's access to a bathroom, she is often afraid that their shared vulnerability as feminized people will be magnified intolerably by trans women's presence."
This was an excellently-argued, well-researched book. The third and final chapter, "Queens of the Gay World," was by far the most interesting and engaging, and I've got at least a third of this book highlighted. It's certainly the kind of text that I would've been assigned to read any of my gender studies classes in university, so bear in mind that A Short History of Trans Misogyny is not a particularly accessible text - it's the same density of theory and academic language that you'd find in, for instance, Judith Butler's writing.
Naturally, you would expect this book to be, well, a short history of trans misogyny. But to call it that is, unfortunately, a vicious misnomer. Despite being under 200 pages, it is in no way short, and what history there is in these pages is overcome by theory. I think that if this book had been titled differently, and had therefore set up different expectations of what the reader was going to see in these pages, I would've had a different experience with it. But as it is, A Short History of Trans Misogyny is a fragmented, poorly-planned-out mess of excellent arguments that just needs to be restructured. There is history here, undoubtedly, from the 1800s all the way to the modern day, but Gill-Peterson uses particular instances of trans misogyny in history as case studies to prove her theoretical points, rather than actually delving into the history itself. Only a third of every chapter is dedicated to the history and culture surrounding particular events and trans women, with the rest being academia-heavy language that winds up eventually becoming incredibly salient points.
Still, with the actual chapters themselves, they're interesting reads. They are, however - as the entirety of this book is - immensely dense, and a slow read where every single line needs to be considered and reflected on. Essentially, if you're looking for something quick and/or 'short,' this book isn't it. What really bogged me down - and, in turned, dropped my rating on this book - was the preface, introduction, and conclusion. First off, there was no need to have both a preface and an introduction - they were continuations of the same thing, and neither of them were actually particularly good introductions to the topic at hand. Similarly with the conclusion, it doesn't actually wrap up A Short History of Trans Misogyny, but suddenly introduces last-minute cultural concepts that absolutely should have been integrated into the chapters of this text, and not in the conclusion. I also found that Gill-Peterson's writing style is somehow perfectly fine in the chapters, but takes a massive, insufferable turn for the almost pretentious in these forwards and afterwards. I couldn't even get through the entirety of the introduction, let alone the preface, because Gill-Peterson just seems to be obsessed with making sure we all know that she know she's an academic. Entirely too complex sentences alienate even academic readers, and before I'd even finished the introduction, I considered DNF'ing this book on that alone. Thankfully, the meat of A Short History of Trans Misogyny is much better reading.
The other odd thing about this book is that it's a third history, a third theory, and somehow, a third media criticism. Gill-Peterson spends a lot of this book analyzing and dissecting film and book depictions of transness and trans-misogyny, which while interesting, had no place in this book. It felt like Gill-Peterson wanted to write a separate book just looking at media depictions of trans femininity, but couldn't find enough material, so she just jammed it in amid a historical text. This book was just so all over the place, and I really can't believe an editor thought that this was a good order to put all of these thoughts in.
Despite all of this, however, A Short History of Trans Misogyny is genuinely very interesting, and well-argued. I really do like it when I'm reading a nonfiction piece which as arguments I disagree with on occassion - it's nice to be able to go, "oh, that's an interesting viewpoint, but I disagree with this one because of XYZ." It creates a dialogue if nothing else, and opens the reader up to other perspectives, even if they still ultimately disagree for whatever reason.
All in all, this really was an interesting, enlightening read - just don't take the title and the summary at face-value, because it's not what you're going to be getting.
This was an excellently-argued, well-researched book. The third and final chapter, "Queens of the Gay World," was by far the most interesting and engaging, and I've got at least a third of this book highlighted. It's certainly the kind of text that I would've been assigned to read any of my gender studies classes in university, so bear in mind that A Short History of Trans Misogyny is not a particularly accessible text - it's the same density of theory and academic language that you'd find in, for instance, Judith Butler's writing.
Naturally, you would expect this book to be, well, a short history of trans misogyny. But to call it that is, unfortunately, a vicious misnomer. Despite being under 200 pages, it is in no way short, and what history there is in these pages is overcome by theory. I think that if this book had been titled differently, and had therefore set up different expectations of what the reader was going to see in these pages, I would've had a different experience with it. But as it is, A Short History of Trans Misogyny is a fragmented, poorly-planned-out mess of excellent arguments that just needs to be restructured. There is history here, undoubtedly, from the 1800s all the way to the modern day, but Gill-Peterson uses particular instances of trans misogyny in history as case studies to prove her theoretical points, rather than actually delving into the history itself. Only a third of every chapter is dedicated to the history and culture surrounding particular events and trans women, with the rest being academia-heavy language that winds up eventually becoming incredibly salient points.
Still, with the actual chapters themselves, they're interesting reads. They are, however - as the entirety of this book is - immensely dense, and a slow read where every single line needs to be considered and reflected on. Essentially, if you're looking for something quick and/or 'short,' this book isn't it. What really bogged me down - and, in turned, dropped my rating on this book - was the preface, introduction, and conclusion. First off, there was no need to have both a preface and an introduction - they were continuations of the same thing, and neither of them were actually particularly good introductions to the topic at hand. Similarly with the conclusion, it doesn't actually wrap up A Short History of Trans Misogyny, but suddenly introduces last-minute cultural concepts that absolutely should have been integrated into the chapters of this text, and not in the conclusion. I also found that Gill-Peterson's writing style is somehow perfectly fine in the chapters, but takes a massive, insufferable turn for the almost pretentious in these forwards and afterwards. I couldn't even get through the entirety of the introduction, let alone the preface, because Gill-Peterson just seems to be obsessed with making sure we all know that she know she's an academic. Entirely too complex sentences alienate even academic readers, and before I'd even finished the introduction, I considered DNF'ing this book on that alone. Thankfully, the meat of A Short History of Trans Misogyny is much better reading.
The other odd thing about this book is that it's a third history, a third theory, and somehow, a third media criticism. Gill-Peterson spends a lot of this book analyzing and dissecting film and book depictions of transness and trans-misogyny, which while interesting, had no place in this book. It felt like Gill-Peterson wanted to write a separate book just looking at media depictions of trans femininity, but couldn't find enough material, so she just jammed it in amid a historical text. This book was just so all over the place, and I really can't believe an editor thought that this was a good order to put all of these thoughts in.
Despite all of this, however, A Short History of Trans Misogyny is genuinely very interesting, and well-argued. I really do like it when I'm reading a nonfiction piece which as arguments I disagree with on occassion - it's nice to be able to go, "oh, that's an interesting viewpoint, but I disagree with this one because of XYZ." It creates a dialogue if nothing else, and opens the reader up to other perspectives, even if they still ultimately disagree for whatever reason.
All in all, this really was an interesting, enlightening read - just don't take the title and the summary at face-value, because it's not what you're going to be getting.
May 20, 2024
A lot of very good material but I found it a little disjointed. The general concepts discussed in the introduction and conclusion didn’t always feel as closely connected to the sometimes hyperspecific historical explorations in the main chapters as I wanted. But, perhaps that is to be expected when a lot of the author’s general arguments oppose the practice of neatly and universally categorizing everything.
I think the author has a lot of great framing for talking about trans misogyny. I like her insistence that the very concept of transness is itself often a colonial imposition, that transfemininity is not just a property of specific individuals known as trans women but is a broader phenomenon such that, historically, there is no clear dividing line between gay men and trans women, that understanding misogyny as the repression of women who step outside of their prescribed roles helps clarify the consistency between misogyny and trans misogyny. And more!
What kept me from being completely taken with this history book was the history itself. It didn’t always feel as strong as the essayistic writing in the introduction. The third chapter on street queens I thought was quite good, because it had the clearest argument out of the historical chapters: that the emergence of current LGBTQ+ politics is founded on the abandonment of the street queen. In the first chapter as well, I was grateful to learn new-to-me information about the British campaign to exterminate hijras in India. However, the second chapter in particular, though it had good material, felt primarily like a review for me of stuff I’ve read previously, especially C Riley Snorton’s Black on Both Sides.
Though the author writes some on this topic, I also still feel a little unclear on why the specific eras/settings/histories chosen were chosen—according to the introduction, the author is trying to do something like excavate the origin of trans misogyny. If that is the goal, I would have liked to read a little more about prior colonial impositions of gender norms in history to get a more specific sense of the contrast of why those were “anti trans” (in modern language) but wouldn’t fulfill the criteria of trans misogyny. I feel like what I got out of the historical material wasn’t necessarily something as decisive as what was described in the introduction, but more along the lines of “here are some interesting moments that contribute to an understanding of the complex ways that trans misogyny can function.”
The book is pretty solid really, but I’m left a little unsure how I feel about how it was all tied together. For example, I was compelled by the contention in the introduction that violence against trans women is often alluded to as a taken-for-granted element of society, without looking to explain why it happens in the first place. But, how far does this book take us in explaining the phenomenon? I’m not sure. If I was to answer the question based on the material in the book, I suppose I would say that violence against trans women exists to protect colonial regimes from perceived threats. But this is never stated outright. That big hook of the “why” instead is dangled and then followed not by a clear, simple, direct answer, but a constellation of details.
That is the main question left for me after reading — the relative values of simplicity and complexity in addressing these questions, and where there is a good balance. Too much simplicity, as the author would say, ends up doing violence to those who do not understand themselves in the terms of the one doing the simplifying, who is also often the one with greater power in the situation—via class, race, nationality, etc. But, on the other hand, is there not a point at which a limitless reach toward complexity separates what is similar, individualizing us and preventing the possibility of social movements coming together and challenging these conditions?
The book apparently felt a little bit out of that balance for me, though I’m left scratching my head as to whether the fault may be my own rather than the book’s. Oh well. Worth reading!
I think the author has a lot of great framing for talking about trans misogyny. I like her insistence that the very concept of transness is itself often a colonial imposition, that transfemininity is not just a property of specific individuals known as trans women but is a broader phenomenon such that, historically, there is no clear dividing line between gay men and trans women, that understanding misogyny as the repression of women who step outside of their prescribed roles helps clarify the consistency between misogyny and trans misogyny. And more!
What kept me from being completely taken with this history book was the history itself. It didn’t always feel as strong as the essayistic writing in the introduction. The third chapter on street queens I thought was quite good, because it had the clearest argument out of the historical chapters: that the emergence of current LGBTQ+ politics is founded on the abandonment of the street queen. In the first chapter as well, I was grateful to learn new-to-me information about the British campaign to exterminate hijras in India. However, the second chapter in particular, though it had good material, felt primarily like a review for me of stuff I’ve read previously, especially C Riley Snorton’s Black on Both Sides.
Though the author writes some on this topic, I also still feel a little unclear on why the specific eras/settings/histories chosen were chosen—according to the introduction, the author is trying to do something like excavate the origin of trans misogyny. If that is the goal, I would have liked to read a little more about prior colonial impositions of gender norms in history to get a more specific sense of the contrast of why those were “anti trans” (in modern language) but wouldn’t fulfill the criteria of trans misogyny. I feel like what I got out of the historical material wasn’t necessarily something as decisive as what was described in the introduction, but more along the lines of “here are some interesting moments that contribute to an understanding of the complex ways that trans misogyny can function.”
The book is pretty solid really, but I’m left a little unsure how I feel about how it was all tied together. For example, I was compelled by the contention in the introduction that violence against trans women is often alluded to as a taken-for-granted element of society, without looking to explain why it happens in the first place. But, how far does this book take us in explaining the phenomenon? I’m not sure. If I was to answer the question based on the material in the book, I suppose I would say that violence against trans women exists to protect colonial regimes from perceived threats. But this is never stated outright. That big hook of the “why” instead is dangled and then followed not by a clear, simple, direct answer, but a constellation of details.
That is the main question left for me after reading — the relative values of simplicity and complexity in addressing these questions, and where there is a good balance. Too much simplicity, as the author would say, ends up doing violence to those who do not understand themselves in the terms of the one doing the simplifying, who is also often the one with greater power in the situation—via class, race, nationality, etc. But, on the other hand, is there not a point at which a limitless reach toward complexity separates what is similar, individualizing us and preventing the possibility of social movements coming together and challenging these conditions?
The book apparently felt a little bit out of that balance for me, though I’m left scratching my head as to whether the fault may be my own rather than the book’s. Oh well. Worth reading!
June 20, 2025
an interesting read, but often times the (white) author seems to glamorise transfems of color in the exact same way she is critiquing society at large for doing so, particularly in the last chapter about latin communities. additionally as other reviews mentioned, there is a surprising lack of conversation about masc transfeminine people, especially those in lesbian/bisexual spaces. similarly, a lot of the analysis of effeminate gay men raises questions about effeminate trans gay men, and their place relative to transmisogynistic expression; the text feels predominantly concerned with cisgender homosexuals or transgender heterosexuals, and is woefully unable to really cross the bridge to the idea of being both gay and trans. a large part of the thesis involves the idea of sexuality and gender as separate labels and communities as ill-informed and even ‘colonial’ in one spot, if i remember correctly, and i understand where the author is coming from but it really feels… overly ambitious, to put it kindly, and especially dismissive of brown gender-diverse communities. there’s also a part that describes “trans woman of color” as a term that conservatives use when they are too afraid to say “black trans women” which… is incorrect? there is also a portion near the beginning where she critiques a TERF for saying that drag is equivalent to blackface in that it’s all performance done for an audience who knows better, and… then she also analogises drag to blackface later on? that one was insane. all of these inaccuracies feel like natural consequences of the author being a white canadian trans woman covering aspects of international brown history, which is to say, sometimes the analysis comes off as close-minded and heavily limited.
June 12, 2025
une enquête sur la structuration de la transmisogynie au fil des deux derniers siècles pour essayer de répondre à la question posée dans la très intéressante intro : d'où vient la transmisogynie ? et pourquoi elle nous est souvent racontée comme une évidence, qui n'aurait pas de début (et donc pas de fin un jour). je crois que j'ai pas mal de choses à en dire donc résumé pour celleux qui ont la flemme de tout lire : une contribution hyper précieuse pour comprendre les ressorts historiques et coloniaux de la transmisogynie, mais dont les perspectives politiques et l'absence de certaines situations spécifiques, notamment les femmes trans lesbiennes, m'ont laissés sur ma faim.
maintenant, place au yapping :
j'ai beaucoup aimé les explorations et les recherches sur ces exemples, comme le chapitre sur la paupérisation des hijras par les colons britanniques et celui sur Mary Jones et les processus de re-genrement progressif des femmes noires dans les US post abolition de l'esclavage qui viennent la criminaliser. la partie sur la trahison du mouvement gay des années 70 envers les queens publiques est vraiment passionnant aussi, et permet d'aller un peu plus loin que la déification de Marsha P. Johnson, Sylvia Riviera et de cette foutue première brique de Stonewall. un phénomène qui est au final très appauvrissant pour comprendre ce qui s'est joué. cependant, et je sais que c'est dans le titre mais bon, c'est effectivement une brève histoire, et les conclusions faites à partir d'un seul exemple (qui est en plus parfois un exemple issu de la fiction) m'ont parfois laissé un peu frustrée et dubitative sur leur caractère généralisable.
au long du livre, Gill-Peterson développe le concept de "trans-féminisation" et c'est sans doute un des apports majeur du livre. il permet de penser la transfeminité pas seulement comme une identité revendiquée mais aussi comme un processus qui à rassemblé (souvent par la force et notamment la violence coloniale) des modes de vie très variée sous une identité commune, et vers des positions économiques et sociales similaires (souvent caractérisée par le travail du sexe). Ça permet à la fois de penser la situation commune des femmes trans qui se vivent et se revendiquent comme telle aujourd'hui, des queens publiques des années 60, des hijras et d'autres identités/positions sociales qui ont été effacés ou transformés par la colonisation. Je trouve que ça complète très bien les réflexions de Tahlia Batt dans Trans/Rad/Fem sur le sujet.
malheureusement j'ai été assez frustrée par deux choses : d'abord, et même si c'est un élément très intéressant du livre qui m'a appris beaucoup de choses, la partie sur la manière dont les identités gays et transfem ont longtemps été indissociables et sur la féminité et son expression exacerbée comme une composante assez essentielle des transféminités est essentielle et passionnante, mais elle m'a peu a peu questionnée : où sont les femmes trans lesbiennes dans cette histoire ? ça aurait été intéressant de développer davantage sur celles qui ont participé aux mouvements féministes des années 60/70, et qui ont je crois une histoire un peu différente des queens publiques. c'est abordé très rapidement à partir de la controverse autour de Beth Elliott, mais c'est tout. je crois que la dissociation progressive des identités gay et transfem à permis à un transfeminisme lesbien d'exister, l'étudier permettrait aussi de nourrir une réflexion sur le caractère socialement construit des orientations sexuelles.
ensuite, la conclusion est vraiment très frustrante, j'ai eu du mal à en suivre le fil. le détour par le transféminisme latina est très intéressant, mais il amène Gill-Peterson à conclure sur une forme de pirouette un peu mystique sur la revendication d'une hyperféminitié (mujerissima) dont je ne comprends pas trop comment elle est mobilisable politiquement. ça a nourris un peu plus ma frustration sur la place données aux transfem lesbiennes, dont les parcours les amène parfois à justement investir des formes de masculinités via leur identité lesbienne. c'est sans doute que c'est une histoire qu'il nous reste encore à défricher et écrire !
edit : j'ai oublié mais aussi le travail de traduction est vraiment super avec énormément d'explications sur les choix de traductions du vocabulaire spécifiquement américain ou autre, etc
maintenant, place au yapping :
j'ai beaucoup aimé les explorations et les recherches sur ces exemples, comme le chapitre sur la paupérisation des hijras par les colons britanniques et celui sur Mary Jones et les processus de re-genrement progressif des femmes noires dans les US post abolition de l'esclavage qui viennent la criminaliser. la partie sur la trahison du mouvement gay des années 70 envers les queens publiques est vraiment passionnant aussi, et permet d'aller un peu plus loin que la déification de Marsha P. Johnson, Sylvia Riviera et de cette foutue première brique de Stonewall. un phénomène qui est au final très appauvrissant pour comprendre ce qui s'est joué. cependant, et je sais que c'est dans le titre mais bon, c'est effectivement une brève histoire, et les conclusions faites à partir d'un seul exemple (qui est en plus parfois un exemple issu de la fiction) m'ont parfois laissé un peu frustrée et dubitative sur leur caractère généralisable.
au long du livre, Gill-Peterson développe le concept de "trans-féminisation" et c'est sans doute un des apports majeur du livre. il permet de penser la transfeminité pas seulement comme une identité revendiquée mais aussi comme un processus qui à rassemblé (souvent par la force et notamment la violence coloniale) des modes de vie très variée sous une identité commune, et vers des positions économiques et sociales similaires (souvent caractérisée par le travail du sexe). Ça permet à la fois de penser la situation commune des femmes trans qui se vivent et se revendiquent comme telle aujourd'hui, des queens publiques des années 60, des hijras et d'autres identités/positions sociales qui ont été effacés ou transformés par la colonisation. Je trouve que ça complète très bien les réflexions de Tahlia Batt dans Trans/Rad/Fem sur le sujet.
malheureusement j'ai été assez frustrée par deux choses : d'abord, et même si c'est un élément très intéressant du livre qui m'a appris beaucoup de choses, la partie sur la manière dont les identités gays et transfem ont longtemps été indissociables et sur la féminité et son expression exacerbée comme une composante assez essentielle des transféminités est essentielle et passionnante, mais elle m'a peu a peu questionnée : où sont les femmes trans lesbiennes dans cette histoire ? ça aurait été intéressant de développer davantage sur celles qui ont participé aux mouvements féministes des années 60/70, et qui ont je crois une histoire un peu différente des queens publiques. c'est abordé très rapidement à partir de la controverse autour de Beth Elliott, mais c'est tout. je crois que la dissociation progressive des identités gay et transfem à permis à un transfeminisme lesbien d'exister, l'étudier permettrait aussi de nourrir une réflexion sur le caractère socialement construit des orientations sexuelles.
ensuite, la conclusion est vraiment très frustrante, j'ai eu du mal à en suivre le fil. le détour par le transféminisme latina est très intéressant, mais il amène Gill-Peterson à conclure sur une forme de pirouette un peu mystique sur la revendication d'une hyperféminitié (mujerissima) dont je ne comprends pas trop comment elle est mobilisable politiquement. ça a nourris un peu plus ma frustration sur la place données aux transfem lesbiennes, dont les parcours les amène parfois à justement investir des formes de masculinités via leur identité lesbienne. c'est sans doute que c'est une histoire qu'il nous reste encore à défricher et écrire !
edit : j'ai oublié mais aussi le travail de traduction est vraiment super avec énormément d'explications sur les choix de traductions du vocabulaire spécifiquement américain ou autre, etc
December 23, 2024
Writing this before book club.
Some of the intro felt redundant and just trying to hit a page count, but the section about the body politic on page 119 was fascinating. I was thrown out of it again on page 121 when she said Desdemona was from The Tempest when she's very much, very famously, from Othello.
A lot of typos in my edition which I did order early in the run so that was a given. Not sure how I feel about the last section. It brings it full circle (hijras vs travesti), but it's kinda like The Trouble with White Women where the whole counterargument is just them existing. And sure with the anti-trans laws/backlash just existing is a feat, but what are they doing? What do they represent? I also didn't really care for this section during the Death Panel episode on the book. Also pg. 153 "femininity is the reward." Surely it should be self-determination?
Chapter 2 on Mary Jones was fascinating tho, in certain sections.
2.5, maybe.
Some of the intro felt redundant and just trying to hit a page count, but the section about the body politic on page 119 was fascinating. I was thrown out of it again on page 121 when she said Desdemona was from The Tempest when she's very much, very famously, from Othello.
A lot of typos in my edition which I did order early in the run so that was a given. Not sure how I feel about the last section. It brings it full circle (hijras vs travesti), but it's kinda like The Trouble with White Women where the whole counterargument is just them existing. And sure with the anti-trans laws/backlash just existing is a feat, but what are they doing? What do they represent? I also didn't really care for this section during the Death Panel episode on the book. Also pg. 153 "femininity is the reward." Surely it should be self-determination?
Chapter 2 on Mary Jones was fascinating tho, in certain sections.
2.5, maybe.
June 5, 2024
la trans-feminidad atentando contra todos los sistemas patriarcales, la trans-feminidad arrastrada a la plaza para su escarnio público, que servirá para que el resto de demografías mantengan su honor al lado del poder y la hegemonía. ¡Qué bien relata la cronología del abuso y la sistematización violenta que se hace de los cuerpos trans-femeninos y trans-feminizados!
April 3, 2024
Amazing amazing amazing book that adapts a thorough historical materialist view of trans femininity and its power, its effects, and its potential. It is so amazing to read a book like this.
April 28, 2025
"What proves good enough for transvestis, for trans-feminized people around the world, and for the divinity of trans-femininity itself, is nothing less than most. Will you demand it all?"
This was an intriguing and short read, however there were a couple misspeaks or references that were simply just... factually incorrect that I was unable to overlook. Wish the editor had checked better!
“[...]it turns out, for the narrator, who tells her that he has read Shakespeare. This interrupts Miss Destiny’s depression for a moment. Trained by a hard life to be suspicious, she tests him by asking if he knows who Desdemona is, the woman betrayed by conniving men in The Tempest. He replies yes. He knows Desdemona’s tragic tale."
Did no one think to fact check if Desdemona was in fact in Othello and not The Tempest? Now, while this conversation is not at all of the most importance to the subject matter at hand, it ruffled my feathers a little.
There were also some narratives that I think could've been handled more sensibly, and with sensitivity. The way sex work was portrayed and spoken upon rubbed me the wrong way. The way these women were mistreated at these brothels was written about as if it were normal and not something abhorrent.
I wish the way the sex industry exploits women would've been expanded on, especially given the fact that it's brought up that trans women had no other choice during the great depression.
This was an intriguing and short read, however there were a couple misspeaks or references that were simply just... factually incorrect that I was unable to overlook. Wish the editor had checked better!
“[...]it turns out, for the narrator, who tells her that he has read Shakespeare. This interrupts Miss Destiny’s depression for a moment. Trained by a hard life to be suspicious, she tests him by asking if he knows who Desdemona is, the woman betrayed by conniving men in The Tempest. He replies yes. He knows Desdemona’s tragic tale."
Did no one think to fact check if Desdemona was in fact in Othello and not The Tempest? Now, while this conversation is not at all of the most importance to the subject matter at hand, it ruffled my feathers a little.
There were also some narratives that I think could've been handled more sensibly, and with sensitivity. The way sex work was portrayed and spoken upon rubbed me the wrong way. The way these women were mistreated at these brothels was written about as if it were normal and not something abhorrent.
I wish the way the sex industry exploits women would've been expanded on, especially given the fact that it's brought up that trans women had no other choice during the great depression.
April 6, 2025
The concrete historical moments of this were very informative and well written but felt so distinct from the abstractions she was making. The introduction and first chapter were really strong to me and then it fell apart a bit. The hyper specificity of the second and third chapters felt like they didn’t allow justice to be done to the history of what trans misogyny actually is. Also she writes that Desdemona is from The Tempest when she is from Othello (quite famously might I add) this made me question the hyper specific historical things—if that wasn’t fact checked, what else slipped through that isn’t quite right?
July 29, 2025
mi (casi)genealogía. la de las que son como yo. y la de las que son muy distintas a mí. una(s) historia(s) y la celebración de la feminidad que nos atraviesa a las que Jules llama cuerpas transfeminizadas. y aun así las vidas que quedan por contar y que este libro no alberga. porque ya lo escribía Camila, más que una tragedia, “ser travesti es una fiesta, mi amor”
July 9, 2025
Actual Rating: 3.5 stars
This came recommended by my friend who is actually a historian!! I think Gill-Peterson’s range of examples are clear, and they draw back to her central points with ease.
I think the main lessons I’ll take from this book are the ways that the term “transgender” was often forced onto trans women, specifically Black ones who were poor/engaged in street sex work. This was a hegemonic definition used to separate gender and sex, and to impose a Western framing of gender on many societies that saw or practiced their identity in a different way.
I also will remember Gill-Peterson’s notes about how misogyny is nearly always about singling out certain women for punitive violence. The goal is to threaten all women by targeting *some* women and blaming them for getting out of line. Her point is that this is a logic that extends to transmisogyny, as well.
Gill-Peterson’s historical examples include transfeminized people in colonial India, antebellum NY and New Orleans, the US-occupied Philippines, and post-Stonewall New York. She is frequent to note that not all of these people would’ve considered themselves trans women or femmes—sometimes, that label was imposed on them. However, for each of her subjects, she attempts to provide a more respectful profile of them than the historical record has offered.
For subjects like Mary Jones, this means correcting demeaning newspaper coverage that sought to use Jones as an example of the “depravity” of free Black society in New York. For subjects like Sylvia Rivera, this means attempting to peel back the one-dimensional martyr complex many people describe her with today, to reveal her dissatisfaction with the assimilationist tendencies of some gay activists in the 1970s. Her work with STAR was isolating and taxing, creating risks of policing, housing insecurity, and more—risks that “street queens” in the time faced much more than gay college students they might have been forced into hasty coalitions with.
As this pattern of disparate impact continues today in our movements, Gill-Peterson’s advice is for those of us in the (queer) PMC to reframe our historical patterns. Instead of producing sanitized hagiographies of trans women of color that “confine [them] to history as martyrs”, we should be asking ourselves how the lives of people like Rivera can direct our solidarity to their modern-day counterparts.
🎬 that’s all from me!! Would recommend the audiobook format, as it’s a quick and informative listen.
This came recommended by my friend who is actually a historian!! I think Gill-Peterson’s range of examples are clear, and they draw back to her central points with ease.
I think the main lessons I’ll take from this book are the ways that the term “transgender” was often forced onto trans women, specifically Black ones who were poor/engaged in street sex work. This was a hegemonic definition used to separate gender and sex, and to impose a Western framing of gender on many societies that saw or practiced their identity in a different way.
I also will remember Gill-Peterson’s notes about how misogyny is nearly always about singling out certain women for punitive violence. The goal is to threaten all women by targeting *some* women and blaming them for getting out of line. Her point is that this is a logic that extends to transmisogyny, as well.
Gill-Peterson’s historical examples include transfeminized people in colonial India, antebellum NY and New Orleans, the US-occupied Philippines, and post-Stonewall New York. She is frequent to note that not all of these people would’ve considered themselves trans women or femmes—sometimes, that label was imposed on them. However, for each of her subjects, she attempts to provide a more respectful profile of them than the historical record has offered.
For subjects like Mary Jones, this means correcting demeaning newspaper coverage that sought to use Jones as an example of the “depravity” of free Black society in New York. For subjects like Sylvia Rivera, this means attempting to peel back the one-dimensional martyr complex many people describe her with today, to reveal her dissatisfaction with the assimilationist tendencies of some gay activists in the 1970s. Her work with STAR was isolating and taxing, creating risks of policing, housing insecurity, and more—risks that “street queens” in the time faced much more than gay college students they might have been forced into hasty coalitions with.
As this pattern of disparate impact continues today in our movements, Gill-Peterson’s advice is for those of us in the (queer) PMC to reframe our historical patterns. Instead of producing sanitized hagiographies of trans women of color that “confine [them] to history as martyrs”, we should be asking ourselves how the lives of people like Rivera can direct our solidarity to their modern-day counterparts.
🎬 that’s all from me!! Would recommend the audiobook format, as it’s a quick and informative listen.
Read
December 17, 2024I know its in the title but I really wished this book to be longer. Especially the last chapter focused on Latin American experiences because there were some really interesting ideas smushed into a few paragraphs. What's also missing for me personally is a more in-depth analysis concerning capitalism roles in all of this and I think from time to time the book could have profited from using psychoanalytical concepts like abjection leaning on kristeva and Lacan.
It's still a very good book with a sharp analysis when it's focused on certain topics, which are mainly trans-misogyny (obviously), colonialism (eg in India), anti-black racism and more contemporary us-american history. Love that gill-peterson is not afraid to use a wide range of materials. We get what we are promised, a short history, but theres still a range to it. What really stood out to me is the possibility to use gill-petersons work as starting point for further exploration. Also loved the no bullshit stance when it comes to glorification (of assumed martyrdom) and the way butler is criticised. Of course it was also v nice for my ego to get a lot of references and be like 'ah yes I've also read this essay/book/and so on' so this might influence my review partially 💅
It's still a very good book with a sharp analysis when it's focused on certain topics, which are mainly trans-misogyny (obviously), colonialism (eg in India), anti-black racism and more contemporary us-american history. Love that gill-peterson is not afraid to use a wide range of materials. We get what we are promised, a short history, but theres still a range to it. What really stood out to me is the possibility to use gill-petersons work as starting point for further exploration. Also loved the no bullshit stance when it comes to glorification (of assumed martyrdom) and the way butler is criticised. Of course it was also v nice for my ego to get a lot of references and be like 'ah yes I've also read this essay/book/and so on' so this might influence my review partially 💅
August 5, 2024
Reading this book felt like I had walked into a room in the middle of a converstion. Of course one has to start somewhere, but it left me feeling I needed to do some background reading and then reread this one. Gill-Peterson uses analysis of films and novels as well as historical, then interacts with other theorists.
Among other things, Gill-Peterson argues against imposing gender/sexuality distinction historically. I'm not so sure it is rejected for more modern examples. Another argument is that colonization/capitalism disrupted gender identities; the hijra of India were on example. They were a group of people assigned male at birth but raised as girls, who made a living by singing and dancing at celebrations. The colonial government made that action illegal, forcing them to find another means of economic support. An underlying theme throughout is the effect of trans-panic. Gill-Peterson also traced the changing economy such that as peasants were driven from land their only property was their body and their only option was wage labor. Sex work wasn't illegal at the time and was a more profitable option than other forms of wage labor.
There is a chapter extending the argument to antebellum times, where again limited definitions of male/female were imposed on people separated from their home cultures into slavery, and another bringing it up to the time of the Stonewall riot in 1969 where the street queens were instrumental in the successful riot, but mores changed from valuing femmes to valuing a more masculine male identity, and the street queens were pushed out, then later romanticized. Their real needs (prison abolition, for example) were ignored.
In conclusion US and UK, where identity v. sexuality became a wedge issue, were contrasted to a Latin American way of being trans that was presented as a better way. Mujerisima valorizes an excess of feminity and provides a better way of considering identity. It will take more reading before I commit to agreeing or disagreeing, but it is a valuable overview from mid-eighteenth century to mid-twentieth.
Among other things, Gill-Peterson argues against imposing gender/sexuality distinction historically. I'm not so sure it is rejected for more modern examples. Another argument is that colonization/capitalism disrupted gender identities; the hijra of India were on example. They were a group of people assigned male at birth but raised as girls, who made a living by singing and dancing at celebrations. The colonial government made that action illegal, forcing them to find another means of economic support. An underlying theme throughout is the effect of trans-panic. Gill-Peterson also traced the changing economy such that as peasants were driven from land their only property was their body and their only option was wage labor. Sex work wasn't illegal at the time and was a more profitable option than other forms of wage labor.
There is a chapter extending the argument to antebellum times, where again limited definitions of male/female were imposed on people separated from their home cultures into slavery, and another bringing it up to the time of the Stonewall riot in 1969 where the street queens were instrumental in the successful riot, but mores changed from valuing femmes to valuing a more masculine male identity, and the street queens were pushed out, then later romanticized. Their real needs (prison abolition, for example) were ignored.
In conclusion US and UK, where identity v. sexuality became a wedge issue, were contrasted to a Latin American way of being trans that was presented as a better way. Mujerisima valorizes an excess of feminity and provides a better way of considering identity. It will take more reading before I commit to agreeing or disagreeing, but it is a valuable overview from mid-eighteenth century to mid-twentieth.
April 14, 2025
Teetering between 2.5 to 3 stars. The start of this book was really good and I was hooked immediately then I felt the author losing me more and more as the book progressed, mainly due to the language/style the book was written in. There were times where the academic language used felt excessive, but at the same time, the author sometimes made references that seemed quite colloquial, and the constant shifts in style made it confusing to follow.
January 22, 2025
I am not very knowledgeable on this subject since I am a cis man who has sometimes been hostile to femininity in the past (by thinking that gender equality is achieved in part by women rejecting "traditional" femininity) but I think that this book was really great. It benefits a lot from a looser definition of trans than people like me on the contemporary left normally have in mind, and as a result Gill-Peterson can identify clear examples of trans misogyny from the 19th century to across the political spectrum today. Her assertion that trans misogyny has been (and continues to be!) a tool of colonialism blew my mind because it is SO correct when you think about it. But Desdemona is from Othello, not The Tempest😡
Go read this book!
Go read this book!
November 1, 2025
Interesting read. I learned some new things. Sometimes the author made jumps in time or between examples that confused me.
But overall definitely a book I'd recommend if you're interested in the why and the how of trans misogyny.
She brought up some points at the end about the need for more, and more "extra" femininity, and it made me think a lot about the kinds of femininity that are accepted and valued by society, and those that are seen as "too much" or not appropriate.
We definitely need more femininity of the kind that makes people uncomfortable.
But overall definitely a book I'd recommend if you're interested in the why and the how of trans misogyny.
She brought up some points at the end about the need for more, and more "extra" femininity, and it made me think a lot about the kinds of femininity that are accepted and valued by society, and those that are seen as "too much" or not appropriate.
We definitely need more femininity of the kind that makes people uncomfortable.
December 6, 2024
Holy shit. A nearly perfect book. Definitely want to read it after listing to the audiobook version
April 20, 2025
really enjoyed the historic explanations but lost me a bit in the analysis part
December 17, 2025
must-read. the real feminism
October 24, 2024
a fascinating history articulated by a brilliant scholar.
December 10, 2025
i will fix it
June 3, 2024
This book is amazing in many ways. It is direct yet beautifully written, approachable to the average reader without losing nuance or complexity. I've been reading a lot on transmisogyny lately and yet I learned so much from it, and it shifted my perspective in ways I wouldn't have imagined when starting it. The only sort-of-bad thing I could find to say about it is that I wish it went more into trans lesbians because despite the historical merging of trans women and gay men, recent years have seen an increasing vilification of gay trans women in particular (as the author mentions towards the end of the book). This might be just my experience, but lesbian trans women often have a slightly different background and understanding of themselves in relation to the cis gay male community, and I would have loved to read more on that. However, this is a Short history of trans misogyny, so I'm not really faulting the book on it. Just excited to read more about it, hopefully even with future books by the same author.
February 18, 2024
Great read. Incredibly well developed across the chapters, picking separate examples of dehumanization of trans-feminized peoples across continents and time periods. I also appreciate the deeply relevant modern discussions of authoritarian regimes of anti-trans politics without making it the sole discussion within a long history of trans-misogny. I really like the centering of trans-feminized lives, which prevents the history from being centered solely on trans death, and makes a far more personal read.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 174 reviews