[(Whipping Girl: A Transsexual Woman on Sexism and the Scapegoating of Femininity)] [Author: Julia Serano] published on

by Julia Serano

In the updated second edition of Whipping Girl, Julia Serano, a transsexual woman whose supremely intelligent writing reflects her diverse background as a lesbian transgender activist and professional biologist, shares her powerful experiences and observation-both pre- and post-transition-to reveal the ways in which fear, suspicion and dismissiveness toward femininity shape our societal attitudes toward trans women, as well as gender and sexuality as a whole.
Serano's well-honed arguments stem from her ability to bridge the gap between the often-disparate biological and social perspectives on gender. In this provocative manifesto, she exposes how deep-rooted the cultural belief is that femininity is frivolous, weak, and passive, and how this "feminine" weakness exists only to attract and appease male desire.
In addition to debunking popular misconceptions about transsexuality, Serano makes the case that today's feminists and transgender activists must work to embrace and empower femininity-in all of its wondrous forms.

Genres: Nonfiction, Feminism, Queer, LGBT, Gender, Transgender, Gender Studies

Paperback

First published May 14, 2007

About the author

Julia Serano is an Oakland, California-based writer, spoken word performer, activist, and biologist. She is the author of several award-winning books, including Whipping Girl, Excluded, and her debut novel 99 Erics. Julia's forthcoming book – Sexed Up: How Society Sexualizes Us, and How We Can Fight Back – will be released by Seal Press in May, 2022. Julia’s other writings have appeared in over twenty anthologies, in news and media outlets such as The New York Times, TIME, The Guardian, Salon, The Daily Beast, and Ms., and have been used as teaching materials in college courses across North America.

Reviews

[Trevor · Rating 4 out of 5]

I was talking to a friend about this book – she is my go-to person for all things gender related. She lived as a lesbian for many years and so knows stuff I can’t even guess at. I told her that the strangest thing about reviewing this book (I tend to review while I read nowadays – one of the odd changes goodreads has wrought) is how each of my mock reviews started with me stressing how straight I am. It’s the strangest thing. Like someone about to review a book by a Nazi might start by mentioning they have Jewish friends.

Did I mention I was straight? Another friend of mine once told me he knew he was straight because he had never had a dream where he was having sex with a man, but frequently (if not incessantly) fantasised about sex with women. On the basis that you can’t really control your dreams, this does seem like fairly strong proof.

And because I’m straight and white and middle class and English speaking and male – Jesus, it is hard to imagine I could be any more boring… I am all of the zero states. I am what normal is defined by. But this kind of privilege is the invisible kind to those who hold it, even if it is all too obvious to those who don’t. Still, it puts me at a decided disadvantage – discrimination is something that happens to others and the most powerful lesson I can learn is to assume I don’t understand and to try to listen with compassion.

I’ve also been chatting with the person that recommended I read this book. I was saying to her that my daughter can turn her tongue upside down in her mouth, literally flip it. I can’t even imagine how this could be done. If I’d read it in a book, rather than seen it live and in the mouth of my daughter, I might even doubt that it could be done. When I try to do it myself I can’t even work out which muscles might get my tongue to do such a thing. I assume, then, that understanding genders other than our own must be much the same problem.

I found a lot of this book quite challenging. To start with I am one of the people discussed here who can’t understand how one could possibly know they would be happier as the other sex. It always seems to be like believing you would be happier if you spoke French before you have started learning French. If you are born male it would seem hard to imagine how you could know you would be happier female.

This is actually explained in the book. The answer is that you don’t know. You see, that was the other thing I’ve often wondered about. If you feel quite different after taking female hormones, as I’ve often heard you do – more emotional, and sex sounds better too, and even more ‘female’ – well, what did you feel before the hormones? But I’d always believed the ‘I’m a woman trapped in a man’s body’ cliché before, so I found this bit incredibly interesting. The bottom line is that it isn’t that you feel that becoming female will certainly be right, it is that you know being male is certainly wrong.

I’m about to begin reading a book called How the Irish Became White. The point being that the Irish were metaphorically negroes for a long time before there were black slaves in the USA. Uneducable, fit only for crap work, morally degenerate – the Irish prove you don’t need an easy to identify skin colour to mark you as inferior. When I was growing up I always assumed the Irish would find racism abhorrent. But then I met more Irish people and found that often the opposite was the case. That rather than loathing racism, they loved the idea that they weren’t the bottom of the pile. The discussion in this book on how feminist and gay rights activists treat transsexuals is another example of how we always love to find someone lower in the pecking order than ourselves to affirm our self-worth.

This book was also challenging because I prefer to believe that a lot of gender is socially conditioned and that genetics is very often overstated. The wonderful book Delusions of Gender shows that we grossly overstate the differences between the genders. I just find it very hard to believe there is a gene for applying lipstick or even for preferring to apply lipstick. But really, I’m not sure what difference it makes. Whether people are transsexual due to their genes or as their response to our gendered society seems an exercise in hair splitting. The fact is that they are prepared to go through hell and back to become their preferred gender/sex. I just don’t have the right to say they are deluded, even if I have to admit that I can’t understand what it is they are going through. I have to assume they know what they are feeling more than I do.

There were bits of this I didn’t agree with. She makes the point repeatedly that women are sexualised in our society in ways that men simply are not. But I kept thinking of those Calvin Klein ads. Then I thought about Elvis Presley thrusting his pelvis. Then I thought of the androgynous Mick Jagger. I think it would be hard to argue that these males have not been sexualised. Or even One Direction…

I started off agreeing with her when she said that it really isn’t anyone’s business if a Transsexual has had bottom surgery. But that it is almost invariably the first thing that is asked – and that transsexuals are about the only people in the world anyone would dream of asking such a thing to. “So, tell me about your genitals.” Is hardly an acceptable conversation starter with most people. My friend said that transsexuals can hardly expect people not to be curious – if they say they are transitioning between the sexes, then this is a fairly obvious and expected question. But I thought the author's point was good when she said that all this does is confound physical manifestations, particularly genitals, with femininity and masculinity. If femininity is a continuum rather than a fixed opposite to masculinity, then genitals are only one aspect, rather than the final proof.

There is also incredibly interesting stuff here about the gatekeepers – those who get to decide who can become female and who cannot. To get through this gate it isn’t enough to say you would like to have a go at being female to see how it works out. Rather, you need to prove to someone that you meet certain criteria. Often those criteria say much more about our society’s view of genders than it does about your desire to become female. Some of the quotes from gatekeepers are hair curling. If you look too masculine you can be as many women trapped in a man’s body as you like – you’re probably not getting any treatment. And don’t forget your high heals when you go to your appointment – you want to be a women, you’d better act like one, and one straight out of the most sexist ad you can think of.

I haven’t really seen many of the films she discusses here – The Crying Game, for example, or Ace Ventura. The point is that transsexuals are often portrayed as deceivers – seeking to entrap straight guys. Like most other clichés this one has had its day and ought to be seen for what it is – a projection of the homo-eroticism of supposedly ‘straight’ guys, rather than the deviousness of transsexuals.

While we are on films I watched Marwencol recently. If I had any idea what it was about I doubt I would have watched it. Like watching films about the holocaust, I know such films are ‘good’ for me, but actually, they take me days and days to get over and I would rather not go through that. Marwencol is about a guy who is at the pub and tells some other guys he sometimes wears women’s clothing. They later nearly beat him to death. The savage nature of their attack is dumbfounding. If you want proof that we, as a society, have very strange views around gender and incredibly strict policing of gender roles, this film goes a long way to providing just that.

Now, before you say that this is just a few guys at the far edges of the outlining tail of society and that most people wouldn’t do that – I have to say that isn’t such a great argument. Yes, they are much more extreme than general society would accept – but it is hard not to see these actions as being natural consequences to the strict gendering of our society. I’m saying this as someone who has never thought of putting on women’s clothing or being a gender other than male – but this probably just proves how well socialised I’ve been. As the author says, hand a man your handbag and watch him squirm. Try to put lipstick on him and see what happens. I think there is a pretty strong case to argue that the fear most men feel at being associated with 'women's stuff' leads to the beating the poor guy got in Marwencol.

I’m not sure what to make of a lot of this – basically, the argument at the end is that femininity has been grossly undervalued in our society and that many feminists likewise see the feminine as being frivolous. That it is only when both males and females begin to accept the feminine as natural, valid and universal that we will have a better society. But I can’t ever see myself wearing pumps or bangles. The problem with being female seems to me to be how much time it takes. There is a nice bit of this where she says she often asks people that if she offered them ten million dollars would they agree to live the rest of their lives as the other sex? Very few people ever agree to such a trade, even in theory. It is an interesting thought experiment and interesting because we so often ask transsexuals to do exactly that – live in a body they don’t feel they belong in – but without the money to compensate.

Now, while I’ve been telling people about this book I’ve found it insanely hard to keep referring to the author as she – like my desire to constantly remind people I’m straight while I write this, it is something I’ve found really irritating about myself. The author claims this is an example of ‘cissexual’ prejudice. But I think it must be a deep expression of gender socialisation, as no matter how much I want to think of the author as female, in the flow of conversation I found myself constantly using the male pronoun, despite myself and despite my frustration and annoyance with myself for doing so.

I was pleased I was right about the novel Middlesex too. Just saying… There is nothing worse than someone thinking they know about stuff they really can’t know about – that really shouldn’t be the role of an author. Writing isn’t about guessing, it should be about exploring what you know – at least, that’s my latest definition. For an author to say they want to write a book about a Intersexual, but not even bother to talk to one is pretty despicable.

A very interesting book – thanks Laia.

[Thomas · Rating 5 out of 5]

I loved this feminist book and learned so much from it. In Whipping Girl, Julia Serano, a lesbian transgender activist with a PhD in biochemistry, writes about how our society's fear of femininity leads to transmisogyny, transphobia, and various forms of sexism. She grounds her arguments in biology, sociological perspectives on gender, and her lived experiences as a trans woman. Serano integrates a wide range of viewpoints and writes in an intelligent, digestible, and compelling way. She addresses so many important topics in Whipping Girl: cisgender privilege, cisgender people's disturbing fascination with trans people's genitalia, the lack of quality trans representation in the media and in positions of influence, how feminism should embrace the trans movement instead of excluding trans women, etc. As a cis person, I know I have so much privilege and reading this book helped me further understand that privilege, as well as think of ways I can counteract transphobia and transmisogyny. A brief paragraph about subconscious sex that illustrates Serano's ability to write in an informative and understandable way:

"Many cissexual people seem to have a hard time accepting the idea that they too have a subconscious sex - a deep-rooted understanding of what sex their bodies should be. I suppose that when a person feels right in the sex they were born into, they are never forced to locate or question their subconscious sex, to differentiate it from their physical sex. In other words, their subconscious sex exists, but it is hidden from their view. They have a blind spot."

While I appreciated way too many of the arguments in this book than I can get into in a single review, I especially cherished how Serano wrote about anti-femininity throughout Whipping Girl. We as a society discourage feminine traits like emotional expression unrelated to anger, nurturing and caring for others, and more. Serano ties this disdain of femininity into a lot of meaningful commentary and anecdotes, like how she really understood traditional sexism on an emotional level after she transitioned, or how we encourage masculine traits in girls yet discourage feminine traits in boys. As a pretty feminine guy myself who loves my femininity and feminine things, I felt so validated upon reading this book and Serano's celebration of femininity. A quote from Whipping Girl about the importance of femininity:

"The greatest barrier preventing us from fully challenging sexism is the pervasive antifeminine sentiment that runs wild in both the straight and queer communities, targeting people of all genders and sexualities. The only realistic way to address this issue is to work toward empowering femininity itself. We must rightly recognize that feminine expression is strong, daring, and brave - that it is powerful - and not in an enchanting, enticing, or supernatural sort of way, but in a tangible, practical way that facilitates openness, creativity, and honest expression. We must move beyond seeing femininity as helpless and dependent, or merely as masculinity's sidekick, and instead acknowledge that feminine expression exists of its own accord and brings its own rewards to those who naturally gravitate toward it."

Overall, a great book I would recommend to anyone interested in gender, feminism, or social justice, especially fellow cis people. The book does fall short in terms of intersectionality, as Serano could have inserted at least a bit of commentary about how transphobia and transmisogyny are exacerbated for people of color, poor people, etc. She does mention this in the preface of the second edition of the book, however. Still, I hope that this book will continue to spur conversations about gender that elevate us beyond the gender binary, sexism, and anti-femininity, so we can work toward creating a more compassionate and inclusive society.

[Sigmund Freud, analyse this · Rating 1 out of 5]

Would first just like to mention the cognitive dissonance in this book around sexuality and genitals. Serano cites a kind of phantom limb syndrome - a mismatch between bodily and 'subconscious' sex, as the root of being transsexual here - but later goes on to say, when talking about sexual attraction to trans women, that genitals are just 'flesh, blood, and ...nerve endings', and any other interpretation of them is 'a mere hallucination, a product of your own overactive imagination'. So which is it, Serano? Would this not mean your own gender dysphoria is 'a mere hallucination'? Does this not discredit your status as a dysphoric trans woman and thus also your scope to write this book?

I began this book in good faith, but found it jarring to see someone - who was not socialised female - extol the virtues of femininity where it concerns originally male-bodied people, without:

1. any analysis of the capitalist motivations behind the promotion and replication of Western femininity

2. any analysis of the financial and logistical practicalities or impracticalities of performing femininity over masculinity - time, money, comfort, discomfort, mental health...

3. any serious analysis, beyond a two-sentence lip service, of the social conditioning inducting 'cis' women into outward femininity (the assertion that femininity must 'feel right' for a large amount of women felt offensive to me. How easy does the author think it would be to, eg. forgo shaving or makeup when you've been taught all your life to see both as a marker of female-specific virtue, and when women are hardly ever depicted without them? Or to put your needs before those of others, when you've lived your whole life seeing women doing the opposite?)

4. any analysis of, yes, the historic, probably sex-based roots of misogyny. Every theory I've ever seen puts misogyny down to hatred and fear of female biology: look at the medical roots of 'hysteria', look at the Marxist idea that misogyny stems from seeing women as a reproductive apparatus, look at any even vaguely antiquated male philosopher's writing on men vs. women. If there's a trans theory of the historical development of misogyny, I would like to know about it - this does not add up.

5. A single mention of the reason why it is now acceptable for women to look outwardly masculine: we were not allowed to wear men's clothing until the nineteenth century, when we were involved in concerted campaigns for us to be allowed to do so, due to the comparative practicality of these clothes. Seems like a minimisation of feminist activism to me. It was still frowned upon to wear trousers until the mid-20th century! And you won't see many women on TV or working front-of-house who don't wear makeup - a non-made-up, ageing and unshaven female face is taboo and looks sick or wrong, but a man who momentarily 'embraces femininity' and sticks on some lipstick will be seen as just as valid the second he takes it off - and not judged on his appearance at all. It's only acceptable for us to look masculine when we make additional adjustments to seem sexually palatable.

While I appreciate we're talking from different axes of privilege, I do think it would benefit this thesis to talk to 'cis' women - who have been inducted into femininity from birth - about their experiences and how they might differ from the author's. I found the lines about it being a 'privilege' to be seen as a woman very insensitive.

Serano also seems to malign and ignore the experiences of butch and GNC women, claiming baselessly that it is easy for them to forgo femininity without making any attempt to empathise with, interview or listen to them.

I can't believe this book is so influential in gender studies circles when there are so many contradictions, no historical explanations for anything, and not a jot of class analysis....

[Sarah · Rating 3 out of 5]

(NOTE: This review was written in 2007/2008ish when the book was released and imported to GR in 2011. If you want more recent thoughts on the book and on TERFs, scroll down the comments.)

This book has two halves, one of which I loved and one of which was pretty terrible.

The parts where she discussed, analyzed, and criticized transgender issues from terminology to medical processes were awesome. Serano is a wonderful writer who really knows what she is talking about in this section. She challenges assumptions, educates, and really makes the reader think. I especially loved her final conclusions, that the focus should be on confronting gender privilege instead of simply performing gender in alternate ways.

But the part about feminism was frustrating and terrible. I would guess that 80% of her examples of feminists who disparage trans people come from the 70's and 80's and feminist and trans histories of that period - she is essentially telling the feminist movement to confront and change something that is already being confronted and changed by the third wave. She also uses the Michigan Womyn's Music Festival as an example of feminists excluding trans women, but Michigan is not a feminist event, just an event with a lot women. She also seems to think that feminism doesn't encourage femininity in boys, which is simply incorrect. You can find examples of this in the feminist movement in books like William's Doll in 1972, the second-wave slogan "feminism is the liberation of the masculine in every woman and the feminine in every man", and the fact that encouraging traditionally feminine traits in men has a major component of third wave feminism. That said, she does have some good suggestions that third-wavers should take to heart (such as not discussing trans-exclusion policies in the media without trans activists, not supporting trans-excluding events, listening to trans people, examining their cis privilege, etc). It is clear that Serano's understanding of feminism that is primarily colored by her negative experiences with second-wavers, which pretty much dooms the book if you are a third-waver because you will be frustrated with her lack of current information.

I would recommend this book to someone interested in trans feminism, with the caveat that the person knew enough about feminism to see past the parts that gloss over feminisms diverse history.

[Carl Vine · Rating 1 out of 5]

This book opens with a quote by Audre Lorde and, near the end, it references bell hooks to explain living as people on the margins. The latter example was the only time a woman of color living in 'white America' is acknowledged. As somebody with a PhD in Biochemistry, who has access to the time to read the political works of Lorde and hooks, Serano has failed to interrogate whiteness as an identity construct of power that seeks to further its dominance on all. Failing to understand her whiteness within 21st century multiracial but white supremacist academia, and citizenry within racial, imperial America (a nation-state of Eurocolonial occupation) Serano misses the mark on genealogy of gender intersecting Euro-domination discourses of race, anti-indigenous genocide, blackness and white masculinity. The book's only mention of Iran evaded discussion on American domination on global media coverage of international relations and global security. My disappointment is solely with Serano as an irresponsible writer. Presuming that she has privilege and access to grassroots trans and gender politicized community organizing in Oakland, I seriously question her understanding of class and race.

[Max · Rating 1 out of 5]

wildly self indulgent, often incoherent, manages to make some pretty colorful topics incredibly boring. odd and offensive takes on feminism. talks a lot and says very little worth refuting. i get it- you are very special and very smart. grateful to be finished reading this

[Sarah Cavar · Rating 3 out of 5]

A foundational, essential text for anyone in queer / trans / feminist studies — watch the terminology our generation considers second-nature be born before your very eyes. It’s illuminating to watch the ways in which Serrano has laid the groundwork for many of the talking points we take for granted in trans rights conversations today — her refutations of “socialization,” her clear and well-argued stance against transness-as-women-fetishism (an abhorrent stance backed by the psychiatric establishment and ostensible (cis) feminists), etc. She gives some of the most clearheaded rebukes to everyday transmisogyny I’ve ever read, and my copy of this book is bulging with post-it notes.

So, why three stars? Because I think she comes to some dangerous conclusions that we are sill grappling with more than a decade after WG’s publication.

first, she is curiously liberal with her usage of terms like “misogyny”, implying in several places that feminine men are the victims of misogyny (“woman-hatred) because they face harassment and prejudice for being feminine. Again and again she fails to stand by butch and other gnc women (trans or cis) and discuss the lethal misogyny that leads to repeated acts of sexual violence toward gnc women for their perceived transgression.

She also puts forward the idea that trans women are oppressed, namely, not because they are women but because they are perceived as having “chosen” femininity. This is all despite her extended discussion on the strict guidelines set on how she dressed in order to be perceived as a legitimate trans woman (she was not able to dress “tomboyishly” while trying to access hormones for fear of being deemed “fake”). I understand her frustration: trans women are held to an unfair standard of social justice in that they are disproportionally criticized for being “too feminine” or wearing “too much makeup” when cis women get far less pushback for reifying compulsory femininity. But the solution is not to pretend the restrictive machinations of everyday misogyny are empowering for women. They confer safety and comfort, especially for trans women, who risk violence and murder for failure to “pass”. Makeup and the embrace of the stereotypical feminine within a culture that positions it not a value-neutral mode of living but a living impact of patriarchy.

We would all like to think our sexgendered desires are “subconscious” — and we are likely to possess certain traits that could be deemed masc or fem embedded in our respective brains. But the reasons we all “become” the genders we are is a product of reconciling our bodymind relationship and the social conditions we live in. I can’t get behind the “subconscious sex” theory of gender because fetuses in utero don’t know “sex.” It’s a word that groups together a number of traits, as Serrano herself writes. There may exist an embedded desire to have a body with certain traits, but “sex” is merely the word that encodes and charges all those things. She vacillates between critiquing sexgender essentialism both in medicine and among feminists, and then passionately conflates femininity with womanhood and masculinity with manhood.

What I find most troubling in this book is the dismissal with which Serrano approaches nonbinary and genderqueer people, even her own past, bigender self. She need not even have mentioned this trans demographic, given that her book was about trans women. But instead, she chose to drop s as examples of her “immature, pre-transition, confused” past, and later as evil radiqueers with a pie-in-the-sky plan to oppress “binary” men and women after the trans revolution. She seemed more concerned with talking about how crazy we were for wanting to “smash the gender binary” (she loves to repeat this phrase as a way of showing how wild we are, you see) than with the brilliant examples of intracommunity transmisogyny she was also discussing. Ultimately, the type of thinking that upholds the gender binary (and expects certain oppressive gender norms of trans men and women) is the same one that dismisses gender non-conformity as bizarre and childish, namely out of fear.

I have other thoughts — good and bad — swirling around in my head right now, but it’s after midnight and I want to get this done! Much of the myopia here stems from the fact that this book is from 2007, and I have no doubt Serrano’s views have grown and changed over the years. Read this as a key text of 21st century trans history and scholarship, and with a teaspoon of salt.

[Zoe · Rating 1 out of 5]

Wanted to give this two stars for some insights into media portrayals of transsexuals etc, but HOLY SHIT THE MISOGYNY AND HOMOPHOBIA!

[Julian · Rating 5 out of 5]

COMPLETELY AWESOME IN EVERY WAY. Gender analysis and theory that is somehow not wanktastic and jargony, is fresh, clear, and not all bogged down in a bunch of agenda driven bullshit, and based on the author's experiences as a trans woman. As I read this book, my primary thoughts were "This makes SO MUCH SENSE!" Parts were like reading the inside of my own head. Parts gave me an insight into things I will never experience myself. Brilliant.

[TJ · Rating 3 out of 5]

There are things I love about this book, mostly Serano's more personal writing, and some of the writing about her experiences on estrogen are beautiful/heartbreaking. All of her writing on hormones feels very spot-on to me, as do her theories on "the scapegoating of femininity."
But there were too many little unfair jabs at non-binary/genderqueer folks, and some of them felt really hurtful and maybe she made me cry. It's pretty clear that Serano doesn't think that identifying outside of the binary is the most legitimate thing, but she doesn't wanna come right out and say it. She hints at thinking that genderqueerness is a mostly politicized identity not rooted in a similar sort of gender/body sadness or discomfort/disconnect as hers. She doesn't try very hard to make room in her big gender theories for non-binary folks, either, or even to use language inclusive of non-binary genders.
And how are you gonna write this sort of book and mention race like, twice??
STILL a lot of this writing is useful/important if you go into braced for an uncritically white, middle-class, sorta maybe probably binarist perspective

ETA: I wrote this review about 2 years ago and it's still getting likes occasionally, so I feel like I should add that I no longer stand behind this review and am kind of embarrassed of it. I do still think that Serano is largely clueless about class and race and it especially shows in Excluded, BUT I am annoyed with myself for writing a review that basically boils down to "What about the trans people who aren't women??" I now feel that binarism is flawed concept, as it posits that trans women are privileged in some way FOR being trans women, which is ridiculous. Anyway, I mostly agree with Serano's basic concepts in Whipping Girl, but I still think she's kind of a bad writer who should probably stop trying to be some like, social critic if she's going to say shit like, “As a white person, I never have to think about race, except on those rare occasions when I am in a non-white majority space… .But gender is different. Everybody has a gender.” See: http://nataliereednewblog.wordpress.c... for more on this

[Bonnie G. · Rating 1 out of 5]

DNFing this. I just cannot. I am a cis woman who laments the lack of intersectionality in activism on behalf of underrepresented communities and who cannot fathom why other cis people care so much about other people's gender identity. That does not mean I don't have questions, I do, but none of them have to do with anyone's right to identify as they wish to identify or to conform to an identity they are biologically or psychologically connected. I also have no issue with (or for that matter the right to have an opinion regarding) any person's choice to present themselves to the world in the way they choose. I wish Serano believed the same.

I was told that my choice to wear makeup and feminine clothing is performative and superficial. Serano has a very narrow definition of what it means to be a woman for someone who claims to be feminist. I was told that cis and trans women are the same despite the fact that their lived experiences are utterly different, both when trans women present as male and as "non-passing" trans or genderqueer. There are, in fact, vast differences between the pre-transition lived experience of trans women and those people assigned female gender at birth. You may not like that Ms. Serano, but your experience of living as a woman differs a great deal from my experience living as a woman and my experience probably has more in common with the lived experience of trans men and those whose genitalia is female but who are genderqueer. (Serano is SO dismissive of trans men! It is insulting.) Ms. Serano might consider whether that fact of shared lived experience had anything to do with the (in my opinion completely wrong) decision to not permit trans women to attend the Michigan Womyn's festival. (An event I have been to and found hokey and silly -- and lord the music was terrible. Lord save me from another Cris Williamson singalong.)

Serano mows over any fact and piece of rigorous research that doesn't comport with her world view. She is elitist and entitled and illogical. Bad combo. Read this as polemic if you want, but if you are looking for social science or reasoned policy, or philosophy I advise that you run in the other direction.

I have other things I can rant about, but I will leave it here.

[A · Rating 1 out of 5]

I was not expecting to encounter such deeply regressive views about what gender *is* and what women are in this book. Serrano is fundamentally antifeminist, anti-woman and it is truly scary that this person has such a strong influence on contemporary gender politics.

[Zanna · Rating 5 out of 5]

I failed to distinguish personal interpretive note-making from writing for an audience here, and wrote too much about this book to fit into the space.

The full review-summary is in three parts here:
Part I
Part II
Part III

Needless to say, I found the experience too important and overwhelming to review properly. I'd like to highlight these descriptions:

Transphobia is an irrational fear of, aversion to or discrimination against people whose gendered identities, appearances or behaviours differ from societal norms. Serano points out that this is often related to insecurity; since gendered identities are so rigidly policed.

Cissexism is the belief than transsexuals’ identified genders are inferior to, or less authentic than those of cissexuals. Cissexism occurs when people attempt to deny transsexuals the basic privileges normally associated with their self-identified gender, such as deliberate misuse of pronouns, refusing access to restrooms. The cissexist insists that cis genders are real/natural while trans genders are fake. Serano notes that this is incredibly naïve: we make assumptions about other peoples genders constantly without ever seeing their birth certificates, chromosomes, genitals, reproductive systems, childhood socialisation or legal sex. This is particularly relevant to the exclusion of trans women by feminists – these excluders often behave as if it is necessary to be cissexual to experience gendered oppression as a woman. Attempts to ‘third sex’ trans people with words like ‘transwoman’ ‘MTF’ used as a noun are also cissexist, dismissing profoundly felt gender identities and ignoring the experiences that arise from being treated as a member of the sex the person has transitioned to. Trans is an adjective.

Oppositional sexism is the root of transphobia, cissexism and homophobia. Serano introduced me to this term for the belief that female and male are rigid, mutually exclusive categories each with a unique, nonoverlapping set of attributes, aptitudes and desires. Those who fall outside gender/sexual norms are punished are dismissed to maintain the male-centred gender hierarchy.

Traditional sexism is the belief that maleness as masculinity are superior to femaleness and femininity. This is also called misogyny. It occurred to me while reading, that radical feminism recognises traditional sexism (its core tenet, in my view, is the identification of this single meaning of gender as a structure in which male = better. I’ve come to accept that this is only one of the many meanings of gender – there are as many meanings as we find and create in this field of signs...) but often reinforces oppositional sexism by failing to recognise it. The radical feminist endorsement of lesbianism is different, I think, from the LGBT movement’s rejection of oppositional sexism: it is based on political solidarity between women, to some extent, against maleness.

Trans-misogyny is the targeting of expressions of femaleness and femininity by men, gender queer people and trans women. The fact that all women can wear male-identified clothing without much comment, while men who wear women’s clothing can be diagnosed with ‘transvestic fetishism’ is an example of trans-misogyny. When women’s organisations and events open their doors to trans men but close them to trans women, that is trans-misogyny.

According to Serano, trans women, who ‘choose’ to be female, represent the greatest threat to the male-centred gender hierarchy, and our sexist culture thus marshals all its forces against them. Trans women are hyperfeminised in the media in order to make their femininity appear artificial and to make them seem weak, confused and passive. The media also hypersexualises trans women, suggesting they transition mainly for sexual reasons. It also objectified trans women’s bodies by focussing on and sensationalising sex reassignment surgery. Meanwhile, some in the feminist movement use the same tactics. While proclaiming ‘women can do anything men can’, we ridicule trans women for any perceived masculine tendency, such as speaking out. We complain about the standards and expectations men demand we meet, then dismiss trans women because they don’t meet our own arbitrary requirements.

And here's what I wrote about the chapter that I felt was most pivotal to my own thinking, followed by what I wrote on the one that I find most controversial:

Blind Spots: On Subconscious Sex and Gender Entitlement

In a way this chapter has the deepest resonance for me, because I too have had a blind spot for what Serano calls subconscious sex, which is more usually confusingly called ‘gender identity’ or ‘internal gender’. Serano shares her own experience of recognising her trans-ness. Many trans people recognise their misgendering very early in life, and immediately insist that they belong to the sex other than the one assigned to them. Serano came to this realisation more gradually. At five or sex years old, she remembers knowing that she was physically male and that other people thought of her as a boy, but she had contradictory dreams and felt that something was wrong when going into the boys’ toilets and when her class was split by gender. She points out that for children, gender identity is signed by preferences for activities, toys and interests. Her passion for dinosaurs and desire to be a major league baseball player were at odds with her feeling of girlness. She shares that it was only at eleven, dressing herself in a white lacy curtain, that on seeing her reflection she realised that it felt right, and made perfect sense, to see herself as a girl.

All of the words available in the English language completely fail to accurately capture or convey my personal understanding of these events. For example, if I were to say that I ‘saw’ myself as female, or ‘knew’ myself to be a girl, I would be denying the fact that I was consciously aware of my physical maleness at all times. And saying that I ‘wished’ or ‘wanted’ to be a girl erases how much being female made sense to me, how it felt right on the deepest, most profound level of my being. I could say that I ‘felt’ like a girl, but that would give the false impression that I knew how other girls (and other boys) felt. And if I were to say that I was ‘supposed to ebe’ a girl or that I ‘should have been born’ female, it would imply that I had some sort of cosmic insight into the grand scheme of the universe, which I most certainly did not.

Perhaps the best way to describe how my subconscious sex feels to me is to say that it seems as if, on some level, my brain expects my body to be female.

For me, the penny drops right there. When I first discovered radical/gender critical feminism, I described myself ‘gender agnostic’, since ‘I don’t feel my gender’. While I certainly feel very uncomfortable if I imagine transitioning to a male sex, I have been able to rationalise this as discomfort with the unfamiliar. But Serano has enabled me to recognise that this aspect of my body sense is much more significant and integral: I don’t ‘feel my gender’ because I experience what she calls gender concordance: my body is the sex my brain expects it to be. Cissexuals don’t notice this because, well, isn’t the essence of comfort the absence of discomfort? Trans experience shows definitively that what Serano helpfully terms subconscious sex is a brain-based reality.

For Serano, the experience of her female subconscious sex was not accompanied by the desire to explore female gender roles or to express femininity. It was not the result of social gender constructs, as it defied everything she had been taught about gender and the encouragement she received to think of herself as a boy and act masculine. She was considered a normal-acting boy, and her family was not particularly restrictive, so neither was the experience a reaction to strong gender policing. She argues that subconscious sex is independent of sexuality and gender expression. At first, she thought she must be gay (influenced by stereotypes) but she was further confused by finding herself attracted to women, not men. In the majority of instances, thinking of herself as female was unrelated to sexuality.

After experimenting with cross-dressing, she lost interest in it, realising that her ‘desire to be female had nothing to do with clothing or femininity per se’. She later identified as bigendered, becoming an androgynous queer boy.

I eventually reached the conclusion that my female subconscious sex had nothing to do with gender roles, femininity, or sexual expression – it was about the personal relationship I had with my own body.

For me, the hardest part about being trans has not been the discrimination or ridicule that I have faced for defying societal gender norms, but rather the internal pain I experienced when by subconscious and conscious sexes were at odds with each other… sometimes it felt like stress or anxiousness, which led to marathon battles with insomnia. Other times, it surfaced as jealousy or anger at other people who seemed to take their gender for granted. But most of all, it felt like sadness to me – a sort of gender sadness – a chronic and persistent grief over the fact that I felt so wrong in my body.

Serano points out that she gave up male and heterosexual privilege (she is married to a woman) to transition, but it was all worth it for the ‘most important gender privilege of all: feeling at home in my own sexed body’.

Serano identifies gender entitlement, which can affect anyone, as the arrogant conviction that one’s own beliefs, perceptions and assumptions regarding gender and sexuality are more valid than those of other people. This can lead to "gender anxiety, the act of becoming irrationally upset or being made uncomfortable by the existence of those people who challenge or bring into question one’s gender entitlement.” This leads us to insist that certain genders or sexual inclinations are natural, and to demand than others curb or conform their own inclinations to meet our expectations. We must recognise that other people’s genders and sexualities have no bearing on our own!




Putting the Feminine back into Feminism

So, finally we come to what feels to me like a key question – what is femininity really about, if not about the subservience and passivity patriarchy projects onto it? Serano suggests that femininity has been perceived as a ‘package deal’ of gender expressions, traits and qualities. However, she notes, some women are verbally effusive and emotive (female-identified traits) but not feminine in their manner of dress, and vice versa…

“Those who wish to naturalise femininity… describe feminine traits as though they were bundled in a single biological program that is initiated only in genetic females. Such claims gloss over the many people who have exceptional gender expressions… on the other hand, those who wish to artificialise femininity characterise it as a unified social program designed to shape women’s personalities and sexualities”

In the later case, by showing that one aspect of femininity is a sexist projection, one can claim that femininity as a whole is unnatural ‘or it would not have to be enforced at all’.

This is a tempting idea for feminists, but I’m feeling Serano here when she points out how simplistic it is, arguing that feminine traits arise from different combinations of biology and socialization. She described being told to smile by strangers after transitioning – an act of street harassment. Over time this diminished and she wondered why, concluding that she had learned to make less eye contact to avoid the harassment. Traits such as the preference for pink, are very obviously socialized, but others, such as being attuned to one’s emotions, seem to be influenced by hormones as well as social expectations and learning.

Above and beyond characterising femininity itself, Serano critiques sexist interpretations of it. For example, the desire to help others is interpreted as a feminine trait and taken to imply a duty for women to care for children. Feminine self-presentation is interpreted as existing solely to attract men, denying any possibility that feminine people might wish to adorn themselves for their own pleasure (there is a big issue of status and class that is left out of the discussion here). Serano notes that many men rarely notice new haircuts or clothes and are generally much more interested in bodies. The interpretation is male-centred and sexist – the behaviour itself is not.

if we thought about the feminine traits of being verbally effusive and emotive not as signs of insecurity or dependence, but as bold acts of self-expression, then the masculine ideal of the ‘strong and silent type’ might suddenly seem timid and insecure by comparison

The mistaken belief that femininity is inherently helpless, fragile, irrational and frivolous gives rise to the commonplace assumption that those who express femininity are not to be taken seriously

Serano finally discusses feminist interpretations of femininity. She distinguishes between unilateral feminism and deconstructive feminism. The former, identified with the second wave, views sexism as a simple matter of women oppressed at the hands of men. This view sees women as oppressed by belittling meanings and assumptions projected onto their bodies, and coercion into femininity, the product of subservience. A distinction between sex and gender allowed feminists to challenge the sexist ideas projected onto their bodies while ignoring negative messages associated with femininity. Some advocated androgyny as more ‘natural’ while others worked on a positive idea of ‘natural’ womanhood, which had to arise from biology rather than ‘man made’ femininity, which was denigrated.

In contrast, deconstructive feminism focuses on oppositional sexism rather than traditional sexism. These feminists regard both gender and sex as socially constructed (an argument made by me elsewhere, which I stand by in general). It also artificialises femininity, emphasising the performance model of gender. They tend to argue that femininity is socially imposed, that most women are duped into believing that it is intrinsic, that people in the know realise that gender expression is highly malleable and therefore adopt a more radical antisexist gender expression (androgyny or drag for example), and crucially, that feminine women are enabling sexism and collaborating in their own oppression. This tends to put women with feminine inclinations off feminism.

Serano suggests that this deconstructive feminism involves a degree of projection by people with somewhat exceptional gender inclinations. I'm actually unconvinced by this. She also argues that it is patronizing towards those to whom femininity ‘feels right’. The idea that ‘femininity is artificial’ is misogynistic: denigrating femininity has taken the cultural place of denigrating femaleness. While I feel sceptical about the extent of her critique of social constructivist perspectives, I do think that it is important to realise that femininity is never going to disappear: some behaviours and traits (though the behaviours and traits in question can certainly change just as blue was once a girl colour and is now a boy colour) will inevitably be female-identified. Serano’s perspective clearly shows that the meanings projected onto femininity are sexist and artificial, and will continue to haunt all who are female and/or feminine until we embrace and empower female-identified expression, rather than demanding that women become or behave more like men.

[Emma Sea · Rating 4 out of 5]

Well. Phew. There's a lot in here. I have a lot of notes. It took me two months to read this book, because I'd get frustrated about her insistence on the biological origins of "femininity" and have to close the book. I'd really like to sit down with Julia over a bottle of wine and argue with her about that, because she makes some really interesting and valid points, but I deeply believe she's wrong.

But it's a clear, articulate, engaging, awesome book, which neatly unpicks the whole "woman in a man's body" thing, which annoys me so much.

Recommended for everyone interested in gender.

[Sherwood Smith]

I am beginning to wonder if "It's good to be cis" parallels "It's good to be rich." Being rich makes all these other problems of life invisible--you want something? You get it. Or you order someone to get it for you. The wish is the deed. For the rest of us, the wish can be a receding mirage as we struggle to make a penny stretch, to squeeze time from job and other obligations, yadda. So, yeah, it's nice to be rich . . . but no one comes along and helpfully legislates that we all have to be rich.

Books like this are demonstrating to me that cis = rich in that many of the problems faced by people who are not cis are invisible, just as all the problems we face in surviving are invisible to the rich.

Well, that's enough of me maundering: to the book. Some have pointed out that it's "trans 101" but I think a lot of us cis people need trans 101.

Serano sets out to debunk many of the myths and misconceptions that people have about transsexual women, as well as gender in general. What is deeply disturbing is how much malice is extended toward women who are discovered to be non-cis.

She gets into reasons, among which is that people are targeted not only for their femaleness, but for their expressions of femininity. This scapegoating she speaks of also takes place in strata of the gay community, underscoring the fact that feminine = inferior on so, so many levels.

The goal is to get people to be aware of gender entitlement. Does it succeed? I can't say--so much of what she talks about is new territory for me. She certainly got me to thinking.

[Owen · Rating 1 out of 5]

edit I have recently re-read this book and it is problematic to say the least.

[Kara Babcock · Rating 3 out of 5]

One of my goals last year was, and for this year remains, to read more works by transgender authors, particularly about trans issues. I have been following Julia Serano on Twitter for a while now, so during my latest shopping expedition I decided to pick up Whipping Girl, which has also been on my radar for a while. Serano is not only a trans woman but also a molecular biologist, providing her with insights into the biological side of the sex/gender equation that many people lack. I went into Whipping Girl with the understanding that, even in its second edition, the book is somewhat outdated in ways—but I thought it was important to read this before I dive into some of Serano’s more recent publications, like Excluded, because I know that these works build upon this one. My overall impression is that, if you can navigate through the parts that do sound and feel outdated, this is a valuable book for cis and trans people alike. Cis people will learn a lot about trans perspectives and their own privilege; trans people (particularly trans women like myself) will learn a lot of vocabulary that might make it easier to describe their experiences.

In the first part of the book, Serano advances her own understanding of transgender theory. Aspects of this don’t resonate with me because I grew up later than her and never belonged to the queer communities that she has belonged to in the States. In particular, I’m not a fan of the way she lumps non-trans crossdressers and other gender non-conforming people under the banner of “transgender” and then uses the term transsexual to distinguish between trans people in general and people who have transitioned in a binary way from male to female or vice versa. Please don’t ever call me a transsexual or transsexual woman; I am a transgender woman, trans woman, or preferably just a woman!

As far as other groups go, I am very much in favour of labels being descriptive and individualistic rather than prescribed or applied to people: transgender is an umbrella term that you can use if you think it works for you. Non-binary people and agender people are trans in my eyes, but I respect that not every such individual wants to use the trans label for themselves. Similarly, some gender non-conforming people identify as trans, but others don’t because for them gender expression is just that, but their gender identity remains congruent with what they were assigned at birth. For example, before I came out as trans, if I had worn a skirt, I would have been gender non-conforming in my expression (but would still have considered myself cis at the time). Now that I am out as a trans woman and I wear heels and dresses, I am actually very conformative in how I dress.

You might see how all of these terms start getting complicated, though, and that’s something I appreciate about Serano’s writing in Whipping Girl: she does a good job distinguishing among related yet distinct concepts, such as cissexism and transphobia and trans-misogyny. Much of what we discuss these days we lump under the umbrella of the middle term when it is better discussed as one of the other two. In particular, I liked that Serano pointed out how people who are otherwise good allies (and therefore usually not transphobic in and of themselves) can often inadvertently display cissexism, for example by assuming being cisgender is “normal” and transgender is an abnormality.

Do you need to know all these terms, and the ones I didn’t even mention, to be a good ally? No, absolutely not. Nevertheless, if you are interested in gender theory and feminism, I think that delving into these ideas will provide interesting perspective to help shape the way you engage with the concepts of sex, gender, and gender expression.

I also like Serano’s intrinsic inclinations model for explaining why some people experience incongruence with their gender assigned at birth. Serano challenges the widely-held idea that gender is purely a social construct. This theory emerged out of the rejection of the gender essentialism that positions men and women as inherently, biologically different—something that transphobic people often cling to in an attempt to prove that trans people are mistaken or deluded about our gender, despite the harm that gender essentialism poses to feminism as a whole. Nevertheless, some transphobic people are now weaponizing the social construct theory of gender too, claiming that because we have been “socialized” as one gender, it isn’t possible for us to ever truly understand what it is like to be our actual gender, even if we transition and start living outwardly as that gender. So I agree with Serano that both models are unsatisfactory. Her intrinsic inclinations model does what we know is true already for other nature versus nuture questions—namely, establish that it isn’t nature or nurture, but rather a subtle combination that isn’t always easy to inspect. (On a similar note, I appreciate how Serano points out that the idea of using the term “biological male [or female]” is very problematic when we consider trans people who have started hormone therapy.) In general, these are very difficult concepts to investigate! The difficulty for trans people is that we keep encountering people who think they know better than us about our gender, and who think they have “science” and “biology” on their side, when the reality is so much more complex than they would care to admit.

Serano also offers poignant critiques of how researchers who study trans people are themselves overwhelmingly cisgender, and this has introduced staggering bias into how transgender psychology is characterized within the medical establishment. Serano has been very critical in particular of Ray Blanchard’s theory of autogynephelia, here and elsewhere, although I like that she branches out and provides a far more comprehensive overview of gatekeeping here. All in all, it comes down to the fact that cisgender researchers of trans people are often inordinately obsessed with linking our transness to some type of sexual deviance—or at best, they view us not as human beings with agency of our own but as a subject of study for the benefit of cis people.

In the second part of Whipping Girl, Serano starts to discuss how transgender issues relate to feminism as a whole. Again, aspects of this feel dated—she seems in particular to be pushing back strongly against second-wave feminists, which I totally understand, but I think third and fourth wave feminism have brought new and interesting problems to the forefront. I also disagree with how she uses the terms masculine and feminine, discussing how some women are “masculine” and some men do “feminine” things. I realize this might seem like common usage to most people, but I prefer to say that men are masculine, by definition, and women are feminine. Thus, if I wear a dress, it is a feminine act because I’m female; if a man wears a dress, it’s a masculine act because he’s male. I prefer this conceptualization because it seeks to do away with the idea that certain activities are inherently masculine or feminine. (On the other hand, note that I agree that similar terms like femme, masc, and butch can be applied regardless of gender—I am a femme trans woman, or but other trans women might describe themselves as butch if they end up expressing themselves in ways we often associate with men.)

Beyond this splitting of hairs I’m performing here, however, I’ll register that I largely agree with what Serano has to say in these essays. I agree that—in some cases—modern feminism has sought to disavow femininity and feminine expression (but as I mentioned earlier, third wave feminism was, in no small part, an attempt to rectify this). Additionally, Serano engages with the concept of male privilege as it may or may not apply to AMAB trans people. She makes the important point, which I’ve seen made before, that privilege is not an absolute but rather quite dependent upon context.

Whipping Girl is a fascinating collection of essays that yields fruitful ideas. This is a great place to begin a reading journey about feminism and trans issues. For trans people, particularly trans women, much of this will resonate and hopefully feel affirming. Timeliness aside, this is not the be-all, end-all of trans writings (nor does Serano position it as such!). It’s very specifically attempting to discuss issues of history, sociology, and gender politics. In between the pages you’ll likely notice opportunities for tangents and intersections that Serano leaves unexplored (at least in this book). After reading this, if you are like me, you will only be motivated to keep on reading.

Originally posted on Kara.Reviews, where you can easily browse all my reviews and subscribe to my newsletter.

[El · Rating 3 out of 5]

I was lucky enough to be able to read the 2nd edition to Julia Serano's Whipping Girl. The original was published in 2007 and this 2nd edition was published just this year. I think it's important to note that the author herself points out in the Preface to the 2nd edition how much has changed since the book was published originally. That being said, I think it's probably best to get the newest available copy of this book because this is a topic that is important and yet so are the changes and current events that occur.

This is an interesting collection of Julia Serano's personal essays about sexism and the ongoing troubling nature of femininity. While it's become quite common for literature to talk about femininity and masculinity and how problematic those terms and definitions are for everyone involved, Serano's book enters the arena from the perspective of transsexualism. For this fact alone the book is worth reading.

I hesitate to write a complete review because, as a white, straight, cisgender woman, I'm in a position where issues that effect transgender men and women do not effect me in the same way. I like to consider myself to be an ally and advocate to the best of my ability, I am constantly reminded (and usually rightly so) that my privilege can only take me so far. I continue to try to educate myself and, most importantly, listen. I can also be effected by these issues, but I recognize it's different. So I am wary of trying to articulate my thoughts here as I'm sure someone will jump in and accuse me of all sorts of things. I will probably use wrong terminology at some point, despite my best efforts.

The author states in her Acknowledgements: "While many of the perspectives and concepts put forward in this book have originated with me, others are simply my interpretations of ideas that have been kicking around in the trans community for a while, or that have been previously expressed by others." This is an important statement, and I am glad Serano made it. This book is comprised of her personal essays based on her experiences, viewpoints, and opinions. NONE of that makes the text any less important. But there will be occasions that some readers may feel Serano has made great generalizations that are fundamentally problematic.

The best part about this is that Serano is giving voice to these issues. Especially in 2007 (at least to my knowledge) there were not a lot of texts available discussing binary gender issues. The fact that Serano wrote about her experiences in the cis- and trans- communities shows how far we are coming, and I want there to be more. Serano also wants there to be more, and uses this book to discuss issues within media. Yes, there are lots of issues within media. I have a love-hate relationship with media because I find myself analyzing and deconstructing everything I read, and what does it mean that I find The Devil Wears Prada a great movie, or that You've Got Mail is a movie I love to watch when I'm not feeling well.

Some more recent examples of problematic depictions of transgender in media include the 2002 HBO movie, Normal, and Jeffrey Eugenides's novel of the same year, Middlesex. On the surface it seems like, great, transgender and intersex conversations are beginning to happen! They're in the popular culture and mainstream! Exceeeeept... they were created by people who had no personal experience as a transgender or any personal experience in the transgender community. So what exactly are they saying or providing to the audience? Are they just propagating the same myths and misconceptions that the media has been putting forth all these years? Serano doesn't think they should be making these movies or writing these books at all, and that's where we kinda-sorta disagree. I know a couple people who found Middlesex personally liberating and changed their lives, and that's not something worth diminishing. Likely Eugenides didn't get everything right either, but he at least help start the conversation. Right? This is where I struggle because look at those words: "at least he helped start". PROBLEMATIC.

Serano brought up wonderful points such as this. (I'll be honest that I am fascinated by gender in media anyway, so that's likely why I've latched onto it.)

Especially interesting is the discussion of sexism and the scapegoating of femininity. An ongoing issue that touches everyone in some way, and it shouldn't be ignored. We should be talking about this. We should be talking about everyone that traditional feminism has overlooked and/or blatantly excluded. I am 100% on board with that. There's not a whole lot of diversity in Serano's book, I'll say that right now. I know, it's unfair to say that because the entire book is about transsexual issues. But, again, Serano uses the platform of personal essay which, at times, even read like blog posts, so her experiences also only cover a certain ground. She can speak from the perspective of someone who transitioned to a female, and we are grateful to have her voice. But there's not much she can share from females who have (or are thinking about) transitioning to males. There's maybe one comment about race in this book, which is again leaving out entire demographics, something that feminists hear about constantly, and so it was disappointing to have yet another one-sided perspective - though again, I need to point out again that this text is personal narrative based on Serano's experiences.

Which leads me to remind myself and others that gender and sexuality is not a one-size-fits-all. I believe that is what Serano was also trying to get across. What has been Serano's experiences may not match my friend who within the last year has been taking hormones and now identifies as male. His experiences would not match Serano's. And someone else may not be able to relate to either of their stories. And that's okay. Again, the point is that we are listening, or at least many of us are. There's still a lot of listening to be done, and I hope more voices share their perspectives, their experiences, and that we continue to learn and grow together.

If there's one thing we've learned this year with the American presidential election, there's no room for more divisiveness. Read and learn and, most importantly, don't forget to listen.

I hope in another 10 years, or by the time the 3rd edition of this book comes out, our society will have taken even larger strides to be more inclusive across the board and Serano can write a new Preface based on those changes.

[Elizabeth S. Q. Goodman · Rating 5 out of 5]

My original review is below. My viewpoint has changed as trans activism have become much more personal to me, and this book is the best "education for trans allies" book that I know of. Furthermore, it's really good if you've ever felt constrained by social gender constructions. Seriously--it's a lot of good thinking about where stuff comes from and how to deal with it.

-----
A friend recommended it to me; one really has to process her ideas a lot before dissenting, I think. I say this not because she presents things badly--indeed, her prose so far is quite organized and elegant--but because a lot of the value in the book so far is in absorbing her perspective.

So far I've learned one thing that surprised me, but whose truth is evident: the way many men are squeamish about wearing feminine clothes, makeup and so on, is directly from a misogynistic fear of appearing feminine. It's as if we're the "untouchable" caste. I thought of it as practical, dismissive of excess, and so on, but never realized that women and queer people of all sorts would be "untouchable" because we're another species (because hey, I don't think of myself as less than a person even when I want to be pretty). The way people assume her femininity is a sexual fetish, among other things, says a lot about how society really thinks of women (and she does point out that trans men are largely ignored). More later.

Later: Actually I don't know what else to write about it: it says so very much. One thing that really surprised me is the revelation that transsexual people who went through sex reassignment surgery and hormones were for a long time encouraged to hide their assigned sex (probably decided genitals at birth, not chromosomes). Which means that if every transsexual in society were to come out at once, people would probably not think they were so rare, and might be less inclined to be afraid of them. Also, Serano recounts horrible interactions with doctors and researchers, so much media *and* academic bias; it's all explained and I find the explanation convincing even before reading more sources. She does *not* focus on hate crimes.

You could read this book, or ask me about it, if you want to know more (and I own a copy you could borrow). Julia Serano is in the San Francisco area, so maybe someday I'll see her give a workshop (yay SF!).

[laurent · Rating 1 out of 5]

made some very legitimate points on femininity and being a trans woman but i was absolutely horrified at how serano kept putting down genderqueer people and other nonbinary identities. she considers nonbinary identities oppressive towards trans men and women who conform to binarist modes of expression and delegitimises nonbinary identities because of this. i've never met a gender nonconforming individual who mocks others for conforming to a particular gender. this point was brought up over and over in the book and even hammered home in the conclusion. i can't help but feel that her impression of nonbinary people was heavily influenced by her community, which she admits is very white and middle-class. bell hooks is cited once, but serano simply stated that trans people are oppressed just as black people are, without unpacking the intersectionality of identities or the specific differential racist treatment. would serano benefit from knowing more queer non-white folk?

[Imogen · Rating 4 out of 5]

This is totally the best book on transwoman stuf I've ever read, but a lot of it still didn't resonate with me- specifically her experience with hormones and their effects, how easy she found it to be appropriately gendered by other folks, and her experiences with the queer/trans community. Still though, totally badass and right on, for the most part, and I would totally recommend it to anybody who's ever wondered about the reality of being a transwoman.

[jessi lee · Rating 5 out of 5]

i love this book. i was just quoting it in my "cultural diversity" class in counseling school & now half the class promised to read it. it's the best feminist text i've read in years.

things that i'm grateful for: the term "transmisogyny"; the discussion of oppositional sexism; the sharp analysis of media representations of trans women & absence of trans men in the media; the discussion of the history of cis academics & scientists using/abusing transsexual people; the discussion of cis folks using "third-gendering" as a marginalizing tactic; the "transgender is more radical than transsexual" postmodern academic theorist bullshit call-out; and the way she reminds me what's so great about being a feminist.

Serano has such a clear analysis of the mechanics of the oppression of queers, trans people, and women, and how these interact for trans women. The first few chapters were also really useful for me in thinking about my internalized femme-phobia, and the ways that I enact that. I'm glad Serano is talking about the hatred of femininity.

It's also been a special treat to read this book after simon, cause I get to engage with his underlining & margin comments. it's like reading it with him sitting next to me saying, "ooh, i really liked this part."

As a critique, i'd say that sometimes I feel like the author is a little ungenerous towards social constructionists. Her arguments about constructionism are not the most interesting parts of the book to me, and i think that the simplification of other's positions is a part of that. I don't think there are any social constructionists who would suggest that people are being "duped" into their genders, and what she describes as "socially exaggerated" sounds alot like how i've heard social constructionists talk about the complex interplay b/w society and our physical bodies.

[maya · Rating 3 out of 5]

incredibly difficult to numerically rate, but i guess i'd say 3.5*

overall, i really enjoyed this - and i'll get into why in a second - but it's hard not to view part 1 and 2 of this as almost two separate entities, mostly due to the inconsistent nature of the second part that at times feels a lot less academic and sure of itself than the first part. finding out that serano was only 4 years into her transition at the time of writing this and that a lot of her cultural/social takes are based off of living in san francisco kind of put a lot of the things i didn't like about this book into perspective - i'll expand on what i didn't like about part two later, but it really boils down to a lot of this info being presented in the way someone new to their queer identity only can and also being so ingrained in a queer bubble that you gloss over struggles that still persist in other places and create non-issues that only happen in really secular queer spaces (think of every annoying tweet you've ever seen from a 20 year old lesbian from bushwick).

i picked this book up for three reasons:
1. to have a better historical perspective on transmisogyny (check!)
2. the idea of this being written by a trans woman who is a biologist was an interesting angle and i was curious how that would be incorporated (check... ish? it's mentioned but most of serano's biological takes are that transness and gender aren't and shouldn't be considered biological which like... tea! but then why is the word biology on the back cover queen!)
3. a lot of my butch, androgynous, or transmasc friends are constantly touting this idea that femininity is completely artificial - a made up state of being created by men to sell products or keep us trapped. as someone queer but deeply feminine, this always causes a knee jerk reaction in me - i don't like the unspoken assumption they are making here: that while femininity is not a base neutral state for people, masculinity somehow is. however, despite my strong gut reactions to this, i have never had the tools to properly argue this point - i was hoping this book would help with that. (check.... ish? there is really only one essay in a 350+ page book that tackles this directly, and unfortunately i found it to be one of the many part 2 essay's where it felt like serano's wheels were kind of spinning out. it's clear we agree on the subject but i'm not really sure the points made by her will help me in these types of discussions).

so with only 1/3 of my expectations fully met, maybe you can understand my rating here better.

so! part one! the good. i think this section is a really wonderful read for everyone - no matter your understanding of transmisogyny. i got a lot out of this as someone who already felt like they had a good handle on my understanding of the concept, but this was written in a way that i think people with even less of a background knowledge would find this interesting/informative. serano defines and creates terms for a lot of social phenomena i've witnessed but haven't been able to articulate, and i think she provides tools for introspection to catch thoughts/behaviors that can easily snowball into transmisogyny early on. "oppositional sexism" and "gender entitlement" are terms i've not seen often, despite the popularity of this work, that i think would settle a lot of #discourse i've unfortunately been witness to.

you leave part one with a good understanding of how misogyny specifically impacts trans women, how misogyny (and by association, homophobia bc of men's fear of being viewed in anyway as effeminate) permeates our entire culture, how the basic foundations of psychology and queer theory are deeply flawed and have failed transwomen, etc. it really is great! then begins part two, "trans women, femininity, and feminism" which i still enjoyed but not as consistently as part one.

part 2 seemed to blur the lines between personal essays/manifesto and the Academic Essay (tm) that part 1 largely was. for every essay that was well referenced, researched, and articulated, there would be a chapter that was completely personal and often times caused serano to personally contradict statements she would make in the more "academic" essays (one of the chapters is quite literally called a "rant", for instance). i don't mind serano getting personal, but the tonal inconsistency i think illegitimized a lot of this book to me. serano spends most of this book building up the concept of "gender entitlement" - where a lot of our issues re: gender come from everyone believing that their interior feelings towards their own personal gender is a universal experience and that our failure to realize every single person on earth experiences gender in a very unique way - then slots in personal sweeping statements based on her own experiences without any kind of added research context.

here are the things i enjoyed about part 2: her argument that the queer focus on the "gender binary" as the ultimate enemy is tired and unproductive despite it's general good faith approach. the idea that all gendering is bad, or harmful, isn't true for a lot of people (!! especially resonated to me, as a femme who is exclusively interested in butches) and also the way this tends to be interpreted by queer people as a dichotomy of man vs woman (or masc vs fem, if you will) on completely opposite ends of a spectrum is incorrect for two reasons:
1) that many other gender binaries exist - heterosexual vs homosesxual, cissexual vs transsexual, etc. by eradicating one gender binary, you are simply paving ways for others to exist (specifically mentioning the separatist movement of cultural feminists, where political lesbians view their sexuality and gender expression as better than say... heterosexual women)
2) when you place man vs woman so oppositional to each other, you are denying the fact that most people have a "mix and match" assortment of both feminine and masculine traits unique to them and their gender identity.

i also appreciated her take down of the "mystification" of femininity that both cis men and feminists engage in - this idea that because of a shared biology, we are all apart of some kind of "sisterhood", that bc of our femininity we will never be fully understood by men, that we have access to "female" traits no one else can. your basic woo-woo bullshit you'll still see spouted on like.... tik tok. her analysis of the ways cultural and biology based feminists set us up for failure were insightful, true, and good!

i found part 2 to be lacking in terms of biological and psychological research, but the bit that was there (the small section about how children learn "gender constancy" was fascinating!) was good.

now.... here are the things i did not like about part 2.

1. lots of instances and references to cis or non-MTF women "sadly taking their identity or anatomies for granted". here we go again serano with you participating in gender entitlement! she does recognize, much later in the book than this quote happens, that she understands some of the reasonings why cis women might feel the need to distance themselves from femininity or their gender identity, but it feels like a too little too late moment. i'm going to use this as a place to explain that this book DEEPLY lacks any kind of intersectionality. there is virtually no analysis of class or race and how it relates to gender, and i think this specifically is why quotes like this exist in this book - for someone who speaks on how suddenly and rampantly she felt things like misogyny, sexual harassment, etc very early on into her transition, it feels weird she can't seem to understand or empathize with why some women do not see their gender or anatomies as a privilege. to many low income women, women in areas without access to reproductive health, etc this is often felt more like a detriment. this is exactly how you end up with feminist movements that think all women need to "take on" more masculine traits and roles, or completely separate ourselves form "non-women" - something serano rallies against, but then participates in rhetoric that inspires this line of thinking!!! crazy.

2. i think serano has a very weird fundamental misunderstanding of butch or transmasc struggles - and maybe this is me reading this in 2024 and not engaging with it at a 2007 level, or maybe i just don't live in san francisco lol - but also overestimates the influence they have over gender politics. she insinuates many times that butch women or those who ID as transmasc have an "easier" time dressing more masculine and transitioning - while this is partially true due to our society's favor of masculinity over femininity, there is again, no mention of the extreme rates of corrective rape these identitites face or how they also exist in a unique crossroads of misogyny compounding with transphobia, and how many transmascs face entitlement from cis people because they think they are robbing the world of femininity. this is something you'd think serano would be interesting in discussing in particular from her social positioning as a butch (my words) / masculine presenting (her words) trans women. in her final chapter, she talks about how all groups of trans people need to come together to fight for ALL identities, but seems completely hesitant to recognize any struggles that transmascs face. she also regularly says that butches and FTM-spectrum people over represent the community and that queer spaces are usually mostly these identities with little room for other people to which i respectfully say........ what? maybe LESBIAN spaces, sure, but if i'm going to just a generic gay bar on any given night it's going to be mostly cis men. i talk about this in my next point, but i think this reinforces my main beef with this book: in which queer people and women are blamed for a lot of problems serano brings up, but we completely ignore men's role in these issues.

2. serano's views on sex are... well this book taught me not to call other people's gender/sex experiences reductive, so i won't, but she certainly had some insane blanket statements to say about sex from a female perspective. my least favorite chapter in this book - "submissive streak" - begins on a completely offensive note:

"When I was a child, I was sexually assaulted, but not by any particular person. It was my culture that had his way with me."

girl........... WHAT. we cannot be using rape as a metaphor in the chapter where you go on to say shit inferring that all women have or engage in rape fantasies!! this whole chapter is trying to explain why serano - and by association, most trans women at large - engage in submissive roles in sex, but i find her articulation of this deeply troubling. she infers that growing up mostly around boys and their misogyny taught her that things like playboy spreads or locker room talk was reality and that is how women were expected to behave - she says that her (and ALL women's internalized misogyny) is the reason why so many women find themselves in BDSM or other kink communities performing extreme submissiveness that they likely don't enjoy. this is crazy to me. i do not understand why the perspective here is finger wagging at women not tackling internalized misogyny for the way that men brutalize us in bed instead of taking an opportunity to disparage men into simply behaving better? or better yet, trying to dismantle the societal misogyny that causes thsi in the first place? this is all coupled by serano insinuating that ALL women grow up fantasizing about things like being sold into sex slavery, assault, etc...... while i won't deny i do know some people into this, myself and the majority of women i know would not agree to this. i find this sentiment shared a lot in trans women authors i read, and i'd be interested in an actual analysis of this, but i definitely and vehemently disagree that this is a 'woman" thing and something *we* need to work on.

3. i understood the concept of subversivism, but it ultimately felt so "queer person in a queer bubble complaining about something while queer people in red states are dying". lol. like sorry i am just not materially at a point where i can care about people with like.... xenogenders feeling like they're cooler than me or actually thinking i'm oppressed for being traditionally feminine in the queer community. it's such a weird self-victimization route that i just don't understand. i like my traditional femininity, i'm comfortable with it, it makes me sad when other people insinuate i'm not woke enough or somehow brainwashed for it, but ultimately my traditional femininity is a safety blanket - in passing glances, me and butch partners can be incorrectly read as a heterosexual couple, which allows us to evade potentially dangerous situations a lot. it also was silly to have serano spend multiple chapters emphasizing how all people can and should create their own homogenous mix of masculine and feminine traits, and then disparage (old person yelling at sky voice) these new fangled complex identities like..... "boydyke". which is in half of my friends IG bios, btw. lmfao.

[Lectoralila · Rating 5 out of 5]

Leemos para distraernos, para viajar, para disfrutar, pero también para aprender. Y si hay un podio de libros con los que aprender mucho y bien, “Whipping girl” está en las primeras posiciones. Corren tiempos extraños, tiempos en los que nos empeñamos en no escuchar y en imponer nuestras opiniones y creencias por encima de la verdad. Aunque diréis, ¿quién tiene el poder del conocimiento de la verdad? Pues aquellas personas que viven de primera mano las situaciones sobre las que opinamos. Las mujeres afrodescendientes saben mucho sobre racismo, las mujeres lesbianas saben mucho sobre lesbofobia, las mujeres transexuales saben mucho sobre transfobia. Y así, podemos seguir sumando un número infinito de mujeres que están situadas en los márgenes de la discriminación social.
⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀
“Whipping girl” es un ensayo que abre mentes, que aporta, que enseña. Hace tiempo que me pregunto por qué se les exige a las mujeres trans que sean menos femeninas acusándolas de fetichizar e hipersexualizar la feminidad, y sin embargo no veo esos mismos dedos acusatorios sobre otras mujeres que fetichizan e hipersexualizan esa misma feminidad. Es decir, en porcentaje de población las mujeres trans son un número menor que el resto de mujeres, y las mujeres trans que visten de forma muy “femenina” son menos todavía. Entonces, ¿por qué siempre se cae en el error, desde el feminismo, de acusar y culpar a las mujeres trans de hipersexualizar su feminidad y tirar piedras sobre la ruptura de los roles de género? Julia Serrano nos cuenta en estas páginas, cómo los medios de comunicación buscan siempre entrevistar a mujeres trans exigiéndoles que salgan en cámara maquillándose, vistiéndose con ropa ajustada o poniéndose unos tacones. Es decir, los medios de comunicación son los que fetichizan e hipersexualizan a las mujeres. A todas. Y de ahí salen los mitos y las generalizaciones equivocadas. Como todas las generalizaciones sobre las mujeres.
⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀
Además, algo que tengo en la cabeza desde hace tiempo es esta idea de que lo masculino es positivo y lo femenino negativo. Es decir, un hombre masculino se caracterizará socialmente como: agresivo, seguro, con carácter, decidido, soltero de oro, inalcanzable. A una mujer femenina, por el contrario, se le otorgarán los valores de: callada, débil, indecisa, zorra, solterona, desesperada. Como explica Serrano, se presentan siempre roles de género por oposición. La característica que tiene el rol masculino es la contraria a la del rol femenino, cosa que es un terrible error. Por otra parte, si a una mujer femenina se le asocian los valores anteriormente otorgados a la masculinidad, se dirá de ella que es (de nuevo) una zorra, una “tortillera”, y se la reprenderá por ser agresiva tachándola de histérica. Y a un hombre al que se le asocian los caracteres asociados a la feminidad se le tachará de: pusilánime, “marica” o “nenaza”. Que a nadie se le escape, por cierto, que en ambos sentidos hay homofóbia generalizada.
⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀
Creo que “Whipping girl” es un libro a tener muy en cuenta; he rescatado algunas reflexiones a las que me ha llevado el libro, pero reconozco que con su longitud son muchísimas más las que me rondan la cabeza. La transfobia y la homofobia son cosas a erradicar y a las que darle prioridad para que desaparezcan de la sociedad. Las vidas de las personas trans solo pueden ser narradas por ellas mismas, y nosotras tenemos la obligación de escucharlas y entenderlas, no de darles la espalda y prejuzgaras por lo que “nosotras opinamos”. ¿Acaso permitimos que los hombres hablen por nosotras o nos expliquen cosas? No seamos como ellos, podemos hacerlo mejor.

[Teagan · Rating 5 out of 5]

Picking up this book was such an empowering moment. For the first time in my 27 years of being transgender, I saw myself reflected properly in print. Julia Serano was like a more experienced, smarter, older sister, showing me that it is ok to be myself, whatever shape that is. She showed me that we're not crazy, broken or disgusting, and some of us are clever and funny and capable. She deconstructed media representations that have troubled me since childhood and explained the origin of stereotypes that held me back growing up. She showed me a way that my experience can be reconciled with feminism and that femininity is both powerful and available to me, if I want it. She took ideas that had sat half-formed in my head for a decade and laid them out fully in front of me, suddenly untangled and comprehensible. Maybe I am gushing, but it's unavoidable- this book was one of those vital steps from hating myself to loving myself.

So I give it five stars, not because it's perfect (sometimes Serano skirts close to creating a new binary to replace the one she is deconstructing) but because it helped and inspired me more than anything else I've ever read. If that doesn't deserve full marks, nothing does.
Whipping Girl: A Transsexual Woman on Sexism and the Scapegoating of Femininity

[Ife · Rating 3 out of 5]

3.5/5

First, we should beware of any gender theory that makes the assumption that there is any one “right” or “natural” way to be gendered or to be sexual. Such theories are typically narcissistic in nature, as they merely reveal their designers’ desire to cast themselves on top of the gender hierarchy.

I have wanted to read Whipping Girl for so long and now that I have read it and contemplated the time it was written it has undeniably shaped so much of contemporary twitter queer discourse with its unending neologisms (some of which stuck and others which didn't), and its arguments many of which have now become mainstream - the idea that SRS is not drastically different from liposuction though one is seen as mutilation while the other isn't, for example. Serano seeks to bridge the world of trans activism and feminism through her thesis that much of what we call 'transphobia' is actually just misogyny and that the attack on trans women is part of the patriarchal project to demonise femininity. Serano's writing style is whip-smart (no pun intended) and she weaves in and out of ideas linking them all with the sarky charm of a fed-up cultural commentator. Unfortunately, the book is not without its issues:

I think it is often unfair to judge books, especially those that are on social and cultural commentary, outside of the backdrop in which they are written so I will add the caveat that things were very different in 2007 when this book was written. However, I agree with the very popular critique that this book downplays the issues faced by trans men, non-binary and gender non-conforming people to promote one of its ideas which is that there is not really a backlash against gender deviance but more so against expressions of femininity. I think if Serano was writing in a contemporary context she would be able to see the immense vitriol directed towards non-binary people today and how they have been scapegoated not only to mischaracterise the entire queer community but also to reinforce a gender binary and what Serano calls 'oppositional sexism'.

Furthermore, certain things Serano says do not really seem plausible and I have a few issues with the framing of some of the ideas in the book. She diminishes the significance of social factors affecting the way we present our genders by proposing we have 'Experiential Genders' but does not address how the way we learn what our Experiential Gender is "supposed" to be like is largely determined by social recognitions of it and not some biological inclination. A lot of her points for the biologizing of our genders are not substantiated by anything beyond her own experience.

Speaking of the scope of her experience, there are brief nods to experiences that differ from hers - a tangential citation of bell hooks but no real integration of a race, gender or class analysis which could have really developed some of her points on the relationship between femininity and transness in the cultural market place.

I do not mean to be too disparaging. I think it takes a certain clarity to have some of the insights Serano has offered queer and feminist discourse especially when she offered them. Her analysis especially on Ungendering in Academic and Art was particularly interesting to me and she has a very wide base of knowledge from popular culture to trans literature to biology. Unfortunately, the issues I stated above were too glaring for me to justify rating this book higher than I have, but I think it is still an important work of literature that should be studied in any Gender and Sexuality course as well as read by anyone who wants to become more knowledgeable on trans issues.

[Stephanie · Rating 5 out of 5]

one of the most important books i’ve ever read

[Hemel · Rating 1 out of 5]

Admittedly, I did not expect too much from this book, having had it recommended to me by the kind of trans girls who treat being asked to do the dishes by a roommate like a structural oppression issue. Still, I expected more than I got, which is on me.

Julia Serano was born in 1967 and began medically transitioning in 2001. 'Whipping Girl' was published in 2007, meaning the book was largely written from the perspective of someone only a few years into transition, as hopefully this book took more than a year to write, and if not, that explains a few things. The book is not really "a trans woman’s notes on sexism" so much as an attempt to argue that transphobia is fundamentally just sexism. She argues that "men suffer from sexism too", which which she does not actually mean men, but latent trans women who have not realized themselves yet.

It is hard not to wonder how much this framework emerged from Serano’s very specific trajectory and social environment, as she is someone transitioning later in life after already establishing herself socially and professionally in the academic field of biology. I will address the obvious elephant in the room as to why she chose sexism as the single explanatory lens to retroactively reorganizing random life experiences through in a bit. Other than that, it is also obvious why this is nonetheless marketed as a book on the exploration of trans experience or sexism first and foremost, since that would sell much better.

I do want to stress there are a lot of other parts that should challenged on whether it has aged well, truly. But honestly, nowhere does the framework fall apart faster than when she starts talking about trans men, even if I know what that makes me sound like if I chose these parts of the book specifically to bring up. However, there is this genuinely surreal moment where Serano argues that trans men supposedly "have it easier" because masculinity is socially valued, but then immediately pivots to complaining that masculine "trannybois" are desired in lesbian spaces in ways she wishes she herself were desired. Which immediately raises the obvious question: if these people are being desired specifically in *lesbian* spaces, then in what sense are they actually being socially rewarded for being *masculine* or *as men*, per se? As she goes on to resent for not being lusted after in the same way at these events, it becomes increasingly hard not to see this as interpersonal envy disguised as cultural analysis.

That is the recurring issue throughout the book, really. Serano seems compelled to sideline trans men from the discussion altogether, because their existence complicates every attempt she makes to reduce transphobia to sexism alone. And there actually are interesting questions here that the book could have explored. What *does* it mean to transition from female to male, especially when the Lacanian psychoanalytic tradition has framed transition itself as a fundamentally “female” response to sexual difference? Is feminization something socially irreversible, a condition one can never fully escape once subjected to it, like for instance Marija Cetivic says in her lectures? What distinguishes transitions toward masculinity from transitions toward femininity, and what might those differences reveal about trans men’s and trans women’s respective relationships to femininity, masculinity, and sexism?

But Serano simply refuses to engage with any kind of question that boils down to this or to make her own claim even remotely credible to anyone who isn't a sheltered trans woman. The moment transmasculinity enters the conversation, her analysis collapses into the same one-sided rivalry dynamics and projected resentment that characterize a great deal of even today's online transfeminine discourse around trans men. And that is interesting, but I will come to that in a bit.

I am aware this is apparently taboo to point out, but perhaps Serano ends up saying transphobia is little more than sexism because the most vivid experience in her transition to become a woman was probably also subsequently being treated as one. We really need to move away from the idea that it is inherently "transmisogynistic" to observe that many trans women did not experience sexism in the same way prior to transition as they will during or after transition. What becomes especially frustrating is that some of the very same people who reject this observation, then turn around and insist that trans men "have it easier", both before, during and after transition. Yes, of course trans women do deserve sympathy for the hardships that their specific transgender trajectories come with, but too often I see trans women want their cake and then not only eat theirs, but eat cake out of other people's plates too.

And listen, I do understand that moving from a socially higher-status position (male) into a lower-status one (female) can be psychologically and socially destabilizing, so much you need to come up with an all-encompasing theory to make sense of it. There are degrees in which this status loss happens, of course: a succesful man blessed with the halo effect transitioning into a non-passing women that will be depressed about said non-passing will lead to more loss of status than a depressed, balding man transitioning into a surged up pin-up doll on finasteride, bica and minoxidil with a new-found lust for life. Despite the degrees in which status is truly lost, we do live in a patriachal society and we can say for sure there is at least some degree of status loss in a male-to-female transition will be imminent. Even if the trans women is read as an effeminate man, of course, this is a downgrade in status and whether this is due to homophobia, transphobia, sexism... doesn't really seem that relevant, honestly...?

One thing I have never witnessed a trans woman theorizing transphobia do is being able to compute that maybe the movement from the cis woman subject position to occupying a transmasculine social position is not that black-and-white. It's not either it's some straightforward ascending into male privilege, as a less conventionally seen "succesful" transition would cause the person to have dropped in status, lower than that of a cis woman. Depending on what kind of masculinity someone is attempting to embody, the status shift can be positive for sure, but I think realistically speaking, more often enough it's still actively negative all the same. I can't believe it comes as a shock to a lot of people, but being visibly read as queer across the board will generally still lead you to be read as disportionately mentally unstable and too self-absorbed to handle social or professional settings in a trustworthy manner. I could expand on this, but I won't, because I know that no one actually cares, and I am also not interested in making a case really about to what degree transitioning to a man is socially or economically stragetic or not. I am very sceptic about studies that try to measure changes in the gender pay gap with trans people since the research methodology of these studies is very questionable all of the times.

My point actually is this. What is frustrating about Serano's work is that I think this has had a bizarrely long afterlife in trans communities. Even now Serano gets whipped out as an authority figure on this recurring MTF-versus-FTM framing where trans men become symbolic figures onto whom transfeminine insecurity gets projected: “you were born with what I wanted so you have it easier,” “you are destroying the femininity that I wish I had,” “you do not really understand masculinity because I cannot comprehend you not simply wanting to look like a high status man,” etc. Outside of lame inter-LGBT discussions where people are venting their grievances about other queers, you see this as well. With as much flack as I give Serano's anecdotal evidences, I literally cannot count all the times seemingly normal, wildly succesful trans women have likened an FTM transition to be this fundamentally self-destructive or mutilatory thing. Like referring to the French film 'Titane', which is literally about a woman chosing to keep grotesquely mutilating herself and then slowly turning into a car, as a "transmasculine allegory". I get asked by a trans woman out of nowhere what a facial masculinization surgery would even be other than asking for a fucking ugly nose. At a certain point, maybe people aren’t uncomfortable around you because you’re "feminine" and because society is sexist. Maybe it’s because you keep describing big decisions that other people make in ways that sound openly disgusted by them. Yes, body horror is a common metaphor in all kinds of trans spaces, but the one-sided contempt is getting old.

Once you notice it, a lot of trans writing from the ’90s and early 2000s starts to read very differently. Most of those books were written by trans women, because the audience at the time was drawn to the spectacle of transition: the glitz, the glamour, the surgery-led full-body makeover narrative. (The tone today has shifted quite a bit. Gender transition is no longer fucked up in the rock 'n roll sex work describing hormones like drugs way but more so through the language of social panic. Think “we’re losing our daughters to mental illness.”) Back then, hell, even Imogen Binnie did it, though I think she has since apologised for being so bitter and resentful? What cultural value 'Whipping Girl' has for me in 2026 is honestly not at all as feminist theory or a universal theory on transphobia. More so it should be valued as a historical artifact of a very specific early-2000s trans feminine subculture and its anxieties.

Really, I try to stay away from venting accumulated discourse frustration in my GoodReads reviews because it's not chic! It's not my brand and I am above this since I have healthy friendships and a range of hobbies to pick up and abandon at my leisure. I really wanted to focus on critiquing of the book, but if the book is ragebait of accumulated discourse frustration, then it's like, who cares!

[Q · Rating 4 out of 5]

I'm reading this five years after it was published (in 2007) and, it seems, after loads of people I know who have discussed this book specifically and also absorbed its ideas into their critiques of so many issues (particularly in discussions around transmisogyny), so it doesn't feel as fresh as I'm sure it would have when it was first published.

Even so, it's pretty incisive. In Part 1, "Trans/Gender Theory", Serano disambiguates a lot of concepts that are confused in discourse around sex and gender, even in academia, by separating subconscious sex, gender expression and sexual orientation, and looking at how these identities relate to cissexism (assuming that cissexuals' gender identities are more natural, normal and unquestionable than transsexuals' gender identities), transphobia, oppositional sexism (basically maintaining gender categories as mutually exhaustive, exclusive and oppositional) and traditional sexism (devaluing women, femininity and femaleness in relation to men, masculinity and maleness). I feel that her writing and use of concrete examples would make this text fairly accessible for someone who doesn't have any pre-existing familiarity with these terms.

Part 2 "Trans Women, Femininity and Feminism" seems to be a collection of shorter papers, and I can see from the notes that some of these have been previously published on their own. This part is more personal and stylistically more forceful, but I found it pretty repetitive. I guess I've read a lot of blog posts and articles by trans women that articulate similar ideas to the chapters in Part 2, while Part 1 develops a coherent theoretical framework that sets the stage (and creates the language) for the reflections in Part 2.

The only real critique I have is that Serano spends much of the book rightly criticising how non-trans medical practitioners, feminists, filmmakers, novelists, sociologists, gender theorists and queer activists use trans women's lives as raw material to analyse or entertain without any regard for trans women's stories about themselves. But then in her discussion of non-Western gender categories such as berdaches (p 147-149), she refers to her own feelings about being "third-gendered", doubts the distinction between "third genders" and "trans people who 'cross' from one gender to the other", and characterises "third genders" as "oppositional sexist attempts by society to marginalize gender-variant people" without speaking to anyone who might identify as "third gender" or referring to any testimony or autobiography. Isn't that exactly the kind of appropriation and gender entitlement she decries? While definitely there is a romanticisation of non-Western "third gender" categories, and I would probably agree that in any contemporary society that has a "third gender" category, there would also be trans people who would prefer to be considered as part of the same category as cis people of their gender, it also seems like Serano is touching on this discussion to forward her own argument. She makes the same kind of evasive reference to people who might prefer a "third gender" identity over a transsexual one as the gatekeepers she criticises who brush off or ignore lesbian trans women whose orientation problematises their assumptions. Anyway, it's only like three pages out of 400 so really not a big deal, but it bugged me.

[Becky · Rating 5 out of 5]

This is my 3rd book so far this year featuring trans themes or characters (4th if we count the sci-fi body-hop book), and I found this one to be fascinating and informative.

Read nearly back to back with Schuyler Bailar's He/She/They: How We Talk About Gender and Why It Matters, I couldn't help but compare them as I listened. I'm rating them both 5 stars, though I found this one to be a lot more dense and technical than Bailar's book, which mainly approached the topic from a part memoir/part social activism lens. That's to be expected though, considering that Serano is a biologist and a scientist, and it shows. The analysis and detail given to the biological aspects of transness (and the lack thereof, in some cases) was really fascinating to me, but more from an academic "oh that's really interesting!" angle than an "I need to know what is happening in this person's body" angle.

I do admit to having a certain curiosity, for sure, but as I listened to both Bailar's and Serano's books, I could not really understand the rationale behind the invasive DEMAND for the most intimate details of a trans person's body from cisgender (or as Serano used, "cissexual") people. I think curiosity is normal and natural - but demanding that that curiosity be satisfied with lurid genitalia descriptive detail is... not.

Anyway - so yeah, the biological data given here was interesting and informative, but at the end of the day, it doesn't make a difference. People, trans or cis, are just people.

I also very much appreciated the essay on trans exploitation in media. VERY eye opening to me, and has me wondering if I was to re-read books like Middlesex by Eugenides now, how very differently I would view it. When I read it back in 2009, I read it simply as fiction, as a story, and I really enjoyed it. I wasn't the critical reader I am (or at least aspire to be) now. But that's part of the process. We live and learn and grow.

This book is a bit dated (mainly in terminology, and almost certainly scientific research), but I really found it incredibly informative regarding a lot of trans research and historical attitudes, experiences, and progress. Highly recommended, and I'll likely scope out her other work as well.