decolonizing trans/gender 101

by b. binaohan

tired of reading yet another trans/gender 101 entirely centered around white people and their normative narratives? tired of feeling like you must be _this_ tall to be trans enough to belong in the ~community~? tired of feeling like the white trans community is erasing your experiences?

having gender feels but not understanding how they fit into the current white hegemonic discourse on gender?

decolonizing trans/gender 101 is a short, accessible (and non-academic) critique of many of the fundamental concepts in white trans/gender theory and discourse. written for the indigenous and/or person of colour trying to understand how their gender is/has been impacted by whiteness and colonialism.

Genres: Nonfiction, Queer, Transgender, Gender, LGBT, Race, Theory

139 pages, Paperback

First published May 31, 2014

Reviews

[H Gultiano]

one of the first things mentioned in this book is that formal white english grammar rules are not going to be of any concern, and yet the only reviews on GR are people complaining about the grammar and how unreadible it is, which is funny because i understood every word, but i am used to reading works on blogs by [QT]PoC ppl and i'm used to studying and participating w/ languages with differeent grammar rules than european languages (for whatever "reasons" they proport to be imposed). I was less confused reading this than reading a pile of deleuzian plateaus crammed into a 400 pg, grammatically perfec, tome.

one of the important feeling underlying streams of this book is that the parameters of gender politics are in fact coming from a white, mostly top-down hegemony, & in many ways dehistorcizing Indigenous and/or People of Color's gender complexity and continuing the colonial project that hinges on things like binary gender reference points, visibility-consumption continuum, and the current boxed view of socialization (the author argues there is only one socialization: colonial misogyny).

a lotta rage i resonated with was coming through which i'm still prossessing, esp since the author is a transpin@y bakla and i'm trans filipin@ & white, but i'm coming from a place of diasporic dehistorization, so a lot of the beliefs grounded in white supremacy are ones i grew up [en]acting-with (that reminds me that if you're really triggered and frustrated reading this book, check yrself and see if it's out of a place of your internal structures, that are grounded in white-colonialism, being challenged -- if your sure it's not then maybe you're a trans man geetting offended by the seeming transference of the critique of Teich's priviledge onto all (well especially white) trans men. that's something that i felt weird about beccause i've heard and felt trans men friend's legitimate pain and i don't want anyone to feel invalid, while i do agree with the author's sentiment that there's nothing like transmisogyny).

i guess i'd advocate this for any belief, especially when they're being passionately expressed: what are the assumptions and other beliefs it is/they are coming from, and where are those assumptions and other beliefs coming from, who are they benefiting, and why does it feel so important to you? keep going with it if you have the energy, then maybe reread this book.

[Minosh · Rating 5 out of 5]

Just reread this book and realized I never rated/reviewed it, which is a travesty. Rereading in 2019 was an interesting experience, because while in some ways the book is very clearly entrenched in the shape of the Discourse in 2013-2014, almost all of the points b. binaohan makes remain devastatingly relevant today. To give one example, I think the recent debacle on twitter with ContraPoints and "binary vs nonbinary trans people" could have gone much better if anyone had read this book and internalized its arguments. In that regard I want every trans person to read this--the white ones to realize their bullshit, and trans people of color to see our experiences reflected and explained clearly. That said, I do think that some people may need a lot of hand-holding through this book, which does assume a level of familiarity with "trans 101" discourse.

To conclude I just want to list a few of the really amazing contributions and arguments that you will encounter reading this book (listed roughly in the order they appear):
-Definition of "Transgender" as a hegemonic identity that centers whiteness
-Reading the dysphoria/transmed/truscum debate as a reflection of white Western mind/body dualism
-The socialization debate is likewise destroyed here
-A history of how "transgender" as a concept came into existence that actually centers the history of trans women of color and how they were/are both central and abjected to/from the movement
-Generalized discourses of "Transphobia" as an effacement of transmisogyny (and just generally a bunch of great demonstration of how racialized transmisogyny works)
-"Binarism" as part and parcel of whiteness (this is a super critical section that I can't do justice to briefly)

In conclusion I LOVE THIS BOOK and not just because I am mentioned in the acknowledgment section ok

[Zoe · Rating 5 out of 5]

This is an amazing book which helped me become conscious of so much oppressive bullshit that I've internalized and enacted

[musa b-n · Rating 5 out of 5]

I really enjoyed reading this a lot. Especially reading it for myself and not my thesis, but in the wake of my thesis, the style and composition was open and refreshing. It felt very accessible to me personally and made me think about a lot of things in new ways - like I'm having new thoughts around the word 'passing' and how I use it. I super recommend it to anyone, but especially white trans people!

[daemyra, the realm's delight · Rating 5 out of 5]

Some more thoughts:

b. binaohan wrote Decolonizing Trans/Gender 101 after coming across a recent publication, Transgender 101: A Simple Guide to a Complex Issue, published by Columbia University Press, and this book is a complete teardown of that book. This is fascinating, hilarious, and it can also be confusing, at turns. I was, for the most part, able to follow along as binaohan will describe what it is they are responding to, but at other times, I felt unclear, but that may stem more from my own ignorance around some of these gender issues. Reading this made me wish for more commentaries like this. I found this a powerful, illuminating read that I will probably need to reread.

A lot of GR reviewers have commented on its writing style. binaohan is explicit about what to expect and how they have chosen to write. It's not meant to be an academic work and they make specific stylistic choices. This does not bother me because the author has done me the service of communicating this beforehand, and there is a decolonial purpose to it. Also, it's never done to make the content more confusing.

Short and sweet, Decolonizing Trans/Gender 101 is helpful reading to decolonizing the trans narrative.

[Phryne · Rating 5 out of 5]

This is what we should be reading in our queer theory classes instead of the White Canon TM. Phenomenal. Love the attitudes/practices about language too!!

[Devin · Rating 4 out of 5]

this book was everything i needed to read, but 4 years ago. i searched high and low for it, couldn't find it anywhere, and finally found it in a bookstore in atlanta.

from the very beginning, decolonization is the central message here. binaohan admits that they are also decolonizing their own mind, and that at times, this book may contradict itself [it does], and that it is not rooted in colonialist academia, which, as a former academia person who is also committed to decolonization [but, as a white person, that means something completely different from binaohan], i enjoyed.

binaohan lays bare binarism, transmisogyny, and their relations back to colonialism and colonization by white people. how the categorical methods of white imperialists has influenced centuries of oppression for Indigenous and/or Persons of Color [IaoPoC], especially those who are outside of the western gender binary. they note that white transgender people [of which i am one], still benefit from a white supremacist gender system, binary or non-binary, which is a very necessary point to make; in 2019 alone, 19 Black trans women have been murdered -- being a white transgender woman and being a Black transgender woman are worlds away in terms of material conditions.

binaohan also strikes down the white supremacist notions behind even the most "loose" conceptions of gender we have -- the entire subsection on passing and the discourse's irrelevance to the struggles of IaoPoC is phenomenal. and i wish there was more written, but their summation of "visibility" for white transgender people vs. IaoPoC/Black and Brown trans people is one of the best breakdowns I've seen yet.

Issues with the book: this was written in 2013-2014, compiled largely by several discussions had on tumblr, where discourse has historically gone to die. as i stated above, binaohan admits that they might contradict themselves in the book, which is what happens. though i can appreciate this radical honesty and transparency, there are times where the contradictions just.......are overwhelming. for one, towards the end of the book, despite saying that 'transgender' is a western word and concept [and it is!], binaohan states that referring to any IaoPoC as 'binary' or 'non-binary' is white supremacist, despite going on to use that exact same western language ['trans feminine'] to describe IaoPoC in the following sentences.

I also absolutely hate binaohan's notion that there's no such thing as transphobia, just transmisogyny, which is one of the most outrageous claims I've heard yet. of course transmisogyny exists and is much more prevalent than transgender violence against trans men, but that doesn't mean that it isn't there, or that it isn't a problem. thats honestly the primary reason i removed a star from this review, because without that harmful notion [i would like to specify that i am neither a trans man nor trans masc] is unhelpful and just contributes to overall anti-transgender violence.

overall, an absolute fantastic read. i can't recommend it enough.

[E.T. Bowen · Rating 1 out of 5]

Before I say anything else, I should make one thing clear: this book contains some hard truths & reckonings that all ppl (esp. white trans ppl) desperately need to be thinking about. For example: truths about the profound inadequacy of language like “transgender” and “the closet”. Or, the white colonial drive to assimilate transgender identity into the hegemonic fold.

Except… like many polemics, it leans too heavily on the the Strawman it rails against. And thus fails to persuade. In this case, the Strawman is constructed from a single book; a primer on transgender identity, written primarily for cis people in the West. It’s such a scathingly paranoid reading that it’s easy to lose sight of Teich and his (frankly) boring little book amidst the author’s countless projections onto them both.

And that is where binaohan loses me entirely. Despite their authoritative tone, they make no attempt to distinguish the facts of the matter from their personal experience of those facts. As a result, we lose sight of our shared reality entirely, and end up just wading through the author’s (oftentimes skewed) worldview.

This allows the text to devolve into a series of mind-numbingly stupid statements, like:

“just so we are clear: if you are a woman, you’ve never had ‘male’ privilege. if you are a man, you’ve always had ‘male’ privilege.”

And, one of the worst sentences I’ve ever had the misfortune of reading in a published work:

“Who gives a flying fuck what about teh tranz menz?”

At some point, I had to put the book down.

There are many interesting, challenging, eye-opening works of writing and art on the topic of decolonizing gender. This, sadly, is just not one of them.

[Sarah Cavar · Rating 5 out of 5]

brilliant, concise, accessible intro to sexgender essentialisms (and other bioessentialisms), the coloniality of the gender binary, and the states of gender identity/expression as it relates to iaopoc, especially those who are trans feminine. it's written for the average person to understand, which is great for those who don't feel like diving into Spillers or Foucault or other challenging texts.

this is an important read for white/western trans people in particular, esp those of us who call ourselves accomplices ("allies") to our trans siblings of color.

some of the info will be a repeat for people already introduced to the aforementioned themes, but some will likely be new. particularly worth examination is the section critiquing "binarism." this, and the rest of the text, was incredibly-written and thought provoking, particularly for those who are already fans of binaohan's work, like myself.

[Briayna Cuffie · Rating 4 out of 5]

Push past the explicit disregard for grammar/spelling (they tell you early on, so you really ought to decide then and there if you’re going to keep reading or not).

I learned some new terms/vocabulary. The challenging of Teich’s concepts, and her statements are good food for thought. The last sections (mainly 7 and 8) are particularly poignant.

[max theodore]

i have seen many people rave over this book, and i also finally read it because of a thread from bethany karstan of the transfeminine review, which was substantially less positive. so i came into this one not sure what to think and i... am still there. i agree with some of binaohan's arguments (the conversation on the mis-lifting of the word "passing" from Black communities, the discussion of the gender binary as inextricable from whiteness, the focus on transmisogyny as causing the most material violence, the general point that the most privileged trans people get to define the terms of the conversation for everyone else in a way that replicates violence). and then some of it is kind of nonsensical (wavering about whether the concept of a "third gender" is a colonial imposition or an alternative to the colonial imposition of the word trans, a discussion of the forced medicalization of transness that seems to put the blame on "westernized" trans ppl more than the medical institutions that exploit them, a declaration that only transmisogyny exists and trans men are actually fine because they can use domestic abuse shelters for women). it really doesn't help that binaohan states (multiple times!) that this book wasn't researched or edited intensively--and while i understand the point about not putting stake in white western ideas of "correct" grammar, i don't think that needs to extend to fixing typos or, you know, doing research. (i recommend karstan's review even if i disagree on a few minor points. also, give her your money.)

ultimately, i kept finding myself thinking, "well, i've read these same ideas, articulated more logically and accurately, from academics of color in published academic papers." and i know this speaks in a lot of ways to my own bias--binaohan is explicitly trying to make these ideas accessible and readable to people, particularly transfeminized and lower-class people, who don't have training in the academy, and a lot of the papers i'm thinking of were legible to me because i have practice in the institution. but if the goal of this book is to express theory about transness and decolonialization in plainspoken language, i don't think this book's sometimes-confused foggy lines of argument are really doing that. (not least because binaohan for the most part doesn't cite or pull in preexisting theorists--i think, again, this goes with the urge to make it accessible, but surely having sources =/= impenetrable academic jargon?)

anyway, my counter-rec is the work of talia bhatt, who also writes on the intersections of colonialism, race, and transness (particularly transfeminism). i have yet to read her entire book but the essays of hers that i HAVE read are both accessibly lucid and extremely well-organized and brilliant. her most recent one discusses crenshaw's much-maligned theory of intersectionality so everybody should go read that now since it's free online

[Autumn Abbott · Rating 3 out of 5]

has good ideas but the execution is lacking. it is entirely formatted as a response to a trans 101 book written in the early 2010s. having not read this book and not been in the spaces at the time, it was rather disorienting. the spaces written about never really felt like ones i had experienced (not that im all knowing). it also just reads like a long tumblr post more so than an actual book. mostly just feels outdated

[Eliza · Rating 1 out of 5]

The book does little to decolonize anything and instead tackles a single book with out of context complaints with out anything to back up the arguments. In general makes arguments that those that exist within the colonial system are beyond help and are the enemy. Also is incredibly transphobic against transmen and transmasculine individuals.

[Lori · Rating 4 out of 5]

What a fascinating book. I thought I was pretty well-read on trans topics, but the material in here about POC and the effects of colonialism was eye-opening. This stuff needs to be better known.

[Sarah · Rating 5 out of 5]

If you woke up this morning thinking "gosh, I'd like to have a paradigm-shifting moment or five today!" then you should read this lil book.

[Squirrel · Rating 5 out of 5]

Still relevant despite having been published in 2014. This book would not be especially useful as a trans 101 for cis white people except maybe in conjunction with Teich's trans 101. This book is a critique of Teich's book and the way in which it sidelines the issues of trans feminine and trans women of color, especially black and indigenous trans feminine people. I found the book helpful as a white genderqueer person, and I suspect that for many people of color, this book will help clarify why white discourse on the subject alienates them so much.

binaohan repeatedly asks, if this discussion or division doesn't help trans feminine women of color survive and thrive, is it even worth spending time on debating? binaohan also points out the ways in which transmisogyny is an important tool in upholding white supremacy.

The work is well-structured and clear and I found it accessible. People who are so distracted by the capitalization/grammar/etc. are likely not ready to be reading this book anyway.

[Chrissy Cooper · Rating 5 out of 5]

Incredible, accessible, important. I loved the disregarding of proscriptive grammar rule nonsense, especially because books in theory tend to try really hard to make the author seem more learned or more intelligent than the reader. This book is confident and expressive and for everyone.
I also really loved the conversations that were happening in the footnotes. It really enhances my reading experience and made it feel ok that I was learning and unlearning and growing too. Thank you for sharing that and the vulnerability!!

[Simon · Rating 5 out of 5]

Completely changing my thinking re. ideas of social/medical transition, passing, notion of "transgender" to begin with, gender as relational vs. solely essential, and so on... Heavily underlined, will be referencing going forward.

[KT]

one of my fave reads this year so far

[crow · Rating 2 out of 5]

pretty surface level analysis, which is fine given the purpose of this book. it brings up some really great points that u enjoyed, such as the closet as empire. however, i do think that it doesn't truly decolonize trans discourse bc it still reifies the staticization of gender, like who is allowed to identify as what and in which spaces and is thus affected by what types of violence. some of the general blanket states are ehhh bc... it depends.

this book also focuses almost solely on the experiences of trans women and transmisogyny, which is fine and necessary in many contexts bc of the sheer unspeakable violence that trans women undergo that are often erased or silenced by trans men, but this book is called "decolonizing trans/gender" and i think would therefore be a lot more effective talking about trans masc perspectives as well. the author outright says "who gives a fuck abt teh trans men" or something like that. binaohan also only seems to see white trans men; the author criticizes the lack of race in trans discourse but fully does not recognize the experiences of trans men of color which can interact with systems of oppression in unique and nuanced ways that binaohan refuses to confront. i also think that looking into the whole that colonial systems of power have shaped the narrative of infantilizing and "saving" trans men would've added into the critique, and the whole overall analysis is weakened significantly. i get that binaohan's point is that the original author focused too much on white trans men, which is fine, but there is still value to be found in engaging with it under a decolonial lens.

also some of this was too twitter discourse-y for me

[月海 Yuehai · Rating 2 out of 5]

This book is in most parts a furious rebuttal/rant to the white-splaining book Transgender 101 by someone named Teich. I it is written in an "unusual form", that is, not formal white english, using expressions from QTBIPOC speak mixed in with academic language, and that made it problematic for me to understand some points. The problem for me were not the neologisms, but the sentence structure and the academic language.

Some ideas discussed in the book:

- Trans have existed way before discovered by white people or medicalized transition existed
- How modern medical transition is involves signing up for surveillance and giving up a part of one's autonomy
- why trans WoC were pushed out of the gay liberation front by white gays to gain some sort of civil recognition for latter themselves
- both white gay and white trans communities enforce a white hegemonic conception of gender and sexuality, which is constantly elaborated on throughout the course of this book.
- Coming out as a White concept
- transmisogyny is an inherent part of colonization, from which it originates
- there is no male or female socialization because everyone gets the same messages from culture. Also it is not possible to make generalizations about socialization because everyone is socialized a bit differently, even twins (However, I am not fully convinced by this line of argumentation)
- the author rejects Teich's notion that children are more acceptant of trans ppl and states that children are actually most effective policing forces towards other children
- lastly, the author goes on to explain that trans men have more privilege than trans women, that binarism is a tool that serves white people, becaus both cis and non-binary whites profit from it, that non-binary whites do not suffer any special kind of oppression at all, and that white non-binary have more privilege over trans women of color (something inside me doesn't like these kinds of blanket statements)

Another thing I did not like was the tone of the book. The author has every right to be angry towards white ppl but I think it is not very helpful in conveying the ideas and has managed to stir up my anger up towards them as well.

Overall, the book introduced some new ideas to me, but I cannot say I have fully understand them due to the way the ideas were brought forward in the book. I feel sometimes the author does not fully explain their arguments and expects the reader to complete the missing links by themselves, which in many cases I did not manage as a non-native speaker who is not too well-versed in the trans discourse. Which I am sad about about, because I think as a QTBIPOC myself I should belong to the target group of this book?? I'm kinda disappointed that one would need to invest so much effort to access some ideas, that is not very inclusive imho.

[tris · Rating 4 out of 5]

reading a text that uses the exact same language that i used in my baby-queer-on-tumblr-era, but to make a wonderfully nuanced case for the intricate ways colonialism has moulded mainstreams understandings of trans identities, really made me face just how white my perceptions of queerness were. makes me cringe to think how radical little tween me thought i was.

[Octavia · Rating 4 out of 5]

Deconstruction and decolonizing of trans discourse at a specific point in time that references and maybe established concepts around bipoc genders that have only entered mainstream discussions just now, a decade later. So forward thinking.

[Emily · Rating 3 out of 5]

I was actually OK with the author's choice of grammar. Also, the use of footnotes to have a discussion was interesting. It was like reading a google doc with people's comments on the side.

Overall, the book was eye-opening and a useful mental framework for understanding the colonization of gender and trans identities.

That said, I wish there were more examples and a deeper exploration of some topics. At times, I found some of the arguments were presented as a fact without much behind them. I'd love to see a follow-up on this book that dives deeper into the history of the colonialization of gender.

[Ross Williamson]

rly good and informative. lots of useful & new information about gender for trans fem poc. would rec this to other white ppl who want to know more about gender but don't want to/shouldn't be bugging their trans friends of color. also very accessibly written - good 101 if you don't know more of the academic-speak in gender theory/lgbt academia

nice!

eta 03092025: bethany transfemininereview on bluesky has been reading this and rather brutally taking it down—chalk this four star review up to me spending way too much time on tumblr in 2015. sigh.

[Ked Dixon · Rating 4 out of 5]

There were some bits of information and ideas that I wish b has gone into more detail with. She also tends to toss out acronyms without explaining them, which is usually fine, but some were a little obscure.

I did learn some new ideas, so I'd recommend it. I just wish I had read Transgender 101 first

**update**

Upon further reflection I'm giving this four stars instead of three because everything b. binaohan has to say about privilege and colonialism is real and I was dumb dumb dumb for needing it pointed out to me.

Still-- read transgender 101 first.

[Sam · Rating 4 out of 5]

to be clear i dont think this is meant as an actual introduction to trans stuff and i wouldnt recommend it as one. it makes more sense if youre somewhat familiar with mainstream/white trans discourse and read it as a response to that, although i dont think you have to have read the specific book theyre dissecting (i didnt).

i didnt agree with everything in this but im ok with that. they dont pretend to have all the answers; this is only one part of an ongoing conversation.
just dont expect it to be something it's not.

also just as a warning a lot of the links in this are dead :/

[CJ · Rating 4 out of 5]

The language can be hard to get past-- the writer "doesn't care much for the conventions of English." However, there *is* a reason behind the choice to leave grammar behind, and it plays in to their message. It wouldn't be the same message with grammar. That said, it'll give you grammar nazis out there one heck of a headache.

[ashes ➷ · Rating 5 out of 5]

I struggled with my rating for this one for a minute, but ultimately, it does exactly what it sets out to do-- offer a non-inaccessibly academic text on the racial histories of transness as a rebuttal to "Transgender 101" published by Nicholas M. Teich with Columbia University Press-- in a bloggish style, which you could hand to people you know to explain these things. Particularly given that this book came out in 2014 and still taught me new things, even as I thought much of it had become common knowledge in my circles on Tumblr!

(It bears pointing out that these ideas are often circulated on Tumblr, a platform known for having the most leftist userbase on the Internet, for a reason. Poor trans women of color with zero academic power articulate them, everyone else spreads them [while, it should also be noted, dogpiling said TWOC for existing], and within 10 years it's "common knowledge" to me... because I'm also on Tumblr. Hm.)

Best parts of the book:
- discussion of the history and problematic usage of the word "passing" (& "stealth")
- a new theory of binarism
-- which kickstarted for me a further line of thought about other terms we use which do or do not refer to known axes of oppression (e.g. 'biphobia' which does not necessarily mean bisexuals have it 'worse' than lesbians; is the term still useful? what responsibility does it have for malicious usage?)
- a new theory of socialization (which tbf is closer to common knowledge now... still not enough)
-- i had some thoughts/additions to this and it was REALLY fun to feel like i was 'interacting' with the text!
- discussions of visibility and a push to understand what it means
- a REAL history of 'transgenderism' beginning in the colonies with transmisogyny as tool of power

Because of the age of the book, a lot of its contents read differently-- e.g. it's too late to put the cat back in the bag on "passing" or "stealth"; those words are being used and those concepts need names and there's not much the author can do to check them now. There's also discussion of marriage equality that is much changed by Obergefell vs. Hodges & what that kicked off worldwide. But the book is still incredibly relevant, and it's fascinating to see what has and hasn't changed over the years-- what has and hasn't become "common knowledge."

Of course, there were also things I disagreed with (mostly the essentialist [I felt] ideas on how trans women have Always Been Women and whether you don't/have male privilege being static-- this essentialism seems counter to other points in the book), but since when does anyone agree with every point brought up in a political text. It didn't bother me.

People complaining about grammar seem pretty embarrassing to me; I'll echo a lot of other reviewers and say that this was much more comprehensible than most of what I read in college. I do wish a few "mistakes" that briefly shorted my reading comprehension had been fixed, but, eh, it is what it is. More people should flip the bird to prescriptive grammar.

Would I recommend this? I'm not sure. I certainly benefited from a lot of its ideas, especially the aforementioned trans history. On the other hand, I wonder if binaohan couldn't do an updated version for 2023 (note: the press is down, because running a press is awful labor), because, while this functions great as a response to 99% of Trans 101 books out there, I think it could still bear a new edition for greater specificity now that some of these ideas are better understood. Still, it's a great book and a great Trans... 102? For people who have read the 101s and are ready to move on to the real shit. I've added it to my must-reads for now, if only for those portions on the origins of "transgender" as an idea-- I do think everyone should know that.

[Maria · Rating 1 out of 5]

DNF at page 59.

Disclaimer: I am what the author describes as a "well meaning cis person". I am white (although not quite Western) and have never been on Tumblr. Clearly, this was not a book for me, also because proficiency in tumblerese and its niche discourses is a prerequisite.

When I should have stopped reading:
at page 10:
RE: citations and shit. i imaging that there will be many times that i present an element of discussion as fact or without much to back it up. This generally will mean that I'm expressing truth about the world as i see it. it may be a conclusion i've drawn from stuff i've read. from piecing together histories and facts. it may be something that i've learnt long ago but can't remember where. Without a doubt, there will be many places of error or simply factually inaccurate statements. fine. I don't actually care about this, in many ways, this will be about my personal journey of decolonization . This really speaks for itself.

page 39:
There is a great deal of feminist criticism on the public/private dichotomy that I won't reference here because (obviously) too tainted with transmisogyny to be of much use.

At times if felt that the whole book is made out of statements like this one. There's no actual proper explanation on what the public/private dichotomy is (but I was able to fill in with previous knowledge), but how is it transmisogynist? Everything seems to be transmisogynist for b.binaohan. It may well be true, I am open to this, but it's very hard to accept a new argument if the author never ever explains what they mean. Is explaining your argument a white colonial thing?

When I actually stopped:
The chapter on coming out of the closet.

I tried, I really, really tried. I am meeting my queer book club to discuss this book in two weeks and I really hope someone more versed in 2014 tumblr-speak will be able to break this down for me. For where I am now, telling your friends that you're not straight/cis if you're a "iaopoc" is a white colonial thing and transmisogyny. I get that if you're an iaopoc the repercussions you may meet within your national/ethnic community may be much more severe and that there's specific nuances of being queer and a Person of Colour, and that is may be different. But gurl, let people tell people they are queer, if they so wish.



There seem to be some interesting points in the book, but trying to unpick the whole narrative was strenuous and frustrating. I would just accept the book as "not for me", but one cannot at the same time claim they strive to be accessible and inclusive in their writing and serving 'normative', 'essentialist notions', 'plurality of logic' and 'transmisogyny' right after, together with properly niche, un-referenced arguments without signposting to further reading (Do YoUr ReSeArCh does not suffice)

I put the book down wondering whether you get to the end and there's a chapter on how the whole text is a prank and that you've been tricked and you should go touch grass.

Extra: if you read the paragraph on page 11 starting with "Lastly" in Trump voice, it'll be very difficult to not see the resemblance. But this is petty of me.