What do you think?
Rate this book
Let Harry Become Sally: Responding to the Anti-Transgender Moment
Doom. DOOM!
Anti-trans activists will have us believe that gender dysphoria is a phase or a choice, that transgender people should be explicitly denied civil rights laws and medical treatment, that they are mentally ill, and that they deserve scorn, contempt, and belittlement at every turn. They claim that transitioning is a bad choice, and that if someone does transition, they will suffer poor outcomes, failing health, and eventually, suicide.
This is an examination of one such work. But, here, opinions based on ideology have been replaced by science. Are transgender people doomed if they seek medical treatment? Are they crazy?
No. Not in the least.
In Kelly Novak’s well-researched book, we learn the pain caused by conversion therapy. We learn the benefits of transition. We read actual stories of those denied transition and those that did transition.
People with gender dysphoria are real people. Let Harry Become Sally shows that they are born with their gender identity, and deserve respect, compassion, medical care, and legal rights just like any other person. It also challenges the anti-trans activist to sit down and actually talk to a trans person or two. He may learn that they are not to be hated or feared. He may gain a friend or two. He may also gain a fresh new look at the issue of gender dysphoria and those that it affects.
0.50 from each sale will be donated to the National Center for Transgender Equality.
213 pages, Kindle Edition
Published June 28, 2018
8 people are currently reading
12 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 2 of 2 reviews
October 25, 2020
The book provides a long counter-argument to Ryan T. Anderson’s When Harry Became Sally. Anderson’s book presents a misguided and scientifically inaccurate argument against transgender rights, healthcare, and even the very existence of transgender persons. Kelly Novak supplies accurate and scientific information that supports the things Anderson is against. The structure of the book mirrors Anderson’s chapters. The first two chapters cover the anti-transgender movement and its mounds of misinformation. The next chapter relates actual transgender persons and their stories. Then, follows a chapter on what science actually shows. After this the book covers beneficial treatments for transgender individuals. The next two chapters focus on gender and its variants outside the male/female binary. The final chapter discusses things that would benefit the transgender community. She has a short conclusion followed by a longer afterwards answering some challenges thrown at her book. Also contains extensive reference notes.
The following are some comments I made on specific pieces of text. Kindle page locations are in brackets []. A “@” symbol indicates a particular spot in the book where I made my comment, but is not directly linked to any specific part of the text. Some of these comments appear negative, but do not affect my overall view of the book, which is overwhelmingly positive.
[59] “Anti-transgender activists sometimes declare that gender identity is a choice. But it is not. For those with a binary gender identity (cisgender or transgender), the identity is inborn and generally strong. It is evident at a very early age.” The appearance at an early age is not necessarily true in 100% of transgender individuals who can also be classified as binary (why classification like this is necessary or helpful I do not know). I have read multiple stories about late bloomers. I know one very very personally—me. No one around me criticizes me as not being “trans” enough, including mental health professionals. Still my gender identity is not a choice, only in the way I choose to express it. Kelly Novak cites a study on toy choices, which found significant gender typical choices. However, the age range was from 1 to 8 years old. How did they adequately control for previous socialization? Don’t get me wrong I believe gender identity is most likely inborn from whatever source (e.g. genetic, hormonal); it is just that studies that are presented as showing this are often less than definitive. [66] “Twin studies were done as well. The study by FL Coolidge et al. entitled The heritability of gender identity disorder in a child and adolescent twin sample, concluded ‘Overall, the results support the hypothesis that there is a strong heritable component to GID [Gender Identity Disorder]. The findings may also imply that gender identity may be much less a matter of choice and much more a matter of biology.” Notice the qualification “may.” This is a more appropriate way to assess human studies.
[81] “12 continuous months of living in a gender role that is congruent with their gender identity;” This is item 6 in a listed of requirements for gender confirmation surgery. However, some surgeons no longer require this, but WPATH’s Standards of Care (SOC) still lists it in version 7.
[158] In a list of things of one can do for transgender rights is number 31: “Plan to Come out on National Coming Out Day on October 11.” I worry that this suggestion would make transgender persons feel pressure or feel obligated to come out. This is and should be a personal decision. And for some it could be quite dangerous. Number 52 states: “Make a New Year's Resolution for Transgender Equality.” Why wait?
[@172] Novak repeatedly uses “transgendered” as here in ”transgendered child.” This term says it is something that happened to someone. Even if it is inborn, as a good deal of evidence suggests, being a transgender person is what in part who they are. I don’t think one would usually say someone is “blue-eyed.” Most people would say they have blue eyes.
Despite my mostly negative comments, the book is very good at its stated purpose of counter-acting anti-transgender views. And, for the most part well written.
This would be a good book to read if seeking a rebuttal to the oft heard criticisms of the anti-transgender crowd. Unfortunately, I can’t see that those who would benefit the most would even pick up the book, let alone read it.
The following are some comments I made on specific pieces of text. Kindle page locations are in brackets []. A “@” symbol indicates a particular spot in the book where I made my comment, but is not directly linked to any specific part of the text. Some of these comments appear negative, but do not affect my overall view of the book, which is overwhelmingly positive.
[59] “Anti-transgender activists sometimes declare that gender identity is a choice. But it is not. For those with a binary gender identity (cisgender or transgender), the identity is inborn and generally strong. It is evident at a very early age.” The appearance at an early age is not necessarily true in 100% of transgender individuals who can also be classified as binary (why classification like this is necessary or helpful I do not know). I have read multiple stories about late bloomers. I know one very very personally—me. No one around me criticizes me as not being “trans” enough, including mental health professionals. Still my gender identity is not a choice, only in the way I choose to express it. Kelly Novak cites a study on toy choices, which found significant gender typical choices. However, the age range was from 1 to 8 years old. How did they adequately control for previous socialization? Don’t get me wrong I believe gender identity is most likely inborn from whatever source (e.g. genetic, hormonal); it is just that studies that are presented as showing this are often less than definitive. [66] “Twin studies were done as well. The study by FL Coolidge et al. entitled The heritability of gender identity disorder in a child and adolescent twin sample, concluded ‘Overall, the results support the hypothesis that there is a strong heritable component to GID [Gender Identity Disorder]. The findings may also imply that gender identity may be much less a matter of choice and much more a matter of biology.” Notice the qualification “may.” This is a more appropriate way to assess human studies.
[81] “12 continuous months of living in a gender role that is congruent with their gender identity;” This is item 6 in a listed of requirements for gender confirmation surgery. However, some surgeons no longer require this, but WPATH’s Standards of Care (SOC) still lists it in version 7.
[158] In a list of things of one can do for transgender rights is number 31: “Plan to Come out on National Coming Out Day on October 11.” I worry that this suggestion would make transgender persons feel pressure or feel obligated to come out. This is and should be a personal decision. And for some it could be quite dangerous. Number 52 states: “Make a New Year's Resolution for Transgender Equality.” Why wait?
[@172] Novak repeatedly uses “transgendered” as here in ”transgendered child.” This term says it is something that happened to someone. Even if it is inborn, as a good deal of evidence suggests, being a transgender person is what in part who they are. I don’t think one would usually say someone is “blue-eyed.” Most people would say they have blue eyes.
Despite my mostly negative comments, the book is very good at its stated purpose of counter-acting anti-transgender views. And, for the most part well written.
This would be a good book to read if seeking a rebuttal to the oft heard criticisms of the anti-transgender crowd. Unfortunately, I can’t see that those who would benefit the most would even pick up the book, let alone read it.
May 18, 2025
This book reads less like a thoughtful novel and more like a manifesto in praise of one of the most contentious ideologies of our time. Let Harry Become Sally by Kelly Novak is a deeply disappointing piece of writing—both in form and in message. It doesn’t just tell a story; it preaches, and worse, it does so with an almost religious devotion to transgender ideology, leaving no room for doubt, criticism, or even basic nuance.
At its core, the book champions the idea that gender is purely a matter of personal feeling, entirely detached from biology, history, or reality. Characters flit between identities with ease, their choices unquestioned, their transitions applauded at every turn. Not once does Novak allow space for a counterpoint. The only people who question gender self-identification are painted as villains—backwards, cruel, or ignorant. There is no complexity, no ambiguity, no acknowledgement that many thoughtful people, including feminists, doctors, and parents, have raised serious concerns.
What’s most troubling is the book’s complete lack of critical thought. It blindly affirms that self-declared identity overrides everything else—biology, social context, even basic safety. According to Novak’s narrative, any scepticism towards gender ideology is inherently hateful. End of story. But is that really fair—or safe?
Take, for example, the unquestioned acceptance of males in female-only spaces. The novel presents this as a triumph of progress, with no regard for the rights or concerns of women and girls. There is no mention of the increasing number of cases where biological males, identifying as women, have gained access to women’s shelters, changing rooms, and even prisons. That complex reality is entirely erased. Why?
Even more disturbing is the way children are treated in the book. Young characters who express confusion or discomfort with their gender are immediately affirmed and celebrated, with no exploration of underlying issues like trauma, autism, social pressure, or mental health. It’s all painted as brave and beautiful—never risky, never complicated. This is incredibly irresponsible.
The narrative promotes the idea that anyone who questions a child’s sudden declaration of a new gender identity is abusive or oppressive. Parents who express concern? Dismissed. Teachers who ask for caution? Vilified. Medical professionals who call for evidence-based practice? Non-existent in Novak’s world. There is no patience for doubt or hesitation.
The writing itself does little to redeem the message. The characters are flat, more like mouthpieces for ideology than real people. Dialogue is stilted, driven more by slogans than believable human conversation. The plot lurches from one dramatic reveal to another, but none of it feels earned or authentic.
What’s most telling is how the book handles conflict: instead of engaging with any real arguments or tough questions, it simply bulldozes over them with emotional appeals. Identity is treated as sacred. Any attempt to interrogate it is framed as violence. But in a society that values free thought and open debate, shouldn’t ideas—especially powerful ones—be questioned?
Let Harry Become Sally fails not only as a novel, but as a cultural contribution. It refuses to grapple with the consequences of the ideology it promotes. It treats women’s rights, child safeguarding, and biological reality as minor obstacles on the road to “liberation.” In doing so, it insults readers’ intelligence and ignores the real-world implications of what it’s selling.
This is not a brave book. It’s not even an honest one. It’s a pamphlet disguised as a story, demanding blind faith in an ideology that is rapidly reshaping our schools, laws, and language—often without public consent or meaningful scrutiny.
There are real stories to be told about gender, identity, and belonging—stories with heart, conflict, and complexity. This, unfortunately, is not one of them.
Avoid.
At its core, the book champions the idea that gender is purely a matter of personal feeling, entirely detached from biology, history, or reality. Characters flit between identities with ease, their choices unquestioned, their transitions applauded at every turn. Not once does Novak allow space for a counterpoint. The only people who question gender self-identification are painted as villains—backwards, cruel, or ignorant. There is no complexity, no ambiguity, no acknowledgement that many thoughtful people, including feminists, doctors, and parents, have raised serious concerns.
What’s most troubling is the book’s complete lack of critical thought. It blindly affirms that self-declared identity overrides everything else—biology, social context, even basic safety. According to Novak’s narrative, any scepticism towards gender ideology is inherently hateful. End of story. But is that really fair—or safe?
Take, for example, the unquestioned acceptance of males in female-only spaces. The novel presents this as a triumph of progress, with no regard for the rights or concerns of women and girls. There is no mention of the increasing number of cases where biological males, identifying as women, have gained access to women’s shelters, changing rooms, and even prisons. That complex reality is entirely erased. Why?
Even more disturbing is the way children are treated in the book. Young characters who express confusion or discomfort with their gender are immediately affirmed and celebrated, with no exploration of underlying issues like trauma, autism, social pressure, or mental health. It’s all painted as brave and beautiful—never risky, never complicated. This is incredibly irresponsible.
The narrative promotes the idea that anyone who questions a child’s sudden declaration of a new gender identity is abusive or oppressive. Parents who express concern? Dismissed. Teachers who ask for caution? Vilified. Medical professionals who call for evidence-based practice? Non-existent in Novak’s world. There is no patience for doubt or hesitation.
The writing itself does little to redeem the message. The characters are flat, more like mouthpieces for ideology than real people. Dialogue is stilted, driven more by slogans than believable human conversation. The plot lurches from one dramatic reveal to another, but none of it feels earned or authentic.
What’s most telling is how the book handles conflict: instead of engaging with any real arguments or tough questions, it simply bulldozes over them with emotional appeals. Identity is treated as sacred. Any attempt to interrogate it is framed as violence. But in a society that values free thought and open debate, shouldn’t ideas—especially powerful ones—be questioned?
Let Harry Become Sally fails not only as a novel, but as a cultural contribution. It refuses to grapple with the consequences of the ideology it promotes. It treats women’s rights, child safeguarding, and biological reality as minor obstacles on the road to “liberation.” In doing so, it insults readers’ intelligence and ignores the real-world implications of what it’s selling.
This is not a brave book. It’s not even an honest one. It’s a pamphlet disguised as a story, demanding blind faith in an ideology that is rapidly reshaping our schools, laws, and language—often without public consent or meaningful scrutiny.
There are real stories to be told about gender, identity, and belonging—stories with heart, conflict, and complexity. This, unfortunately, is not one of them.
Avoid.
Displaying 1 - 2 of 2 reviews