Gender Hurts: el género daña

by Sheila Jeffreys

Gender Hurts: el género daña, examina minuciosamente todos los daños derivados de la práctica y política del transgenerismo. El daño del género no sólo afecta a mujeres y hombres que transicionan, sino también a niñas y niños, a las parejas de aquellas/os que son transicionadas/os, a otras mujeres cercanas como sus madres, a los espacios exclusivamente de mujeres y a las leyes promovidas desde el feminismo. Hasta el momento, esta obra sigue conformando el análisis más actualizado y exhaustivo desde un punto de vista radical, y proporciona información que continúa siendo clave para entender esta nueva amenaza al feminismo: la ideología y las políticas trans.

Genres: Feminism, Nonfiction, Gender, Sociology, Politics, Transgender, Feminist Theory

324 pages, Paperback

First published October 11, 2013

About the author

Sheila Jeffreys writes and teaches in the areas of sexual politics, international gender politics, and lesbian and gay politics. She has written six books on the history and politics of sexuality. Originally from the UK, Sheila moved to Melbourne in 1991 to take up a position at the University of Melbourne. She has been actively involved in feminist and lesbian feminist politics, particularly around the issue of sexual violence, since 1973. She is involved with the international non-government organization, Coalition Against Trafficking in Women, in international organising.

She is the author of The Spinster and Her Enemies: Feminism and Sexuality, 1880-1930 (1985/1997) Anticlimax: A Feminist Perspective on the Sexual Revolution (1990), The Lesbian Heresy: A Feminist Perspective on the Lesbian Sexual Revolution (1993), The Idea of Prostitution (1997), Unpacking Queer Politics: a lesbian feminist perspective (2003) and Beauty and Misogyny: Harmful Cultural Practices in the West (2005).

Reviews

[Sarah · Rating 5 out of 5]

An amazingly insightful, thought provoking,and important book. I guarantee that at least 98% of the people who review this work as one star never even bothered to read it; they're only sharing a knee-jerk reaction. Ultimately, however, whether one agrees or disagrees with Jeffrey's analysis, the book remains an invaluable addition to the ongoing debate of this timely topic.

[Lady Seconal · Rating 5 out of 5]

Very enlightening. Sad to see that Womyn's Only spaces are becoming a thing of the past because of men's feelings. Personally, I could give a crap about them.

[Gwen · Rating 1 out of 5]

"Once something is seen, it can never be unseen." That pretty much sums up this book. It's unbelievable that this crap is still published in this day and age. The author is clearly transphobic; she didn't base her book on the experience of actual transgender people; her book is only about her opinion that trans people are delusional and sick and are somehow conspiring with the patriarchy to oppress women (a theory which boggles the mind).

It's an old and ignorant theory that goes back to the hideous The Transsexual Empire by the largely discredited Janice Raymond; in fact this author quotes Raymond at length, which only serves to reinforce her ignorance.

If you actually talk to transgender people, they would tell you that the terms bandied about by Jeffreys are offensive in the extreme. "Transgender" is NOT A VERB. Further, people do not "practice transgenderism", as that is not a word, and being trans does not take practice. Transgender is also NOT A NOUN. Transgender people strongly prefer that gender-appropriate pronouns be used when referring to them. In my experience, trans women generally prefer the pronouns "she, her, and hers", and deliberate use of the wrong pronouns is almost always viewed as highly offensive. Jeffreys goes out of her way to misgender trans people throughout her book; and she does so with malice aforethought.

Although the author claims to have great sympathy towards trans people; that is exactly what you will not find in this book. You will also not find enlightenment, empathy, compassion, love, or humanity.

What you will find is hate. Hate plus all of the typical crap spewed by the Trans-exclusionary Radical Feminists, who are losing their little culture war and know it. This book is both expensive and worthless. Go figure.

[Astir · Rating 5 out of 5]

Friendship ended with post-modern/liberal feminism, now radical feminism is my best friend.

[Julio · Rating 5 out of 5]

This was an incredibly insightful and informative book.

I really enjoyed reading it.

I recommend it to everyone who wants to learn about gender and why it is harmful.

[Rain · Rating 4 out of 5]

Worth reading. A good overview of the social consequences of transgenderism.

[Joyce · Rating 5 out of 5]

If you don't know what you think about this subject, read this book. If you do know what you think on this subject, read this book. If you are a psychiatrist, endocrinologist, feminist, liberal, conservative or parent, read this book. It can be kind of hard to get through, what with all the terminology, but it is, if nothing else, an interesting perspective, and it may give you something, that you hadn't thought of, to think about.

[Jackie · Rating 4 out of 5]

The book was a pretty good feminist analysis of transgenderism but I did take issue with a few things. Namely, I had a problem with the repeated use of the term "transgenders" and the use of "transgendering" as a verb, but I think this may be a generational gap; still, I find a word like "transgenders" has a note of disgust in it, and I don't think that's the way to approach a critical analysis of transness. I think the feminist thing to do is to show sympathy towards females with sex dysphoria, and I think the good-human thing to do is to show sympathy toward all people with sex dysphoria, and make non-transitioning options available to them. The other thing I took issue with was the idea that lesbians are the real losers when females choose to transition - instead of mourning the loss of butch lesbians, again, I believe we need to center our sympathy on women who feel the need to transition instead of celebrating being gay; our main sympathy doesn't belong with all the poor lesbians who lost women to the evil trans disease. Those things aside, I think it's really eye-opening to see the development of the term 'trans' and how trans culture has evolved over time, and how evil it is for medical practitioners to take advantage of it, and how evil it has been for women to lose their exclusive spaces, both geographical and physical. Good book overall. I think a lot of liberal feminists are afraid to read critical analyses because they're afraid of disagreement, b/c disagreement = bigotry to them, but I think it is helpful to educate oneself on both sides. A clearly biased book, but we need someone who supports the voices of women (lesbians).

[Adina · Rating 1 out of 5]

Again another champion of prejudice and bigotry is given a platform to broadcast their personal axes to grind. Jeffreys is a strong adherent to Janice Raymond, whose research and writings have been shown to be bias given legitimacy via academia. Consistent denigration, by use of improper pronouns shows how the author considers the members of the transgender community as sub-human. Her use of the term transgender as a noun and verb, it is an adjective by the way, is offensive to me and just about every member of the community. The only ones this book hurts is those that are the targets of her bigotry and venom.

[C. · Rating 4 out of 5]

One of her stronger books. Excellent stuff.

[Morgan M. Page · Rating 1 out of 5]

This book is awful - but it gets one, solitary star because it mentions me by name (unflatteringly, of course). Like, Jeffreys - why are you so obsessed with me?

[Jaclynn (JackieReadsAlot) · Rating 5 out of 5]

Jeffreys provides a comprehensive history and critical analysis of gender ideology, one of the few out there at the moment. This is so important at a time when intellectual debate about this issue is being systematically suppressed, women are being silenced and threatened if they voice dissent. Thought provoking and alarming with excellent references for further reading.

[6655321 · Rating 1 out of 5]

This book was published not on merit but on the fact that Sheila Jeffreys is a pathological liar with a tendency for inflammatory rhetoric and i almost regret writing this review because it is giving some modicum of attention to her. Just a reminder: the list price of this book is 145 dollars hardcover of 52 dollars soft cover. Here are some highlights:
* She cites herself, a lot, over 50 times by my count.
* She repeatedly misrepresents sources. This is accomplished in 2 really fun and exciting ways!
(1) by claiming a source says something it doesn't actually say, her summary of David Valentine (for example) or her misuse of "A Deafening Silence" (Romito, 2008) to claim that trans women (as men) are violence but which both has nothing to say about trans women (other than a reference to transvestite prostitutes although that may also be a translation issue from Italian) and is about cis men's violence against women and children.
(2) QUOTE MINING which basically constitutes much of her chapter on the partners of trans women (who transition later in life)
* An argument that transition in childhood is a continuation of eugenics that wouldn't ring hollow if (1) it wasn't concern trolling, (2) she avoids talking about the difference between sterilization imposed by the state and informed consent, (3) she avoids talking about race which is kind of shocking, (4) if she didn't cite J Michael Bailey who not only received funds from a eugenicist organization to conduct his research, but who also is a eugenicist! who argues for a genetic link to homosexuality and that because it is an evolutionary dead end that therapeutic abortion is acceptable
* Speaking of J Mike, he is a MAJOR part of this (along with Anne Lawrence and Ray Blanchard) because Jefferys is gripped by the theory of transsexuality they promote (i.e. that it is a sexual fetish) because it allows her to easily vilify trans individuals and sexualize all of their actions.
* There is an adorable bit where Shelia tries really hard to decry the essentialism of trans populations which wouldn't be a sham if she didn't argue that gender is a social construct (in basically the same way queer theory does, despite her protests) but refuses to even acknowledge "sex" which she sees as ahistorically real may *also* be socially constructed (because it would undermine her essentialist arguments)
* Sheila leverages MacKinnon's argument from"Women's Lives, Men's Laws" against trans folx a LOT ignoring that MacKinnon believes that trans women are women, which sort of gets into a death of the author argument as to if you can use an authors works against their intent but whatever.

There are scores of additional problems, but reading through this book was already a colossal waste of my time. This book is garbage and i'm glad someday people will look back on it as a document of the dying grasps of

[M. · Rating 4 out of 5]

As every time I read Sheila Jeffreys, I have more material to think the origins, reasons, reach and dismantlement of gender ideology. I disagree with her, however, in the promotion of same sex attraction as resistance and in the conception of essence as merely the "soul" or "the mind", a reason why, she argues, a feminine existence does not exist. Although there can't be any mismatch of soul and body, differences do exist in the way women and men relate to their own bodies and, in consequence, in the way we see others and the world. This, of course, does not mean the sinful inclinations of men and women are unredeemable. But men should be more open to read texts like this, and generally anyone whether they oppose or support "liberal feminism". Again, as a Catholic, I only agree with 80% of what this book tells for its major flaw is to be materialistic. But most of the refutations of transgenderism are on point.

[Cecil · Rating 1 out of 5]

Disclosure: I am transgender. I first encountered this book in my late teens, and attempted to read it (prior to coming out/transitioning) to un-trans myself, or at least, to help contextualize why I felt the way I did. Even then, it was a bit much for me. I later picked it back up out of morbid curiosity.

Jeffreys book is an attempt to build off of the work of Janice Raymond's "The Transsexual Empire," the original trans-exclusionary radical feminist manifesto. As much as I hate to say it, Raymond's work had some merits in terms of its critique of the medical industry's enforcement of the gender/sex binary, even if the parts directly related to trans people were riddled with conspiracistic nonsense (ie describing trans women as "eunuchs guarding the harem," that is, suggesting they are agents of patriarchy attempting to infiltrate women's spaces to undermine their liberation). Jeffreys doesn't reveal her conspiracism in quite so explicit terms, but its foundations are certainly there. And, unfortunately, "Gender Hurts" doesn't offer anything particularly new or interesting to the critique of the medical industry that Raymond offers. It is also based on faulty reasoning, the arguments clearly being post-hoc rationalization for why she believes trans women are men, which I will explain below.

The argument can be boiled down to this: people are unable to change their sex, and are affected by sex-based socialization from birth that will determine the way they perceive themselves and others in a gendered world. Thus, because this socialization is inescapable, trans people will always retain characteristics of their assigned sex at birth (ASAB). Moreover, women's oppression is based on sex characteristics, and trans women do not have the characteristics on which this is based (vulva, uterus, etc) and thus do not experience oppression. For this reason, trans women cannot understand women's struggles, and have no place in the feminist movement, particularly in terms of women's separatism, which Jeffreys believes is the cornerstone of feminist activism, with the third-wave being a deviation from 'true' feminism. Gender, she argues, is the system which keeps women subjugated, and is, in essence, a collection of sex-based stereotypes. Gender should be abolished and "opted out of," with people identified solely by their sex.

There is a lot going on here. Firstly, two competing ideas: that socialization is permanent and sex-based stereotypes must be abolished. For the former argument, she gives examples of trans women who act masculinely as proof, in one instance saying that acting aggressively doesn't help a trans woman be seen as a woman. A supreme bit of sexism that is! She may have well said, "Don't you know women are meek and passive?" I doubt Jeffreys would openly admit to believing this as a nominal feminist, but the implication is very clear. And yet, elsewhere in the book, she argues that trans women reinforce stereotypes about femininity. So which is it? Are trans women bad because they are too masculine, or too feminine? The idea isn't consistent because, again, everything a trans woman does is proof of her innate maleness because Jeffreys already decided they were male before formulating any arguments. So for trans women, it's damned if you do, damned if you don't: they are expected to walk some invisible line between masculine and feminine to prove their womanhood, but that balance is both unknowable and unachievable. If you are going to maintain that *any* trans woman is a man, regardless of their presentation or behavior, then don't try to make presentation- or behavior-based arguments.

Similarly, trans men are branded with stereotypes based on their ASAB: they are painted as victims of the forces of a patriarchal and lesbophobic society, not responsible for their own decisions, and denied their autonomy. They are also noted to be "mostly lesbians," and if I recall correctly, male-attracted trans men are never addressed, presumably because it would make her argument equating transition to conversion therapy moot. While trans mens' motivations are centered in their presumed sexuality, trans women's is centered in sexual fetishism, because males are obsessed with sex, of course. I don't know how Jeffreys can claim to want to abolish sex stereotypes when she so vehemently and openly pins them onto trans people regardless of their actual actions, and implies they are innate and inescapable.

More on trans womens' sexual fetishism: Jeffreys adopts Ray Blanchard's "autogynephilia" theory to explain trans women's (and especially lesbian, bi, and ace TW) motivations to transition. This has the curious effect of making Jeffreys see sex where there is none, going so far as to take an excerpt of Julia Serrano's "Whipping Girl," in which she describes being a child and wanting to wear a curtain as a dress, and suggests this is an example of classic autogynephilia. There is absolutely nothing sexual implied in either the excerpt Jeffreys provided or the original story: it is only the story of a prepubescent child wanting to wear a dress. Jeffreys also suggests that trans women who deny sexual motivations to transition are simply lying, and adds that Virginia Prince, probably denied sexual fetishism to make her behavior more appealing to the general public. "They're just lying" isn't falsifiable and is entirely faith-based, and is just another example of the conspiracism that pervades the whole book.

And then the feminist aspect. She claims TW will never have the experiences of cis women, such as female genital mutilation, infant femicide/selective abortion, etc.. Interesting, considering Jeffreys is a white Brit, and probably also has no personal experience with many of the sex-specific issues she mentions. The "female experience" is presumed universal, and yet it is never defined: presumably because she knows giving a definition will inevitably exclude women who she would consider "real women." This universalization of women's experiences was a major criticism of second-wave feminism, which seems to have been dismissed by Jeffreys, as she continues to laud the second-wave in all of its worst forms. Using issues faced by some women in the third-world to attack trans women is as close to addressing WOC and women in non-western countries as Jeffreys gets. Otherwise, discussion of race is very conspicuously absent.

She misses the fundamental point: yes, gender probably did develop as a way of differentiating the sexes and keeping them in their reproductive and social roles. Which is why many transgender people are also gender abolitionists, myself included. But she holds that the sex binary is entirely justified and essential, defining women based on their reproductive role in the exact same manner as patriarchy. Jeffreys' politics are a reaction to the patriarchy, not a genuine deconstruction of it. Ironically, her glorification of lesbian separatism places patriarchy at the very center of her feminism: defined not by women, but rather by the absence of men. It is not surprising, then, that she has said elsewhere that being a lesbian simply means not having sex with men. Not even lesbians can be defined by their connection to womanhood: even that is centered on men.

There is a quote in the acknowledgements that stuck with me more than anything else in the book:

"I intend this book as a contribution to the considerable struggle that is presently taking place between mainly male transgender activists and radical feminists over who has the right to define what a woman is: women, or men who fantasise about being women."

And I am so mad that I wasted so much time reading this godforsaken book when I could've stopped right there. Jeffreys already decided that trans women were men, she assumes that the reader has already decided it, and if they hadn't, then that idea is solidified in them from the very start by begging the question. It is all backed up by arguments that are seemingly "common sense" when you have already made up your mind. It is all further drilled down by Jeffreys' highly emotionally-charged writing, whether it be in her gross descriptions of surgery (yes, surgery is bloody and gory. Thank you for your amazing insight), or the waxing poetic about how her free speech is being suppressed and she and her ideological contemporaries are martyrs, victims of the nefarious trans movement.

[Helen · Rating 4 out of 5]

"Identity politics replaced structural political analysis, and meant that people could claim identities that were seen to arrive from the heavens rather than from the power structures of sex, race and class."

And there is the nub of it. A good analysis of the impact queer theory has had on much modern day feminism, especially in the sleight of hand that has 'gender' touted for its progressiveness, whilst simultaneously reinforcing the naturalness of masculinity and femininity. An important read in the context of a feminism largely submerged in a cacophony of individualistic identity politics.

[Ale Canales · Rating 5 out of 5]

Best book ever. Super critical and enlightening

[Elena]

Escrito en 2014, aunque vale 9 años después, el libro aborda el tema del transgenerismo y su relación con la sociedad y, en concreto, con las mujeres. Se destaca que la transexualidad (en el momento de escribir el libro "transgenerismo", en el 2023 “lo trans”), es un problema social que está relacionado con los roles sexuales e identidades de género que se generan en una sociedad patriarcal, y cómo la medicina y la industria farmacéutica han tenido un papel importante en este fenómeno.

Me parece muy acertada la idea de que la sexualidad actualmente es atrozmente individualista, basándose en lo que nos excita sin tener en cuenta las implicaciones políticas y sociales de los deseos y prácticas individuales.

El texto también hace énfasis en cómo se ha ignorado sistemáticamente la relación entre abusos físicos, sexuales o emocionales y la disforia de género. Además, pone de manifiesto como desde la segunda ola del feminismo hasta hoy han ido desapareciendo espacios exclusivos de mujeres y, en general, todo lo que antes era de mujeres ahora es “de género”.

En general, el texto ofrece una reflexión profunda y crítica sobre la relación entre el género y la cultura patriarcal, así como sobre los desafíos que enfrentan las mujeres en este contexto.

[Anne Marie Gauci · Rating 5 out of 5]

A very good book about the harsh realities of transgenderism, which the trans movement and all those who support the trans ideology refrain to talk about. So many people are effected by transgenderism including those who detransition and have to live with permanent changes on their bodies, the partners and spouses of those who identify as transgender and women who are suffering a lot through the lack of women's spaces as they became also spaces for trans identified men.

This book should be included in the study of women's studies, which unfortunately were renamed gender studies precisely to accommodate those who identify as transgender.

While the book goes into a lot of detail about why gender hurts, it would have been interesting if Jeffreys would have also included those smaller but increasing number of trans identified women who are attracted to the opposite sex and may therefore identify as gay trans men and the societal issues that this causes.

[Greggles Sn · Rating 4 out of 5]

Really enjoyed this book.

Probably not the author's intention, but it really helped solidify my transgender identity. I am male, transgender and use the 'he' pronoun.

I don't agree with her conflation of transgender with transsexual. I see transgender as an umbrella term which can be applied to anyone who diverges from traditional gender roles. I see transsexual as meaning 'having medical intervention in order to alter biological characteristics to those of the opposite sex'.

So transgender can be so broadly defined that, as she says, it doesn't have any meaning. I think it should only be adopted if both friends and self think one's personality identifies more closely with the gender opposite to their sex.

Having said that, I see how from Jeffreys' point of view I fit into her category of male transgender individuals who are 'ostensibly heterosexual' - I have been consistently teased for or thought to be gay, even after stating I like women.

I distinctly remember at age 15, someone joked about me having a sex change. I had no desire to (and still don't), but I understood it was a possibility and found it interesting.

I understand how she could think crossdressing is autogynephilic. Before I realised I was transgender, when I cross dressed and people asked "why are you dressing as a woman?" I replied "it turns me on" in order to deflect further questions - I had no idea why I liked dressing as a woman. Simply put it is just appropriate for my personality. It wasn't even my idea in the first place, i just enjoyed it so much i rolled with it.

The part that didn't make sense to me was her saying that females are a subordinate sex caste and can never escape this status. While it has been overwhelmingly true throughout human history, it must, and will, be overcome. I think that allowing people to identify as a different gender, free from discrimination and without any imposed test, is how it will be overcome. Though she does highlight some valid, negative aspects which should be made aware to everyone who considers 'transitioning'. Though, expecting anyone to call anyone by a pronoun that doesn't match what they physically look and sound like is silly.
I hope that feminism does lead to her proposed equality where 'flat shoes and trousers can be worn by either sex'. But how do you move from the current culture to that without transgenderism? Traditionally women like looking sexy and men like picking which women are sexy. Male criticism and 'fear' of transgenderism, especially transsexualism, is because they may find a biological male to be sexy.
I think most people's issue with transgenderism is a disagreement on where socialality (yes that is a made up word) merges into sexuality and reproduction.

The comparison of transgenderism (especially of children) to eugenics is a good one. I am definitely against delaying puberty with hormones, as it would screw with the ability to reproduce.

I'll quote the last paragraph of her conclusion of the "clash of rights" chapter.
"In all cases the category of 'sex' – a very real caste status that women can never escape, and that subjects them to demeaning treatment for their whole lives – disappears in favour of a fantasy in the head of the transgender person."

Now, read it again, this time omitting the en dashed explanation.

The category of sex, that she sees as so harmful, disappears in the head of a transgender person!

So she's basically saying transgenderism is the way to overcome the subordination of females! Which is definitely not what she intends to convey. So while i'd like feminism to make gender expectations disappear, i don't think it's possible without the help of transgenderism. At least, my kind of transgenderism.

[X · Rating 4 out of 5]

Well, this was... interesting. Some good points were made. At other times the author used less-than-great arguments to make her point. For example "transition harms transgender people because their families reject them." Erm... that's the fault of their families, not trans people's fault for transitioning. At other points she quotes some pretty ableist ideas as support for her arguments. For example, she quotes a woman with a crossdressing husband who compares the discovery of her husband's crossdressing to having PTSD because "she never knew what to expect" and if his gender non-conformity would progress to transitioning. With the implication that this can be generalized to all or many wives of crossdressing husbands. One of two things is going on here: one, the husband was abusive, and that's causing the PTSD symptoms, not the crossdressing in and of itself. Or two, the woman was stressed and confused about her husband's behavior and thinks that's comparable to having PTSD. Either way, it's hard to take seriously as an argument against "transgenderism", and if the latter is what's going on that's really insulting to people with actual PTSD. Another time the author quotes a woman who refers to men's disregard for women's feelings as "male autism." There is like no reason to include this line at all, and if she had to, could she not have used literally any other word besides "autism"?

This, along with exaggerating the influence of "transethnics" (as in people like Rachel Dolezal, not as in people who were adopted by families of another ethnicity), transableists (apparently, able-bodied people who want to maim themselves), and otherkin in activists circles make this book hard to take too seriously. I understand why people are looking at it and going "yeah, this transphobe doesn't know what she's talking about." I would say that there is enough argument in the book that consists of actual substance to make it worth reading... except, that means there's even less of an excuse to include the more ridiculous ideas inside. Take that however you wanna take it.

[Nanahachi · Rating 5 out of 5]

Este libro debería ser de obligada lectura para todos los buenistas, que sin tener ni un poco de idea de teoría feminista, te sueltan eso de "a ti en que te afecta".

Sheila escribió este libro en 2013, pero bien podría haberlo escrito en 2023 en España. Todos los problemas que plantea son los mismos que se proponen desde el feminismo radical. La información generalista sólo nos ofrece una visión del tema, la bonita, la de los arcoris y brilli-brilli, la que está completamente despolitizada o, mejor dicho, llena de ideología neoliberal. Cualquiera crítica es censurada o ridiculizada, cualquier mujer que se oponga al dogma es insultada y amenazada.


Si eres mujer, te interesa muchísimo leer este libro y saber lo que tenemos ya encima. Si eres mujer puedes intentar mirar para otro lado todo el tiempo que quieras, puedes fingir que este problema no te afecta. Pero lo acabará haciendo, antes o después. Sólo las mujeres salvarán a las mujeres y mientras no entendamos esto y nos unamos, seguiremos vendidas a los intereses del patriarcado y el capital.

[Davia Finch · Rating 1 out of 5]

Imagine if a Star-Bellied Sneetch (SBS) wrote a book about Plain-Bellied Sneetches (PBS). And in this book, the SBS found every negative thing that any PBS had ever done, framed it in the worst possible light, did everything to dehumanize and demonize PBSs by misrepresenting and distorting them, and then contrasted PBSs with a romantic, idealized portrait of SBSs who had never done anyone wrong and who were nevertheless, and quite inexplicably, the constant victims of PBSs.

If you can imagine such a book (or Mein Kampf), then you have successfully imagined Jeffreys's work. In what is nothing less than a stunning display of ignorance, bias, poor reasoning, and intellectual dishonesty, Jeffreys has succeeded in creating a masterpiece of transphobia. At least in Raymond's book, Transsexual Empire, I felt here and there flickers of empathy for trans people; there's none of that in Jeffreys's book, which is a work of pure, unmitigated hatred.

Now, let me be clear: there are certainly many important issues addressed in this book. My objection is not with the raising of these issues; my objection is to the utter lack of integrity and intellectual rigor with which they are raised. This book has poisoned the well and made sensitive, fair, impartial dialog about these important issues all but impossible.

For starters, Jeffreys has made absolutely no attempt to understand or sympathize with trans people. Her knowledge seems to be limited to a few negative anecdotes. How anyone has the audacity to write a book about people they have never even bothered to speak to, let alone research, is utterly baffling. Her depiction of trans people (particularly trans women) is a grotesque caricature on par with the depiction of other minorities in other hate propaganda.

Jeffreys also has zero understanding of or insight into the science of transgender experience, or any background in psychology (as far as I can tell). Identity and identification are psychological processes; if you have no background in psychology, and haven't even bothered to research the science, you are in no position to comment on whether or not it "makes sense". Quantum mechanics makes no sense to me, but I don't write books about it; if I were to write one, people would be right to dismiss it as blatant nonsense. Having a good grasp on the subject you're writing about is just common sense, but Jeffreys seems to think that her narrow branch of feminist theory is up to the task of explaining complex psychological phenomena. What we get are the usual accusations of "delusion", "abuse", "internalized homophobia and misogyny", etc.

For starters, everyone does have a gender identity, because "identity" is merely one's self-understanding. If you have any self-understanding about your sexual anatomy and how that anatomy shapes people expectations for you, and you know how you feel about all of that, you have a gender identity. All identities work this way. There is nothing special about gender identity. It is not some kind of "object" that a person can have or not have. It's not something that trans people have that cis people don't have. It's just a subset of the information one has about oneself -- everything pertaining to gender. In this, it is exactly like religious, national, ethnic, and other kinds of identities. A basic familiarity with identity studies in social psychology or sociology would have cleared that up if she'd bothered to do any research.

Contrary to the assertion of some, gender is not merely a construct of the patriarchy; it's the way humans negotiate sexual and reproductive differences because we're self-aware organisms that are capable of self-insight and of having feelings and opinions and preferences about things. This ties back into gender identity. Throughout, Jeffreys has confused political identities, which may indeed be assigned at birth and serve as the basis for oppression, with psychological identities, a completely different thing. A patriarchal society may certainly create a gender hierarchy and make that the basis for oppression through the imposition of rigid gender roles, but gender is not automatically hierarchical. We can't eliminate gender; what we can eliminate is gender essentialism and gender policing. I don't know a single trans person who believes that people should conform to gender roles, yet Jeffreys's entire argument depends upon them feeling that way. Trans people don't like obligate gender roles any more than anyone else. To the extent that they do artificially conform to them, it's to curry favor with cis majorities to avoid discrimination and violence -- ie. for exactly the same reasons cis people artificially conform to them. Anyone who knows anything about trans people knows this. Jeffreys's whole book depends on the assertion that trans people hold certain views which they not only do not hold but strenuously object to.

The chapter about the "harm" trans women do to their wives and families is particularly vile. Obviously, having your partner transition can be extremely difficult and painful for the non-trans partner. That's why trans people often remain in the closet for decades, suffering in silence and struggling with guilt over their desire to transition. They not infrequently put off living their lives until after their children are grown. But there's no acknowledgement of that here. Would it be better if partners were aware of a trans person's struggle before entering into a relationship with them? Sure. The problem is, like gays and lesbians, trans people are often not aware of the nature of the problem they're experiencing or how to articulate it. "Before we start dating, you should know I have some vague discomforts about things from time to time." How is this kind of explanation, which is often as accurate as it gets, be of any use to anyone? Additionally, many, if not most, trans people in long-term relationships, owing to having grown up in a transphobic culture, are doing their absolute best to "fix" themselves and learn to accept their bodies and roles -- exactly what Jeffreys wants them to do. And it doesn't work. That "accepting yourself" doesn't work to remove gender identity conflicts is a well-understood fact of trans science and another piece of basic information that anyone who has studied the subject should already know. Trans people can't "de-trans" themselves any more than people can force themselves to feel attracted to people they're not attracted to, and asking them to try is just another version of conversion therapy.

The chapter on trans children, which equates medical transition to "eugenics" is farcical. Even Jeffreys knows it's a weak argument and more or less admits in in the end. That researchers haven't drawn attention to the parallels between eugenics and medical transition probably has something to do with the fact that they have almost nothing to do with each other. In eugenics, the goal is to eliminate reproductive potential; in medical transition, infertility is a unfortunate and unwanted side-effect. Everyone working in the field would eliminate infertility if they could. But the fact that these represent completely opposite medical objectives doesn't stop Jeffreys from drawing parallels between them purely to malign trans people. Might as well call surgeons who specialize in the amputation of limbs "cannibals" because cannibals also amputate limbs. The argument borders on idiotic.

I could continue to criticize the book, because there's much more to criticize, but I think I've had enough of Jeffreys and her book for now. Had she presented a fair and balanced analysis of the kinds of problems that transgender identities pose for mainstream culture this could have been a valuable contribution to an important discussion. But Jeffreys couldn't keep her hate in check long enough to write that book. And I somehow doubt any of her supporters will manage it, either. I hope someday they prove me wrong.

Postscript: I'm trans, and I read the book cover to cover.

[Francisca B. T. · Rating 5 out of 5]

Leí la edición en español traducida por Labrys Editorial.
Este libro es una investigación pionera sobre el fenómeno del transgenerismo en la historia, en especial del mundo anglosajón. El foco está inserto en la evolución de las políticas feministas que permitieron llegar a la actual noción de género que está atomizada en individuos y se desentiende de las estructuras sociales. Por otra parte, ofrece interesantes testimonios de mujeres que transicionan y de mujeres que acompañan a hombres que transicionan en los cuales se pueden observar las limitaciones de la identidad de género para la transformación social. La perpetuación de los roles sexuales son la génesis de las políticas de identidad que no son capaces de concebir niñas, niños, adolescentes, hombres y mujeres fuera de estereotipos sexistas y degradantes con las mujeres.
Además, la tergiversación de la categoría de mujer facilita la colonización masculina de los espacios creados por mujeres y lesbianas durante décadas de organización feminista. La abolición del género como estructura social jerárquica de los hombres por sobre las mujeres sigue siendo urgente.

[Graeme Sutherland · Rating 4 out of 5]

An excellent explanation and analysis of the phenomenon from a feminist perspective which makes a great deal of sense. Sometimes the author takes a sledgehammer to the subject: a whole chapter on the parallels with eugenics, for example, rather than an interesting aside - does appear to be a little unnecessarily provocative. Likewise, I missed any feeling here of empathy for the individual, presumably sincere transperson, their feelings and experiences beyond the academics and the activists driving the controversy. Overall, a well researched and sane contribution to the understanding of this very perplexing and disturbing social trend.

[Alex · Rating 1 out of 5]

This book is TERF trash.

[Amanda · Rating 5 out of 5]

Buenísimo, muy útil y de lo mejor sobre el tema.

[Lauri · Rating 3 out of 5]

Lo que me pasa con este libro es que se nota que en algunas partes no es muy imparcial. Si vas a hacer un ensayo, entiendo que puedas permitirte reflexionar y, por tanto, opinar, pero muchas veces la manera de expresarse se notaba muchísimo que estaba ya sesgada.
AUN ASÍ, me gustó, y concuerdo con todo. A un capítulo en concreto no le vi mucho sentido que estuviese como análisis feminista de la teoría queer y trans, porque ya era irse por las ramas, pero todo lo demás está generalmente bien.
La conclusión del libro, en el último capítulo, que era la abolición del género, fue bravísima. La gente tachará a la autora y al libro de transfobia y mil formas más de "discriminación", pero si lo hacen, también tendrían que tachar de discriminación GRAN PARTE de la teoría feminista. Y por ahí yo no paso. Hay que entender que el feminismo nunca estuvo para que la gente siguiese quedándose en su zona de confort, sino para sacarlos de golpe, sacudirlos y abrirles los ojos. Y Sheila Jeffreys eso lo hace muy bien.

[Aura · Rating 5 out of 5]

Duro de leer, pero indispensable. Necesario para entender cómo el género es un mecanismo de opresión y una estructura para doblegar a las personas que caen presas de él. Es increíble toda la violencia que se está ejerciendo disfrazando el género de modernidad, de identidad y de derecho humano. Creo que en algunos años, cuando tengamos que lidiar con las consecuencias de su defensa, no vamos a entender cómo permitimos que se dañe tan profundamente y de forma tan perversa e irreversible a tantas personas, especialmente infantes y adolescentes, que solo buscan desarrollarse en libertad. Gracias a autoras como Sheila que saben todo el odio que les caerá encima, pero que aún así documentan y difunden sin miedo la verdad.

[Jordan Selha · Rating 1 out of 5]

Spoiler alert: Transphobic.