What do you think?
Rate this book
Gender-Critical Feminism
The expectation used to be that men would be masculine and women would be feminine, and this was assumed to come naturally to them in virtue of their biology. That orthodoxy persists today in many parts of society. On this view, sex is gender and gender is sex.
A new view of gender has emerged in recent years, a view on which gender is an 'identity', a way that people feel about themselves in terms of masculinity or femininity, regardless of their sex. On this view, sex is dismissed as unimportant, and gender is made paramount.
In the rush to celebrate this new view of gender, we have lost sight of a more powerful challenge to the traditional orthodoxy, namely the feminist sex/gender distinction according to which sex is biological and gender is social. On this view, gender is something done to people on the basis of sex. Women are socialised to conform to norms of femininity (and sanctioned for failure), and masculinity and femininity exist in a hierarchy in which femininity is devalued. This view helps us to understand injustice against women, and what we can do about it.
Holly Lawford-Smith introduces and defends gender-critical feminism, a theory and movement that reclaims the sex/gender distinction, insists upon the reality and importance of sex, and continues to understand gender as a way that men and women are made to be, rather than a way they really are.
A new view of gender has emerged in recent years, a view on which gender is an 'identity', a way that people feel about themselves in terms of masculinity or femininity, regardless of their sex. On this view, sex is dismissed as unimportant, and gender is made paramount.
In the rush to celebrate this new view of gender, we have lost sight of a more powerful challenge to the traditional orthodoxy, namely the feminist sex/gender distinction according to which sex is biological and gender is social. On this view, gender is something done to people on the basis of sex. Women are socialised to conform to norms of femininity (and sanctioned for failure), and masculinity and femininity exist in a hierarchy in which femininity is devalued. This view helps us to understand injustice against women, and what we can do about it.
Holly Lawford-Smith introduces and defends gender-critical feminism, a theory and movement that reclaims the sex/gender distinction, insists upon the reality and importance of sex, and continues to understand gender as a way that men and women are made to be, rather than a way they really are.
320 pages, Hardcover
First published May 12, 2022
24 people are currently reading
481 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 - 21 of 21 reviews
July 21, 2023
This is a cogent overview of gender-critical feminism, a school of thought which the author positions as the successor of radical feminism. Holly Lawford-Smith is calm, matter-of-fact, often optimistic, always scholarly. This is an important book for anyone interested in understanding the roots of feminism and its branching into often oppositional movements, one path led by radical feminists like Germaine Greer and Catherine MacKinnon and other paths led by queer and/or postmodernist theorists like Judith Butler and my former professor Jack (née Judith) Halberstam or intersectional feminists like Kimberlé Crenshaw.
It is the latter two movements, and thinkers like Butler and Crenshaw, that are foundational to the form of feminism currently holding sway within liberal institutions like Western government, media, and higher education (although the moniker of "feminism" itself is often rejected by these branches). Radical feminism and now gender-critical feminism are often scorned as separatist, "white," and trans-exclusionary, and its exemplars e.g. J.K. Rowling similarly dismissed or attacked. This is strange to me: pushing back on gendered roles, the sex industry, and the diminishment of women based on their very biology; recognizing the dangers and dehumanization that women experience due to male behaviors and centering the goal of female liberation worldwide... these have all been at the heart of feminist movements. They are also the key goals of gender-critical feminism. I get that this particular branch of feminism receives heat due to its pushback against trans/queer/gender ideology and activism, but gender-critical feminism itself, per the author, is actually not specifically about trans politics.
I'm not sure I have a strong opinion about the book. It was an interesting read and clearly has high value for anyone interested in feminist theory and advocacy. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
3.5 stars rounded up to 4 stars, because I really despise the embarrassing attacks on an author who is clearly well-intentioned, well-informed, and strongly in favor of women's rights. The struggles currently facing Prof. Lawford-Smith make me want to boost the book's rating.
NOTES
Preface & Chapter 1
- two differing feminist perspectives are described regarding gender and sex: Gender as an identity choice ("Whatever sex is or was, it doesn't matter anymore. What matters is gender, in particular, gender understood as identity.") vs Gender as social norms and expectations ("There is a sex/gender distinction and sex is indispensable to it... Gender is a set of social norms and expectations imposed on the basis of sex.") This is a clear way of describing the divide occurring now within (primarily) left discourse & activism relating to gender.
- [later a third perspective is noted: gender as a set of innate traits determined by sex - the conservative viewpoint.]
Topics both kinds of feminists can agree on:
> Male violence against women and girls
> Full control of reproduction
> Sexual objectification and beauty standards
> Women at work
> Equality of sexual pleasure
"Women have the right to figure out, separately from men, what exactly they think it means to be a woman, if it means anything at all. Men, throughout history, have created and imposed femininity onto women. In order to achieve liberation, women must escape from men's ideas about women. From this it follows that men do not get any say in what a woman is, and men cannot be feminists."
Chapter 2: Radical Roots
A concise and rigorous overview of the various waves of feminism, closing with an overview and critical appraisal of the various utopian goals of these different movements.
"Multiple institutions were identified as helping to achieve the oppression of women, including marriage, the family, sexual intercourse, love, religion, rape, and prostitution."
"Sex is like rocks and trees; gender is like money and universities. Sex is out there in the world, whether we choose to care much about it or not. Gender depends on us... When radical feminists say that gender is socially constructed, they mean to highlight the special sense in which some things come entirely from social attitudes. The 'glue' that holds gender together is our human attitudes, beliefs, and expectations. The same is not true for sex."
Chapter 3
on females and males:
"Gender-critical feminism leaves behind the strong belief in women's difference as it relates to personalities and preferences. It does not believe that women are naturally better with intuition, feeling, or emotion. This does not leave us committed to the view that the human mind is a 'blank slate' just waiting to be imprinted by different sets of social arrangements, but the sex differences gender-critical feminism can accommodate are unlikely to provide a rationalization of many of the social differences between the sexes we have seen in the past, or still see today."
"One cannot escape masculinity by fiat, or with a simple thought; with masculinity comes responsibility and to escape it takes work. This point applies to all those socialized into masculinity who would call themselves feminists or feminist allies, including transwomen and male nonbinary people. Gender identity cannot circumvent sex-based privilege and complicity in women's oppression."
Chapter 4: The Sex Industry
Lawford-Smith excoriates the sex industry, from pornography to prostitution. Rejection of this industry is positioned as central to gender-critical feminism.
Particularly compelling was her section "What We Cannot Buy" paralleling sex work to slavery, professional boxing, "competitive goods," and the ability of the rich to purchase both admissions to elite colleges for their children and... organs. This was a fantastic set of analogies.
Chapter 5: Trans/Gender
The author dives into the great divide between those feminists who think of gender as performance or identity (and therefore "woman" is a flexible word & concept) and gender-critical feminists who focus specifically on biological sex to determine who is female (and who use the words "female" & "woman" interchangeably). Thus it follows that gender-critical feminists focus on safe spaces for women that are based on biological sex; these feminists do not see themselves as anti-trans but rather as centralizing women's sex-based rights and the challenges that face gender-nonconforming females - including the rights & challenges of transmen and females who identify as non-binary. A key part of gender-critical feminism is understanding how girls will often reject what are seen as the oppressions of femininity - the oppressions of society-determined, inequal, gendered norms - and why those girls may then reject identification with their gender.
Lawford-Smith reviews Blanchard's division of trans individuals into "homosexual transsexuals" (stereotypically feminine males attracted to other males) and "non-homosexual transsexuals" (males attracted to females, often masculine in boyhood and transitioning later in life). The former primarily identify with "feminine" attitudes; many of the latter experience sexual arousal while within cross-dressing identities.
"Why is it so important to pay attention to this distinction, rather than collapsing it under the heading of 'gender identity' as is standard practice today? Because being aroused by the thought of being a woman doesn't make you a woman... Consider those transwomen who only begin to identify as women in adulthood, having shown no signs of childhood gender dysphoria. We'd have to suppose that any influence of male biology, male puberty, and male socialization from birth to whatever age identifying as trans happened, were all rendered void by the mere fact of the sudden claiming of a gender identity. This is highly implausible."
Sidenote: here is a link to an article by trans writer TaraElla rebutting Blanchard's typology:
https://open.substack.com/pub/taraell...
The author is firmly against the medicalization of gender non-conforming children. She cites the findings of various well-known studies and highlights their conclusions that puberty blockers may contribute to gender dysphoria persisting, that most trans-identified children don't still want to transition by the time they reach adulthood, and that medicalization "doesn't treat trans people, it creates them."
An interesting and, in the second point, surprising perspective on how to reduce harms to gender non-conforming girls:
First, we can keep working against sex inequality, which creates the understandable response in girls that 'they are not female' or 'are not girls', because they dis-identify with negative stereotypes and expectations of femininity. Second - and this may be difficult for gender-critical feminists to swallow - we can support the trans rights movement's efforts to decouple sex and gender identity. The more that gender non-conforming girls feel that they can be 'boys' or 'men' without medical or surgical transformations, the fewer harms... The fine line to get reduced harm to girls and protection of women's sex-based rights is to support the decoupling while insisting that both categories matter - rather than that gender identity displaces sex."
A note re. the author's attitude towards trans individuals: despite the strong opinions expressed and the focus on data that exclusively supports her thesis, I saw no example of transphobia within this chapter. Instead I read about the author's concerns regarding the documented harms that can come to transmen and biological females who identify as nonbinary. The author also demonstrates her understanding that "passing" transwomen face discrimination related to historic women's oppression, often because of the ongoing devaluation of "feminine" traits & aspects, and the devaluation of femininity in general.
Chapter 6: Why Is Gender-Critical Feminism So Vilified?
The author provides three reasons:
1. Radical feminism (the movement that preceded and continues to inform gender critical feminism) has a history of sometimes accidental, sometimes purposeful exclusion - it excludes any issue or initiative that is not specifically connected to the needs and challenges that face biological women. And so it has been accused of insensitivity towards communities of color, the Jewish community, the disabled, etc. The exclusion of transwomen pokes that sensitive bear that already views GC Feminism as problematic due to its history of exclusion towards other groups.
2. Fundamental Moral Disagreement i.e. the other side refuses to debate something they consider to be morally sacrosanct. For example, feminists who focus on sex worker rights may refuse to debate the idea that we must always respect women's choices about their bodies; gender-critical feminists may consider the topic up for debate - they may want to discuss the idea that it is because of men's choices that sex workers are put in the position of renting their bodies. Values aren't shared and so conversation and debate become difficult or impossible.
3. It is a strategic decision by those opposing gender-critical feminism to demonize and heap as much abuse as possible upon their opponents. Politically propagandistic tools are employed in order to sway public opinion.
Chapter 7: Is Gender-Critical Feminism Intersectional?
Short answer: no. The author argues that feminism should be reclaimed as being for women as women rather than its current mainstream iteration, as being for women as people. There already exists a modern intersectional movement and it is modern feminism, which is apparently equally interested in race, class, sexual orientation, ability, etc., while losing focus on those issues which are specific to biological women only. The author does not denigrate those other areas of interest (indeed her steel-manning of opposing arguments is particularly robust in this section), but what it comes down to for her is that if a challenge is one that faces both women and men, then it is not truly a feminist challenge, full-stop. The author is concerned in particular about fragmentation within an important movement. She specifically lists a range of issues that would be central to a feminism that is solely concerned with biological women - some of which are included in the above notes for Preface/Chapter 1 (to which she adds sexual subordination, female-specific medical conditions, female sports, and products designed to cater to men's bodies).
Chapter 8: Is Gender-Critical Feminism Feasible?
A surprising chapter in that Lawford-Smith is talking less about reaching the utopian ideals of GC Feminism (although she does describe that utopia) but rather is walking the reader through the entire concept of "feasibility" and how it has often been used to retard or even halt initiatives and entire movements. One part of her perspective is particularly familiar to me: sometimes a way to arrest positive developments is to argue a situation from an entirely binary perspective, when the answer actually exists outside of that false binary. In my own experience, as a person who works in health public policy, a key example being the idea that HIV funding should be lessened in wealthy urban areas in order to funnel those funds to poorer rural areas - a binary and punitive perspective - when the answer is actually to increase the overall amount of funding for those poorer rural areas. I've seen the concept "equity" misinterpreted in similar ways i.e. equity is not about punishing the better off by moving their resources to the poorer off, it is/should be about creating additional resources for those poorer off.
Chapter 9 & Coda
"The gender-critical feminist is fundamentally opposed to women's slavery, subjection, domination, exploitation, and vulnerability. Her vision of women's liberation is a society in which the law gives women robust protection from all of these things. Worrying about how this interferes with women's choices is like worrying about the abolition of slavery on the grounds that some slaves enjoyed their work. Gender-critical feminism is uniquely positioned to take patterns of domination seriously, because it looks at women as a class, and so social patterns, rather than at individual women."
"Feminists who have a clear sense of their constituency, of what women's subordination consists in, and of which issues affect women the worst, will be in the position to stand firm against accusations of 'exclusion' when they are not justified, will refuse to cede ground to other movements, and will centre women and advance women's interests in all their work."
It is the latter two movements, and thinkers like Butler and Crenshaw, that are foundational to the form of feminism currently holding sway within liberal institutions like Western government, media, and higher education (although the moniker of "feminism" itself is often rejected by these branches). Radical feminism and now gender-critical feminism are often scorned as separatist, "white," and trans-exclusionary, and its exemplars e.g. J.K. Rowling similarly dismissed or attacked. This is strange to me: pushing back on gendered roles, the sex industry, and the diminishment of women based on their very biology; recognizing the dangers and dehumanization that women experience due to male behaviors and centering the goal of female liberation worldwide... these have all been at the heart of feminist movements. They are also the key goals of gender-critical feminism. I get that this particular branch of feminism receives heat due to its pushback against trans/queer/gender ideology and activism, but gender-critical feminism itself, per the author, is actually not specifically about trans politics.
I'm not sure I have a strong opinion about the book. It was an interesting read and clearly has high value for anyone interested in feminist theory and advocacy. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
3.5 stars rounded up to 4 stars, because I really despise the embarrassing attacks on an author who is clearly well-intentioned, well-informed, and strongly in favor of women's rights. The struggles currently facing Prof. Lawford-Smith make me want to boost the book's rating.
NOTES
Preface & Chapter 1
- two differing feminist perspectives are described regarding gender and sex: Gender as an identity choice ("Whatever sex is or was, it doesn't matter anymore. What matters is gender, in particular, gender understood as identity.") vs Gender as social norms and expectations ("There is a sex/gender distinction and sex is indispensable to it... Gender is a set of social norms and expectations imposed on the basis of sex.") This is a clear way of describing the divide occurring now within (primarily) left discourse & activism relating to gender.
- [later a third perspective is noted: gender as a set of innate traits determined by sex - the conservative viewpoint.]
Topics both kinds of feminists can agree on:
> Male violence against women and girls
> Full control of reproduction
> Sexual objectification and beauty standards
> Women at work
> Equality of sexual pleasure
"Women have the right to figure out, separately from men, what exactly they think it means to be a woman, if it means anything at all. Men, throughout history, have created and imposed femininity onto women. In order to achieve liberation, women must escape from men's ideas about women. From this it follows that men do not get any say in what a woman is, and men cannot be feminists."
Chapter 2: Radical Roots
A concise and rigorous overview of the various waves of feminism, closing with an overview and critical appraisal of the various utopian goals of these different movements.
"Multiple institutions were identified as helping to achieve the oppression of women, including marriage, the family, sexual intercourse, love, religion, rape, and prostitution."
"Sex is like rocks and trees; gender is like money and universities. Sex is out there in the world, whether we choose to care much about it or not. Gender depends on us... When radical feminists say that gender is socially constructed, they mean to highlight the special sense in which some things come entirely from social attitudes. The 'glue' that holds gender together is our human attitudes, beliefs, and expectations. The same is not true for sex."
Chapter 3
on females and males:
"Gender-critical feminism leaves behind the strong belief in women's difference as it relates to personalities and preferences. It does not believe that women are naturally better with intuition, feeling, or emotion. This does not leave us committed to the view that the human mind is a 'blank slate' just waiting to be imprinted by different sets of social arrangements, but the sex differences gender-critical feminism can accommodate are unlikely to provide a rationalization of many of the social differences between the sexes we have seen in the past, or still see today."
"One cannot escape masculinity by fiat, or with a simple thought; with masculinity comes responsibility and to escape it takes work. This point applies to all those socialized into masculinity who would call themselves feminists or feminist allies, including transwomen and male nonbinary people. Gender identity cannot circumvent sex-based privilege and complicity in women's oppression."
Chapter 4: The Sex Industry
Lawford-Smith excoriates the sex industry, from pornography to prostitution. Rejection of this industry is positioned as central to gender-critical feminism.
Particularly compelling was her section "What We Cannot Buy" paralleling sex work to slavery, professional boxing, "competitive goods," and the ability of the rich to purchase both admissions to elite colleges for their children and... organs. This was a fantastic set of analogies.
Chapter 5: Trans/Gender
The author dives into the great divide between those feminists who think of gender as performance or identity (and therefore "woman" is a flexible word & concept) and gender-critical feminists who focus specifically on biological sex to determine who is female (and who use the words "female" & "woman" interchangeably). Thus it follows that gender-critical feminists focus on safe spaces for women that are based on biological sex; these feminists do not see themselves as anti-trans but rather as centralizing women's sex-based rights and the challenges that face gender-nonconforming females - including the rights & challenges of transmen and females who identify as non-binary. A key part of gender-critical feminism is understanding how girls will often reject what are seen as the oppressions of femininity - the oppressions of society-determined, inequal, gendered norms - and why those girls may then reject identification with their gender.
Lawford-Smith reviews Blanchard's division of trans individuals into "homosexual transsexuals" (stereotypically feminine males attracted to other males) and "non-homosexual transsexuals" (males attracted to females, often masculine in boyhood and transitioning later in life). The former primarily identify with "feminine" attitudes; many of the latter experience sexual arousal while within cross-dressing identities.
"Why is it so important to pay attention to this distinction, rather than collapsing it under the heading of 'gender identity' as is standard practice today? Because being aroused by the thought of being a woman doesn't make you a woman... Consider those transwomen who only begin to identify as women in adulthood, having shown no signs of childhood gender dysphoria. We'd have to suppose that any influence of male biology, male puberty, and male socialization from birth to whatever age identifying as trans happened, were all rendered void by the mere fact of the sudden claiming of a gender identity. This is highly implausible."
Sidenote: here is a link to an article by trans writer TaraElla rebutting Blanchard's typology:
https://open.substack.com/pub/taraell...
The author is firmly against the medicalization of gender non-conforming children. She cites the findings of various well-known studies and highlights their conclusions that puberty blockers may contribute to gender dysphoria persisting, that most trans-identified children don't still want to transition by the time they reach adulthood, and that medicalization "doesn't treat trans people, it creates them."
An interesting and, in the second point, surprising perspective on how to reduce harms to gender non-conforming girls:
First, we can keep working against sex inequality, which creates the understandable response in girls that 'they are not female' or 'are not girls', because they dis-identify with negative stereotypes and expectations of femininity. Second - and this may be difficult for gender-critical feminists to swallow - we can support the trans rights movement's efforts to decouple sex and gender identity. The more that gender non-conforming girls feel that they can be 'boys' or 'men' without medical or surgical transformations, the fewer harms... The fine line to get reduced harm to girls and protection of women's sex-based rights is to support the decoupling while insisting that both categories matter - rather than that gender identity displaces sex."
A note re. the author's attitude towards trans individuals: despite the strong opinions expressed and the focus on data that exclusively supports her thesis, I saw no example of transphobia within this chapter. Instead I read about the author's concerns regarding the documented harms that can come to transmen and biological females who identify as nonbinary. The author also demonstrates her understanding that "passing" transwomen face discrimination related to historic women's oppression, often because of the ongoing devaluation of "feminine" traits & aspects, and the devaluation of femininity in general.
Chapter 6: Why Is Gender-Critical Feminism So Vilified?
The author provides three reasons:
1. Radical feminism (the movement that preceded and continues to inform gender critical feminism) has a history of sometimes accidental, sometimes purposeful exclusion - it excludes any issue or initiative that is not specifically connected to the needs and challenges that face biological women. And so it has been accused of insensitivity towards communities of color, the Jewish community, the disabled, etc. The exclusion of transwomen pokes that sensitive bear that already views GC Feminism as problematic due to its history of exclusion towards other groups.
2. Fundamental Moral Disagreement i.e. the other side refuses to debate something they consider to be morally sacrosanct. For example, feminists who focus on sex worker rights may refuse to debate the idea that we must always respect women's choices about their bodies; gender-critical feminists may consider the topic up for debate - they may want to discuss the idea that it is because of men's choices that sex workers are put in the position of renting their bodies. Values aren't shared and so conversation and debate become difficult or impossible.
3. It is a strategic decision by those opposing gender-critical feminism to demonize and heap as much abuse as possible upon their opponents. Politically propagandistic tools are employed in order to sway public opinion.
Chapter 7: Is Gender-Critical Feminism Intersectional?
Short answer: no. The author argues that feminism should be reclaimed as being for women as women rather than its current mainstream iteration, as being for women as people. There already exists a modern intersectional movement and it is modern feminism, which is apparently equally interested in race, class, sexual orientation, ability, etc., while losing focus on those issues which are specific to biological women only. The author does not denigrate those other areas of interest (indeed her steel-manning of opposing arguments is particularly robust in this section), but what it comes down to for her is that if a challenge is one that faces both women and men, then it is not truly a feminist challenge, full-stop. The author is concerned in particular about fragmentation within an important movement. She specifically lists a range of issues that would be central to a feminism that is solely concerned with biological women - some of which are included in the above notes for Preface/Chapter 1 (to which she adds sexual subordination, female-specific medical conditions, female sports, and products designed to cater to men's bodies).
Chapter 8: Is Gender-Critical Feminism Feasible?
A surprising chapter in that Lawford-Smith is talking less about reaching the utopian ideals of GC Feminism (although she does describe that utopia) but rather is walking the reader through the entire concept of "feasibility" and how it has often been used to retard or even halt initiatives and entire movements. One part of her perspective is particularly familiar to me: sometimes a way to arrest positive developments is to argue a situation from an entirely binary perspective, when the answer actually exists outside of that false binary. In my own experience, as a person who works in health public policy, a key example being the idea that HIV funding should be lessened in wealthy urban areas in order to funnel those funds to poorer rural areas - a binary and punitive perspective - when the answer is actually to increase the overall amount of funding for those poorer rural areas. I've seen the concept "equity" misinterpreted in similar ways i.e. equity is not about punishing the better off by moving their resources to the poorer off, it is/should be about creating additional resources for those poorer off.
Chapter 9 & Coda
"The gender-critical feminist is fundamentally opposed to women's slavery, subjection, domination, exploitation, and vulnerability. Her vision of women's liberation is a society in which the law gives women robust protection from all of these things. Worrying about how this interferes with women's choices is like worrying about the abolition of slavery on the grounds that some slaves enjoyed their work. Gender-critical feminism is uniquely positioned to take patterns of domination seriously, because it looks at women as a class, and so social patterns, rather than at individual women."
"Feminists who have a clear sense of their constituency, of what women's subordination consists in, and of which issues affect women the worst, will be in the position to stand firm against accusations of 'exclusion' when they are not justified, will refuse to cede ground to other movements, and will centre women and advance women's interests in all their work."
June 8, 2022
I learned about this book thanks to the open letter of concern sent to Oxford University Press and signed by a number of scholars who claim that "'gender critical' discourse attempts to deny transgender rights under the guise of scholarly inquiry." I am only dimly aware of such debates, but it struck me as disingenuous at the time. And now that I have read the book, it seems completely unjustifiable—because there is nothing here that could possibly by construed as an attempt to deny trans rights. Certainly, part of the book contains an argument about trans rights in relation to feminism, but any thinking adult should be able to accept, challenge, or reject her argument—in whole or in part—without smearing it as malicious or somehow "anti-trans." As Lawford-Smith writes, "Although considerable energy has been expended by opponents of gender-critical feminism characterizing it as ‘anti-trans’, this conflict of interest does not put gender-critical feminism and support for trans rights in tension. While gender-critical feminists reject legal conflation between sex and gender identity, and advocate for continued protection of sex under the law, there is no tension with also supporting the protection of gender identity, transgender status, or gender expression. The limit to our support for these things is that we do so without believing that they change a person’s sex. Gender-critical feminism is not anti-trans" (p. 94). Also: "Gender-critical feminists are not exclusionary of trans people per se, but they include in their constituency transmen rather than transwomen, and female nonbinary people rather than no/all nonbinary people. Gender-critical feminists do this because our constituency, as already explained, is female people. Far from excluding trans people per se from the constituency of feminism, gender-critical feminists are very concerned with the situation of transmen and female nonbinary people" (61). Lawford-Smith has written an accessible book for a popular readership that presents a genealogy of radical feminism and situates gender critical feminism within this tradition as a kind of back-to-basics approach, i.e. one that retreats from the expansive issues feminism has come to encompass and remains "a single-axis movement for women’s liberation," (58) where "'women' are adult human females" (60). Though I am not really convinced that it is either possible or desirable to disentangle modern feminism from intersectionality (not that anyone is asking: "most gender-critical feminists think that men cannot be feminists, only allies" [62]), she addresses a number of other urgent questions facing feminism today. Her book denies the rights of precisely no one and it should be engaged rather than dismissed. I am genuinely interested to read a serious response to the issues it raises.
May 25, 2022
Really thought provoking, really clear overview of what GC feminism is, and why, of how it compares to other strands of feminism and of why and how it has the capacity to effect more powerful change. Really important read, particularly for anyone following (or confused by) the debates around gender identity. Just be prepared to concentrate because it is full of information!!
January 8, 2023
More accurate rating: 9/10.
I really enjoyed this excellent and academically rigorous overview of gender-critical feminism. A lot of theory is presented, philosophical analysis as well – to a certain extent – but the author always managed to formulate everything in concrete and accessible terms. All of her points and arguments are supported by hypothetical or real-world examples, and I really appreciated her calm, collected and serious tone throughout the book. I honestly learned quite a bit about philosophy, or philosophical concepts at any rate, and found that really neat!
The author also provides a historical and theoretical overview of radical feminism (and thus some key points of feminist theory in general), as it is a precursor to gender-critical feminism – as it is being formulated today. That being said, whilst the distinction between "choice/equality feminism" and "radical/GC/liberation feminism" was made very clear, I feel the book would've benefitted from a brief summary establishing a very clear distinction between radical and gender-critical feminism. Now granted, I read this book over way too long of a time period, and might've simply forgotten there is such a summary... Still, I felt there was a lack of clarity: from what I could tell, the main – or only real? – distinction between the two currents is, in the case of GC feminism, a rejection of "ideological purity/zealotry" in favour of "evidence over theory". Maybe.
There are large sections of the book devoted to the topics of sex work, gender identity ideology and intersectionality, all of which were well presented, analysed and of course interesting. I mostly agree with the author's points, though when it comes to intersectionality, I do think a broader "big picture" scope is warranted in theoretical analysis – maybe that's just my pattern-thinking autistic brain talking. There was also a section devoted to the question of whether GC feminism can be considered "liberal". It was quite honestly the weakest chapter of the book, as the author didn't really present a firm conclusion... I guess GC feminism is both liberal and not – Schrödinger's liberalism, why not. I did spot a kind of error though: the author defined libertarianism in a specifically US-centric way, as right wing, when anarchism is/has been considered left-wing libertarianism by some theorists (at least in Europe). Just thought I'd point that out. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
I was not a fan at all of the more extreme radical feminist suggestion that, at the end of the day, women can't/don't have a genuine, authentic identity, because of patriarchal oppression... Uhm, well, fuck that, quite simply. It is, for one thing, highly offensive, and for another, it's giving "our oppressors" more power and credit than they actually have. Yes, there are strong axes of oppression at play in our fucked up world, but all humans beings are influenced by their personal and societal environments to a greater or lesser extent! It doesn't mean we can't develop any sort of authentic self, for fuck's sake. To be clear, I'm not even sure the author is a proponent of this rather extreme argument. But she presented it within a paragraph about autonomy and self-determination, and I loathed it – make of that what you will.
Finally, whilst I agree feminism should be a movement for women, by women, and nothing else (better to do part of a thing well, than everything poorly); and whilst yes, the author is in favour of cooperation and alliances between distinct social justice movements... I find it a bit naïve to conceptualise working on something like gender abolition solely amongst women, for the benefit of women (the potential benefits to men being positive side-effects). No, women should not centre men's issues in feminism, but cooperation should, in my opinion, be encouraged, and "gender abolition/liberation" for males promoted because at the end of the day, like it or not, we all live together! You can't really expect a massive societal change to take place without half of the human population participating or being engaged in at least some fashion – though I'm aware finding the optimal way to do this isn't exactly simple. Anyway, that's my hot take of the day.
The manifesto and afterword were, for their part, nearly perfect. I agreed with all of the points in the former (except perhaps for the rigid approach to the whole pronoun kerfuffle, it's just really not the hill I'll die on, but fine), and was touched by the genuine, heart-felt gratitude the author displayed towards all the feminists of history who got us this far. I would definitely recommend this one.
I really enjoyed this excellent and academically rigorous overview of gender-critical feminism. A lot of theory is presented, philosophical analysis as well – to a certain extent – but the author always managed to formulate everything in concrete and accessible terms. All of her points and arguments are supported by hypothetical or real-world examples, and I really appreciated her calm, collected and serious tone throughout the book. I honestly learned quite a bit about philosophy, or philosophical concepts at any rate, and found that really neat!
The author also provides a historical and theoretical overview of radical feminism (and thus some key points of feminist theory in general), as it is a precursor to gender-critical feminism – as it is being formulated today. That being said, whilst the distinction between "choice/equality feminism" and "radical/GC/liberation feminism" was made very clear, I feel the book would've benefitted from a brief summary establishing a very clear distinction between radical and gender-critical feminism. Now granted, I read this book over way too long of a time period, and might've simply forgotten there is such a summary... Still, I felt there was a lack of clarity: from what I could tell, the main – or only real? – distinction between the two currents is, in the case of GC feminism, a rejection of "ideological purity/zealotry" in favour of "evidence over theory". Maybe.
There are large sections of the book devoted to the topics of sex work, gender identity ideology and intersectionality, all of which were well presented, analysed and of course interesting. I mostly agree with the author's points, though when it comes to intersectionality, I do think a broader "big picture" scope is warranted in theoretical analysis – maybe that's just my pattern-thinking autistic brain talking. There was also a section devoted to the question of whether GC feminism can be considered "liberal". It was quite honestly the weakest chapter of the book, as the author didn't really present a firm conclusion... I guess GC feminism is both liberal and not – Schrödinger's liberalism, why not. I did spot a kind of error though: the author defined libertarianism in a specifically US-centric way, as right wing, when anarchism is/has been considered left-wing libertarianism by some theorists (at least in Europe). Just thought I'd point that out. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
I was not a fan at all of the more extreme radical feminist suggestion that, at the end of the day, women can't/don't have a genuine, authentic identity, because of patriarchal oppression... Uhm, well, fuck that, quite simply. It is, for one thing, highly offensive, and for another, it's giving "our oppressors" more power and credit than they actually have. Yes, there are strong axes of oppression at play in our fucked up world, but all humans beings are influenced by their personal and societal environments to a greater or lesser extent! It doesn't mean we can't develop any sort of authentic self, for fuck's sake. To be clear, I'm not even sure the author is a proponent of this rather extreme argument. But she presented it within a paragraph about autonomy and self-determination, and I loathed it – make of that what you will.
Finally, whilst I agree feminism should be a movement for women, by women, and nothing else (better to do part of a thing well, than everything poorly); and whilst yes, the author is in favour of cooperation and alliances between distinct social justice movements... I find it a bit naïve to conceptualise working on something like gender abolition solely amongst women, for the benefit of women (the potential benefits to men being positive side-effects). No, women should not centre men's issues in feminism, but cooperation should, in my opinion, be encouraged, and "gender abolition/liberation" for males promoted because at the end of the day, like it or not, we all live together! You can't really expect a massive societal change to take place without half of the human population participating or being engaged in at least some fashion – though I'm aware finding the optimal way to do this isn't exactly simple. Anyway, that's my hot take of the day.
The manifesto and afterword were, for their part, nearly perfect. I agreed with all of the points in the former (except perhaps for the rigid approach to the whole pronoun kerfuffle, it's just really not the hill I'll die on, but fine), and was touched by the genuine, heart-felt gratitude the author displayed towards all the feminists of history who got us this far. I would definitely recommend this one.
March 26, 2023
Very interesting and thought-proving read. A really in-depth analysis of this particular theory of feminism, with some perhaps unpopular suggestions that make you really think.
October 21, 2022
woman is when heels and man is when converse
May 3, 2025
17th anti-trans book I’ve read thus far, get your bingo cards ready!
‘Gender-Critical Feminism’ is part radical feminist history brief and part ‘gender-critical’ apologetics. I put ‘gender-critical’ in quotes because the term obscures a more pressing ideal of these feminists, in that trans people are largely excluded and trans people are forced to be categorized alongside FGM and forced births.
The author would and has strongly argued against this-
“…gender-critical feminism is regularly accused by other feminists of being…’anti-trans’. Is it? My answer is ‘no’…Because of this, it includes transmen [sic] and excludes transwomen. [sic]”
My counter is if you cite authors who ranged from hyper-sexualization to infantilization towards trans people, make inaccurate and false claims about trans people’s own healthcare, pulls quotes claiming that “features which…more likely to inflict violence against and otherwise oppress women…such as…testes, and higher testosterone.”, encourage conversion torture laws against trans people, saying lesbian culture is ruined when trans men transition, and say yourself that “self-destructive behavior by women and girls” include “elective double mastectomies…or phalloplasties”
…Then you are not, in fact, trans-inclusive, let alone for trans men.
Trans men are seldom mentioned, save for the instances where trans men are talked about as though they’re fragile little girls who need saving. Trans women, though, get ALL the criticism, scorn, and proposed legislation against. Of course, authors like this rarely ever think of the consequences that befall trans men as a result of bringing trans women down with unfair and illogical policing, but they don’t care.
As of writing this, the UK has effectively severed trans people, men and women, from being able to be housed in places like hospitals properly and are forced to either take a segregated third space or…no where. This benefits no one and is only made to cut trans people from communal and public life.
The book also takes criticism at ‘inclusive/intersectional’ feminisms…not that she’s a bigot or anything, ignoring that it bats for ‘gender-critical feminists’ like Meghan Murphy (trump supporter), Anna Slatz (affiliated with right-wing site Rebel News and published her uncritical interview of a neo-nazi), Jk Rowling (holocaust event denialist and accused multiple black and brown female athletes of being male, among other things), as well as strongly defending the Heritage Foundation (anti-abortion, anti-gay, climate denialist conservative think tank) of all things. Here’s the quote from the book, in reference to critics of Keen-Minshull (who platformed and encouraged many far-right people to her cause) meeting with The Heritage Foundation on anti-trans discussion;
“Why bother trying to characterize the political, moral, and intellectual disagreement, when you can just namedrop a conservative boogie-monster and let that do the work of letting everyone know which side they should be on?”
It seems the author, much like many anti-trans authors, would sooner like right-wing anti-feminist bedfellows than to have an inkling of actual support for trans people. Shocking.
In the same page, this quote is found;
“…The New York Times piece in 2019, Carol Hay…says she considers radical feminist Janice Raymond's 1979 book on transsexualism to be hate speech.”
Janice Raymond literally called all trans people rapists by nature of existing. It is, by definition, hate speech. The author even directly acknowledges this quote in the footnotes, but doesn’t think of it as hate speech.
It also needs mentioning that throughout, the book brushes off the concerns of current and former sex workers, and while the book itself promises to rid the world of xxx (can’t say the word, Goodreads might eat me) there isn’t a clear definition for what it is and how it would be policed. Two women who pleaded for the case of decriminalization in order to prevent women from being arrested themselves or forced to hide for something they shouldn’t be punished for go unheard as the author ops for the ‘Nordic Model’ of criminalization despite the aforementioned risk of women being pushed into unsafe conditions.
The author even says that xxx made by women and for women is bad because a man *might* be excited by it, and therefore it’s tainted.
It makes me wonder, then, if lesbian-made erotica should be censored and made criminal, what else is criminalized? Artistic nudity? Depictions of healthy sexuality? Sex education? Descriptions in memoirs about an author’s own sexual abuse?
The author gives no clear definition, and given that teaming with conservatives isn’t out of the picture, one has to wonder how far book bans will go.
The book also spends a great deal of time trying to say it’s an expansion of radical feminism without *being* radical feminism (uh huh), and being very critical of other feminisms for being too ‘inclusive’ of non-feminist issues (despite having a lengthy list at the end of feminist demands that largely overlap with the International Women’s Day demands shown at the beginning of the book). It’s not good enough that feminists of today want to link arms with other movements to get the job done, the arms must be exclusively (chromosomally, hormonally, genitally, socially) female.
This book is apologetics for the modern trans-exclusionist, not for today’s feminist. Reading this alongside “Enemy Feminisms” by Sophie Lewis was like night and day. Lawford-Smith, despite the lip service for women of various minorities, cares very little of how ‘gender-critical feminism’ is seldom self-critical and how little it truly offers the women and people who walk this world in complexity.
‘Gender-Critical Feminism’ is part radical feminist history brief and part ‘gender-critical’ apologetics. I put ‘gender-critical’ in quotes because the term obscures a more pressing ideal of these feminists, in that trans people are largely excluded and trans people are forced to be categorized alongside FGM and forced births.
The author would and has strongly argued against this-
“…gender-critical feminism is regularly accused by other feminists of being…’anti-trans’. Is it? My answer is ‘no’…Because of this, it includes transmen [sic] and excludes transwomen. [sic]”
My counter is if you cite authors who ranged from hyper-sexualization to infantilization towards trans people, make inaccurate and false claims about trans people’s own healthcare, pulls quotes claiming that “features which…more likely to inflict violence against and otherwise oppress women…such as…testes, and higher testosterone.”, encourage conversion torture laws against trans people, saying lesbian culture is ruined when trans men transition, and say yourself that “self-destructive behavior by women and girls” include “elective double mastectomies…or phalloplasties”
…Then you are not, in fact, trans-inclusive, let alone for trans men.
Trans men are seldom mentioned, save for the instances where trans men are talked about as though they’re fragile little girls who need saving. Trans women, though, get ALL the criticism, scorn, and proposed legislation against. Of course, authors like this rarely ever think of the consequences that befall trans men as a result of bringing trans women down with unfair and illogical policing, but they don’t care.
As of writing this, the UK has effectively severed trans people, men and women, from being able to be housed in places like hospitals properly and are forced to either take a segregated third space or…no where. This benefits no one and is only made to cut trans people from communal and public life.
The book also takes criticism at ‘inclusive/intersectional’ feminisms…not that she’s a bigot or anything, ignoring that it bats for ‘gender-critical feminists’ like Meghan Murphy (trump supporter), Anna Slatz (affiliated with right-wing site Rebel News and published her uncritical interview of a neo-nazi), Jk Rowling (holocaust event denialist and accused multiple black and brown female athletes of being male, among other things), as well as strongly defending the Heritage Foundation (anti-abortion, anti-gay, climate denialist conservative think tank) of all things. Here’s the quote from the book, in reference to critics of Keen-Minshull (who platformed and encouraged many far-right people to her cause) meeting with The Heritage Foundation on anti-trans discussion;
“Why bother trying to characterize the political, moral, and intellectual disagreement, when you can just namedrop a conservative boogie-monster and let that do the work of letting everyone know which side they should be on?”
It seems the author, much like many anti-trans authors, would sooner like right-wing anti-feminist bedfellows than to have an inkling of actual support for trans people. Shocking.
In the same page, this quote is found;
“…The New York Times piece in 2019, Carol Hay…says she considers radical feminist Janice Raymond's 1979 book on transsexualism to be hate speech.”
Janice Raymond literally called all trans people rapists by nature of existing. It is, by definition, hate speech. The author even directly acknowledges this quote in the footnotes, but doesn’t think of it as hate speech.
It also needs mentioning that throughout, the book brushes off the concerns of current and former sex workers, and while the book itself promises to rid the world of xxx (can’t say the word, Goodreads might eat me) there isn’t a clear definition for what it is and how it would be policed. Two women who pleaded for the case of decriminalization in order to prevent women from being arrested themselves or forced to hide for something they shouldn’t be punished for go unheard as the author ops for the ‘Nordic Model’ of criminalization despite the aforementioned risk of women being pushed into unsafe conditions.
The author even says that xxx made by women and for women is bad because a man *might* be excited by it, and therefore it’s tainted.
It makes me wonder, then, if lesbian-made erotica should be censored and made criminal, what else is criminalized? Artistic nudity? Depictions of healthy sexuality? Sex education? Descriptions in memoirs about an author’s own sexual abuse?
The author gives no clear definition, and given that teaming with conservatives isn’t out of the picture, one has to wonder how far book bans will go.
The book also spends a great deal of time trying to say it’s an expansion of radical feminism without *being* radical feminism (uh huh), and being very critical of other feminisms for being too ‘inclusive’ of non-feminist issues (despite having a lengthy list at the end of feminist demands that largely overlap with the International Women’s Day demands shown at the beginning of the book). It’s not good enough that feminists of today want to link arms with other movements to get the job done, the arms must be exclusively (chromosomally, hormonally, genitally, socially) female.
This book is apologetics for the modern trans-exclusionist, not for today’s feminist. Reading this alongside “Enemy Feminisms” by Sophie Lewis was like night and day. Lawford-Smith, despite the lip service for women of various minorities, cares very little of how ‘gender-critical feminism’ is seldom self-critical and how little it truly offers the women and people who walk this world in complexity.
October 17, 2023
A brilliant analysis of GC feminism. Lawford-Smith has summed up what feminism should be and what it should aim to achieve. I'll definitely be referring back to the principles laid out in this book. Highly recommend for all women who want to centre women-focused feminism (a.k.a. actual feminism) and female liberation in their lives and politics.
November 6, 2022
Excellent and enlightening read. Covers different feminist schools of thought and puts gender critical feminism in the context of various feminist frameworks, including radical feminist roots to trying to find commonality with liberal feminism.
June 15, 2025
After wading through Janice Raymond's screed, wanted to read a politer version of gender critical feminism. To be sure, Lawford-Smith largely avoids the more obvious forms of polarizing language that hobble attempts to engage seriously with Raymond's thought. At a certain level this reflects Lawford-Smith's awareness that gender critical feminism has lost out in academia and the wider culture generally, in part, because it has an image problem. She has the hard task of explicating the movement's views and suggesting why it is not intolerant (or intolerant in the ways its strongest critics aver)—she necessarily has to avoid needlessly provocative language that would make this daunting task more difficult. In the end, she succeeds in not making her job harder even if (for this reader at least) she doesn't succeed in making a persuasive case for gender critical feminism. L-S locates gender critical feminism as the heir to the radical feminists of the 70s; so far, so second wave. It's that allegiance to the more strident positions of second wave feminism that are going to make L-S's arguments less compelling for a host of readers. To her credit, she takes up all the hard issues: pornography, prostitution, trans rights. The arguments she marshals are articulate and cogent, even if they aren't convincing. For me, the issues of abrogated negative liberty implicit everywhere in her argument are finally the dealbreaker. However, L-S argues in good faith, which means one could actually sit down and have a meaningful discussion about points of agreement. Indeed, L-S devotes part of her text to outlining potential areas of overlap for a gender critical feminist viewpoint with what she often calls the liberal feminism of today. One can understand why she wants to advocate for an undiluted feminism that seeks better for women as women without necessarily sharing her position. The text ties itself into some knots when it engages with arguments stemming from intersectional thinking. It isn't entirely clear from L-S's account why either 1) rejecting intersectional thinking in feminism doesn't end up privileging white, middle class views or 2) why advancing agendas on multiple fronts need be seen as a net loss for women. Again, while disagreeing with her views and arguments, I can actually engage with and appreciate the clarity of this text. L-S is surely right to call out cancel culture and to seek more engagement with differing points of view. Trans positive readers will find plenty to take issue with here; presumably it will be the arguments themselves rather than the expression of them (as in the case of Raymond) that will cause the heat. But it will be a heat that could produce light since one has the sense that L-S respects her potential antagonists.
February 20, 2023
This is a fantastic book to read if you want a better understanding of the roots, goals, and justifications of gender critical feminism.
It is very clearly written, Dr Lawford-Smith has a very concise and easy to follow writing style. It’s even funny in places. It has incredibly detailed references that often expand in detail on points or sources mentioned in the main text.
I went into this book thinking it would be mainly focused on Trans issues, and while that is covered, there is also a lot of space dedicated to other GC feminist concerns, notably pornography, prostitution and surrogacy.
I highly recommend this book, even if you are not sympathetic to GC feminism, it will give you a clear understanding of the thinking behind the movement from one of its leading advocates.
It is very clearly written, Dr Lawford-Smith has a very concise and easy to follow writing style. It’s even funny in places. It has incredibly detailed references that often expand in detail on points or sources mentioned in the main text.
I went into this book thinking it would be mainly focused on Trans issues, and while that is covered, there is also a lot of space dedicated to other GC feminist concerns, notably pornography, prostitution and surrogacy.
I highly recommend this book, even if you are not sympathetic to GC feminism, it will give you a clear understanding of the thinking behind the movement from one of its leading advocates.
January 19, 2025
I wanted to have a better understanding of this type of feminism. This is a very readable account of the movement, its aims, focus and how it differs from the more dominant liberal feminism. Areas of disagreement on porn / sex work as work, intersectionality and gender ideology are explored in a thoughtful way.
It's clear that she wants to be understood and so takes care to provide clear explanations - she uses examples well and takes care to unpack complex ideas. In my view it takes real skill and significant knowledge to produce an academic book which is accessible , informative and interesting to the non-specialist reader. I've learned loads from this one.
It's clear that she wants to be understood and so takes care to provide clear explanations - she uses examples well and takes care to unpack complex ideas. In my view it takes real skill and significant knowledge to produce an academic book which is accessible , informative and interesting to the non-specialist reader. I've learned loads from this one.
February 5, 2023
On reflection, this is the first feminist monograph I've ever read. Fortunately I chose a good one to start with. This a good book of serious philosophy, argued in plain language with clear reasoning.
When so many modern communications, even allegedly serious and formal ones, attempt to hoard virtue to their cause by mushing together different things under a couple of words with positive historical connotations (and doing the reverse to their opponents), it is refreshing to encounter arguments that make clear distinctions between different concepts: the author practices this very well and consistently. Concomitantly, she also deftly skewers the concept and demands of intersectionality, as they are currently wielded against radical and gender critical feminists in the post-modern, even post-truth, feminist movement.
There is a lot more in this book than just that though. While the author, the book and its publication gained infamy in the debate about Gender Identity ideology, a significant portion of the book is also devoted to feminist responses to porn and prostitution. In conclusion I would like to thank the woke thought police and the sensible, brave and empathetic opponents of Gender Identity ideology for bringing this book, and its erudite author, to my attention.
When so many modern communications, even allegedly serious and formal ones, attempt to hoard virtue to their cause by mushing together different things under a couple of words with positive historical connotations (and doing the reverse to their opponents), it is refreshing to encounter arguments that make clear distinctions between different concepts: the author practices this very well and consistently. Concomitantly, she also deftly skewers the concept and demands of intersectionality, as they are currently wielded against radical and gender critical feminists in the post-modern, even post-truth, feminist movement.
There is a lot more in this book than just that though. While the author, the book and its publication gained infamy in the debate about Gender Identity ideology, a significant portion of the book is also devoted to feminist responses to porn and prostitution. In conclusion I would like to thank the woke thought police and the sensible, brave and empathetic opponents of Gender Identity ideology for bringing this book, and its erudite author, to my attention.
April 13, 2024
"In 'Gender Critical Feminism,' Holly Lawford-Smith masterfully delivers a thought-provoking and insightful exploration of the complexities of gender identity and its implications for feminist theory and activism. Lawford-Smith's articulate and persuasive arguments challenge the dominant narrative and invite readers to consider a more nuanced approach to understanding gender. This book is a must-read for anyone interested in feminist theory or radical feminism and is sure to spark productive conversations, debate and hopefully change. Highly recommended!"
Great work Holly 💪🏼
April 9, 2024
This introduction in Gender-Critical Feminism by Holly Lawford-Smith (an associate professor of Political Philosophy on the University of Melbourne) is very respectful, the arguments are compelling, and the content is very accessible even for non-scholars. Despite the prejudice surrounding GC feminists, her view on feminism is not transphobic but female-centered, and thus includes trans men and non-binary female people.
November 25, 2024
An essential read! This book addressed concerns I have in relation to the current trend of silencing women who want to have conversations about the importance of maintaining safe spaces for women. It explains what gender-critical feminism is and puts a spotlight on the harmful gender norms that are applied to the sexes and it asks us to question how and why these oppressive norms exist. It's an empowering, engaging read. Bravo Holly Lawford-Smith!
Read
May 20, 2025This book presents the key principles of gender critical feminism. As someone who doesn’t align whatsoever with GCF, this was an extremely disquieting book to read. I picked it up because I think it’s important to be exposed to views that challenge my own.
Be advised! GCF is anti-intersectionality, trans-exclusionary, SW-exclusionary, anti-surrogacy and anti-p***.
If you want to understand more about the TERF/ SWERF/ Radfem thinking, this book would be the place to start.
Be advised! GCF is anti-intersectionality, trans-exclusionary, SW-exclusionary, anti-surrogacy and anti-p***.
If you want to understand more about the TERF/ SWERF/ Radfem thinking, this book would be the place to start.
June 18, 2024
A great book if you're looking for a thoroughly-researched book on gender critical feminism. It definitely reads as a more academic book and not infotainment, which was not really what I was in the mood for (and why I didn't finish the book). But if I were writing an academic paper related to the topic, this book and its citations would be a great start.
June 27, 2023
Excellent intro to gender-critical feminism, the radical feminism of the 21st century.
April 13, 2025
Calm, clear, sane thinking in a sea of enraged confusion.
August 16, 2025
Feminism With Teeth. That's how Lawford Smith ends this book detailing the history and stance of the gender critical movement. Have to say I agree with her.
This book sets out what gender critical feminism is, where it came from and why this feminism cannot be liberal and cannot fight for women on an intersectional basis. She made very convincing arguments for the last especially.
I wish all feminists, liberal or otherwise, would read this book, as it might change a few minds and educate people on why gc feminism is the most powerful and woman centred feminism right now and why it attracts women from across the social and political spectrum. Great read, highly recommend.
This book sets out what gender critical feminism is, where it came from and why this feminism cannot be liberal and cannot fight for women on an intersectional basis. She made very convincing arguments for the last especially.
I wish all feminists, liberal or otherwise, would read this book, as it might change a few minds and educate people on why gc feminism is the most powerful and woman centred feminism right now and why it attracts women from across the social and political spectrum. Great read, highly recommend.
Displaying 1 - 21 of 21 reviews