What do you think?
Rate this book
Born in the Right Body: Gender Identity Ideology From a Medical and Feminist Perspective
For over a century, feminists have campaigned for women's sex-based rights, despite the violent backlash from men. They recognised that women's health and well-being, participation in public life and their ability to escape abuse were the most urgent human rights issues affecting the female sex. The backlash from men was carried out in the physical – by using oppression and violence – but it was justified with metaphysical theories about women's brains, a feminine psyche and the innate nature of gender stereotypes. Obscure scientific methods of dubious significance, like phrenology, kept being devised to try and substantiate this empirically.
Needless to say, such methods have been abandoned as quackery, and we now know that none of the assumptions about women on which male supremacy was based were correct. Despite this, the tendency toward justifying discrimination against women and girls has not disappeared with technological advancements in the 21st century. Now, instead of phrenology and fanciful ideas about "wandering wombs", we have brain scans being used to allegedly prove that feminine males and masculine females were "born in the wrong body" and that their psychological distress can be cured by medical and surgical procedures designed to make them resemble the opposite sex.
This collection of essays is my testament to the feminists who have campaigned so painfully and courageously, and for so long, and those that continue to fight to this day - and beyond.
Needless to say, such methods have been abandoned as quackery, and we now know that none of the assumptions about women on which male supremacy was based were correct. Despite this, the tendency toward justifying discrimination against women and girls has not disappeared with technological advancements in the 21st century. Now, instead of phrenology and fanciful ideas about "wandering wombs", we have brain scans being used to allegedly prove that feminine males and masculine females were "born in the wrong body" and that their psychological distress can be cured by medical and surgical procedures designed to make them resemble the opposite sex.
This collection of essays is my testament to the feminists who have campaigned so painfully and courageously, and for so long, and those that continue to fight to this day - and beyond.
372 pages, Kindle Edition
First published November 21, 2022
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 8 of 8 reviews
January 6, 2023
Well written and meticulously researched collection of essays exploring the phenomenon of gender identity ideology. The complex issues and medical scandal around trans identifying adults and the vulnerable children being harmed by this are explained in an accessible and compassionate way. There are extensive references and the Kindle version has working links to the science and evidence that support the arguments made. A must read for anyone concerned or confused by men calling themselves women and insisting on being called Miss or she/her. Amazing.
January 26, 2023
Excellent book on the transgender identity movement, or more accurately cult, from an evidence-based perspective. A lot of things most of us already knew, but also some shocking revelations on just how little research has been conducted into this area. It is very scary indeed to think how transrights activism has permeated to the highest levels of law and medicine despite a dearth of literature on how (if at all) "affirming" care is in the best interests of patients.
Fantastic exploration of the tactics used by transactivists to suppress and silence those who question the logic of replacing sex-based rights with gender-based rights.
Cons: Got a little repetitive in places.
The chapter on asexuality left a lot to be desired.
Certainly asexuality, like transgenderism, depends on the person's behaviours, feelings and statements about themselves rather than any clear-cut, objective criteria. So maybe it is not innate, and is, as Sanger argues, a grab-bag of any number of possible medical conditions. No doubt there is some truth in Sanger's assertions that, for example, asexuality is a "creative" way for some women to safeguard themselves physically and emotionally from the pitfalls of reproduction with men. But whilst the definition has dwindled into incoherence over the years in an effort to accommodate every Tom, Dick and Harriet, many women (and men) do experience a genuine lifelong lack of sexual attraction. I am not suggesting asexuality should be mindlessly lauded or that potential medical causes should not be ruled out, only that sexual desire is alive and well and humans are breeding like rabbits. When all's said and done asexuality, in practice, is in a different ballpark from transgenderism. The harms of the asexual movement pale in comparison to the influence of trans/gender ideology infringing on women's sex-based rights.
Fantastic exploration of the tactics used by transactivists to suppress and silence those who question the logic of replacing sex-based rights with gender-based rights.
Cons: Got a little repetitive in places.
The chapter on asexuality left a lot to be desired.
Certainly asexuality, like transgenderism, depends on the person's behaviours, feelings and statements about themselves rather than any clear-cut, objective criteria. So maybe it is not innate, and is, as Sanger argues, a grab-bag of any number of possible medical conditions. No doubt there is some truth in Sanger's assertions that, for example, asexuality is a "creative" way for some women to safeguard themselves physically and emotionally from the pitfalls of reproduction with men. But whilst the definition has dwindled into incoherence over the years in an effort to accommodate every Tom, Dick and Harriet, many women (and men) do experience a genuine lifelong lack of sexual attraction. I am not suggesting asexuality should be mindlessly lauded or that potential medical causes should not be ruled out, only that sexual desire is alive and well and humans are breeding like rabbits. When all's said and done asexuality, in practice, is in a different ballpark from transgenderism. The harms of the asexual movement pale in comparison to the influence of trans/gender ideology infringing on women's sex-based rights.
January 15, 2023
Fantastic and well-written collection of essays about the truth of the transgender ideologically possessed movement and its dangers. A must read for parents, medical professionals, politicians and anyone interested in this topic.
March 12, 2023
Lots of evidence-based (and with extensive bibliographies) essays regarding the utter nonsense that is transgender ideology. Very disturbing on the subject of institutional capture in the medical sector. Women are being vilified, patients subject to irreversible and life-changing surgeries despite evidence that these do nothing to improve mental well-being.
June 20, 2026
Poorly written, emotion-driven book. I am myself a gender abolitionist and gender critical person but this lecture was very bad. I've read numerous gender critical books, and this is one of the most misinformed one ever. A book that a moron would drool over and give a 5 star on.
First of all this book is not really professionally written. It thrives on sensationalism. It is very reactionary and monolithic. Very emotion-based rather than fact-based. Many claims are took out of the ass and not sourced, despite their objective tone. The obsession of the word "ideology" makes me cringe. The constant sex binary worshipping does the same. It is full of fear-mongering, intended for an audience of scared parents rather than a mature, critical one. The terminology is hostile and rude. So is the disrespect. The author is obsessed over fictional scenarios in many parts of the book.
I will criticize some sentences from this book in the following paragraphs
"On the other hand, women who change their sex markers to male stop being automatically invited for sex appropriate breat and cervical screening"
Big lie and the lack of source is in itself very telling. All endocrinologists recommend to female-to-male transsexuals regular pap smears tests and checks of breast tissue malignancy because they know testosterone increases those risks. They are informed of increased malignancy on testosterone therapy and recommend in the first 5 years hysterectomy to avoid ovarian cancer and PCOS-like symptoms.
No doctor would refuse a ftm transsexual a screening when they still have female sexual characteristics.
"How can they reduce the female half of the population to the appearance and body parts, and fail to consider their humanity"
Authors belief on what a woman is female human being (I don't disagree). A female is somebody with a vagina (body part), and estrogen induced morphology (appearance). To be of female sex is to have specific primary and secondary sexual parts. This is objectively the definition of female. It is not reduction to state that to be a female you need specific parts of the female sex. I do not understand what is a female (from this perspective) if not primary and secondary sexual parts.
"Almost all humans are normally sexed, and those who are born with disorders of sex development (DSDs) are still either female or male, albeit with some differences from the norm"
This is a contradiction in itself. If you have differences from a presumably binary sex system, you do not fit said system no matter how much you cope. You will have deeply different experiences of life as a intersexed female, than an endosexual female.
"Its worth mentioning that hermaphrodite, just like intersex, when applied to humans is a misnomer"
Interestingly how this book presumably criticizes a group of people who speaks over them, and turns around and does the same to another group. Again, no source on this claim. Intersex is a recent term. It is not a misnomer. To even imply hermaphrodite Is on the same level as intersex is straight up disrespect to a group of people who got mutilated since children by the medical system FOR NOT FITTING A SEX BINARY.
Author is erasing the reason why intersex individuals, both today and in the past, were discriminated: they did not fit the norm. You can parrot the same thing, women without ovaries are 100% female and men without testicles are 100% males, but it won't change the fact their experience is highly different from one of a normal male and female (need HRT to live (basically a lifelong patient), experience IGM, experience medical maltreatment due to being intersex). They are oppressed on the basis of NOT fitting in the norm. They are oppressed because of those differences. Intersex children of the John Hopkins hospital that were taken as experiments and exotic beings did not die for this.
"DSDs advocates have long asked both transactivists and the medical profession to stop using terms such as intersex and hermaphrodite to describe them, as these terms are erroneous and stigmatizing"
Again no source. Most of intersex individuals do not like the DSD terminology, because, if you use your brain, nobody likes to be called a disordered or failed fe/male. The DSD terminology feels mutilating in itself. I find it hilarious that those fictional DSD advocates find the term intersex as "stigmatizing" but not literally the words "sex disordered fe/male". In multiple online surveys intersexed individuals found both the words DSD and hermaphrodite as offensive and prefered to be called intersex. I have a feeling that endosexuals who think intersex is le big evil word and we should use DSD are the same people would defend with their life the word pseudohermaphrodite back in the 80s because "that's what the doctors said".
"One of John Money's most famous and tragic cases involved a Canadian boy called David Reimer[...]"
Using the Reimer case a guiltriping tactic and comparing it to CONSENTING adults choosing to undergo HRT and surgeries is immaculately insensitive. The Reimer case proves that you cannot trans children, and that children have a fixed sex identity since birth. It proves that parents choosing their child sex and deciding over their feelings ruins children lives. Reimer doesn't disprove sex identity incongruence. Another thing I find funny is the author obviously doesn't know who John Money is. Money himself hated transsexual people and even had a hateful letter sent to a trans woman about how she will never be a woman. He strongly believed in conversion therapy and that you can detrans children (with procedures akin to brainwash (spoiler, none of his methods detransed the kids and their sex incongruity remained, now with distress from prolonged conversion abuse)). Money didn't create the concept of gender identity out of love for transgenders or diversity, he created it because he wanted a second sex binary to justify mutilation on intersex patients. Back when he was alive, he couldn't bear the reality that SEX IS A SPECTRUM, thus creating gender as a result an explanation for intersex children. His reasoning for this are the base of modern day intersex genital mutilation that happens in every single country in the world. Money would very much love the authors book if he was alive today.
"The take home message here is: it is important to keep in mind that biological sex cannot be changed by any known medical procedure"
Yes it can. The act of taking HRT changes your hormonal sex, as we can see in the effects of transsexuals bodies on HRT. Author thinks sex is one singular trait. Sex is multiple primary and secondary characteristics. Chromosomes, gonads/gametes, hormones, genitals, and male/female reproductive organs (uterus, prostate, etc). Sex can be mutable, because sex is sexual characteristics and sexual characteristics can be mutable/changed. Denying this is simply denying the clear objective effects of HRT. The only immutable sex characteristic is chromosomes, also known as somatic/genetic sex. Uterus, ovaries, and testicles, while unable to be transformed in each other, can be removed, which objectively means they are mutable.
"Normal blood test values vary between the sexes and not knowing the true sex of a patient could lead to under treatment, over treatment, missing a diagnosis or making a wrong one"
AGAIN, no source provided. This blood transfer fear monger is blown out of proportions. The times where the blood from a specific sex truly is important to be known is when said individual is a pregnant woman.
In chapter 5, case study 1, author takes a case of a ftm transsexual developing kidney malignancy and blames it on the testosterone, when the patient had Kawasakis disease as a toddler. The author has an almost conspiracy theory that the kidney issue is not because of that, but because of the scary testosterone hormone increasing kidney deterioration. The transsexual was on IM injections. Known kidney issues due to HRT apply to oral pills, which no longer are prescribed due to the exact reason above.
Author also dives into saying that using patient preferred pronouns can DEEPLY affect clinical work and create clinical errors. I believe that not being a retard is more important in not making clinical errors than using the so called "wrong sex" pronouns (because pronouns have a biological sex) on a patient.
"However, gender identity ideology has already demonstrated the power to compel clinicians to ignore what their own eyes, instincts and years of clinical experience are trying to tell them"
Another thing interesting is that creator ruthlessly says how gender is inherently socially constructed, harmful stereotypes, and gender is evil (I agree). But at the same time, clinicians can "tell" if someone's a woman or a man by how they "look", indirectly implying that women and men have a "look" (alias the stereotypical gendered morphology associated with them). Another thing almost hilarious to read is that clinicians have an "instinct" of detecting females and males, again, which is a gender ideology belief. This spiritual clocking that clinicians do is something i'd see in a fictional theologist movie.
"The only thing that modern medicine is capable of doing is modifying human bodies to superficially resemble the opposite sex, through the use of opposite sex hormones and cosmetic surgery"
What is opposite sex hormone, when both females and males have estrogen/testosterone in their bodies? What is "girl hormone" and "boy hormone"? Modern medicine is capable of changing specific sexual characteristics; genital sex, hormonal sex, gonadal sex, and other sexed internal characteristics. True, somatic sex cannot be changed yet. But the others can be changed. Sexual characteristics are material. Some can be modified because they are PHYSICAL, not genetic. The act of taking the penis and rebuilding it into the anatomy of a vagina, with its functions (limited to only sexual intercourse although, due to lack of lubrication) is objectively no longer a penis. Call it whatever; mutilation, self harm, mental illness, rotten meat. But it is no longer a penis.
"Systematically the word woman started to disappear from women's health on account of being offensive and exclusionary[...]"
No source was provided here either. Today, laws pass everyday to stop transsexuals into transitioning and entering their desired sex places. This is a sensationalist sentence to fear monger the evil fictional rapist troon, when males kill and rape women in daylight without facing consequences. Men don't need to put a wig and makeup to rape women in bathrooms, they do it on the street, at home, in restaurants, in parks, at workplace as MALES, because they have accessibility to women whenever, however. I don't understand why a male would go to that extend when he can just rape wherever, while knowing he won't face recursions, or simply enter a bathroom as a male and assault a woman. Why do they need to pretend NOW when historically they never did. I assume author books was written pre-trans law bans in UK
"For example, we are already hearing about patients with DSDs struggling to access hormone supplementation because their clinicians have become so impressed by the "de-pathologising" arguments, they have come to believe DSDs are just a normal variation within the "sex spectrum"
No source yet again. Nowhere in the world do doctors believe intersex individuals are just a "natural variation" of the sex spectrum because if they did they wouldn't do genital mutilation on intersex infants, force them to be on HRT for life because they removed perfectly healthy testicles that happened to be undescended, and stigmatizing them to be silent about their condition. Completely fictional sentence blown out of proportions that all non-intersexed anti-trans individuals can validate each other with. Yes, intersex individuals get medical maltreatment a lot, but not because doctors believe they are "normal variations" but because they believe the opposite; defects that they don't know how to deal with.
The lack of sources on those claims is telling on itself.
"Likewise, masculinising doses of testosterone when prescribed to females abnormally elevate their serum testosterone [...] to post menopausal levels"
I don't think author is aware this is exactly what the female-to-male transsexual wants. They do not want an uterus or menstruation cycle. This is a wanted result. I recommend author should learn what consent means.
"Claim to he transgender, however, and your surgery (author refers to a hysterectomy) will be booked with no quibble"
Author makes up a fictional delusion yet again, and gets mad at it. Female-to-male transsexuals have to wait months, if not years and even decades for surgeries like this. They undergo much therapy and psychological evaluation to see if they are suitable for such a surgery. It is no easy for them. This also contradicts the wide accepted belief of TERFs that ftms are women and experience the same type of oppression as non-trans females, including not being allowed of autonomy over your body (such a hysterectomy). I'd call this a Freudian slip.
"The goal of treating all these conditions is to restore normal hormone levels. In the context of medical gender reassignment, we are led to believe the opposite - the doctors inducing severe hormonal imbalances for the rest of the patients life is beneficial for patients help"
Author did 0 research in HRT. HRT doses at one point in transition override the original sex hormones of the body. When individual does removal of gonadal sex, and is on HRT, he objectively has more stable hormonal level than an individual with gonadal sex and without HRT, due to regular, fixed hormone dosages every week. There are not "severe hormone imbalances" in the body in long term transition, as progesterone stops the production of testosterone in mtfs and testosterone limits heavily the production of estrogen in ftms.
Author also cannot wrap their head around medical consent and cannot believe trans-"identified" individuals want such a thing. HRT is indeed beneficial for those evil, mentally ill trans-"identified" individuals because it increases life quality and happiness.
"Both sexes acquire an increased risk of cancer and cardiovascular diseases"
Again, no source provided. The risks of cancer and cardiovascular diseases is blown out of proportions. Trans individuals have the same risks as cis individuals. Trans women who take HRT have a decreased risk of prostate cancer, but a cis woman risk of blood clots. Trans men who take HRT have higher cancer risks if they are on treatment for more than 5 years without removal of the uterus, which most do get rid of. They have the same risks of heart attack like cis men.
"Therefore, they ask that doctors treat this mind distress not with psychological therapies that aim to help the mind accept the body as it is, but by modifying the body to fulfill the desires of the mind"
I simply don't understand what is wrong with this. Author seems to want to do conversion therapy (that DEFINITELY never was used on trans individuals and DEFINITELY didn't fail and the only result was more psychological torture to trans individuals). Despite hating on John Money, author wants his methods of "detransing" therapy back. Money believed trans identity can be unlearnt.
Authors ignorance and uneducated claims proves me that author didn't research in the history of transgender individuals, and only took parts of different research that affirmed their bias only. Research that apparently is "better" than "pro-trans research".
"Patients may not be happy with us, they might not get exactly what they want in the moment and they might end up resenting us for it, but we need to fulfill our ethical obligations towards them"
And those ethical obligations are decided by who? What are those ethical obligations, in the first place? The ethical obligation of driving your patients to suicide or 1900s conversion therapy? The world would truly be nice if what author believes in actually happened. The refusal of giving trans patients their MEDICATION (because in essence this is what it is), won't suddenly make them love their body, it would either make them kill themselves (made up suicide statistics, according to the author!), or DIY hormones/surgery (black market/illegal hormones and operations). Famously, banning drugs has stopped the production of the drugs! Trans individuals will find ways to get what they need illegally or off the black market, whether you like it or not.
"Considering that sexuality and sexual orientation only starts to develop in puberty [...]"
Oh God. Stop. Just stop. Enough. You can't have a strong opinion on what's good for trans-"identified" children if you don't even know how children work. Many studies showed that child sexual orientation or sexuality is present before puberty. In the case of homosexual men, the median age of some studies was 7~ years old, and even younger. Cross-dressing behavior with sexual arousal in boys with transvestic fetishism is present as young as 4 years old. I am not saying this is normal, but I am saying sexual orientation is present way before puberty, just not intensified/triggered by puberty. You can easily find those researches by one Google click.
"Its not only our eyes but other senses, including smell, hearing and instincts, that helps us determine whether someone is male or female"
Author talks about the 2 sexes as if they're made of silk. There are no inborn instincts that clock people as "female" or "male". Those "instincts" are just as real as the "motherly instinct", aka it's a delusion. In what WORLD can you tell if someone is male or female by smelling them? There is no "way" a man or woman looks like. There's no "way" a man or woman smells like. There's no "way" to tell if someone's sex is truly female or male just by looking. The only thing that show us whether someone is truly male or female is lab tests of chromosomes, hormones, genitals and gonads. NO smell, NO instinct, NO hearing, NO seeing. We can only *ASSUME* sex.
The reason why we can "tell" if someone's male or female is because of patriarchal conditioning on how women and men "should look like", not evolution. Author mistakenly thinks sex is a concept unaffected from patriarchy. Sex is as real as gender is. Gender wouldn't exist without sex. Sex-based oppression won't disappear with gender abolition, neither transsexuals.
I believe this book isn't radical feminist neither gender critical, but simply anti-trans/trans critical. Author says contradictory things. Author in one sentence criticizes gender but then in another tells us we can clock if someone's male or female by smelling them. Author doesn't know how HRT works and what effects does on it's body. Author seems to demonize any choice a trans* individual might choose.
First of all this book is not really professionally written. It thrives on sensationalism. It is very reactionary and monolithic. Very emotion-based rather than fact-based. Many claims are took out of the ass and not sourced, despite their objective tone. The obsession of the word "ideology" makes me cringe. The constant sex binary worshipping does the same. It is full of fear-mongering, intended for an audience of scared parents rather than a mature, critical one. The terminology is hostile and rude. So is the disrespect. The author is obsessed over fictional scenarios in many parts of the book.
I will criticize some sentences from this book in the following paragraphs
"On the other hand, women who change their sex markers to male stop being automatically invited for sex appropriate breat and cervical screening"
Big lie and the lack of source is in itself very telling. All endocrinologists recommend to female-to-male transsexuals regular pap smears tests and checks of breast tissue malignancy because they know testosterone increases those risks. They are informed of increased malignancy on testosterone therapy and recommend in the first 5 years hysterectomy to avoid ovarian cancer and PCOS-like symptoms.
No doctor would refuse a ftm transsexual a screening when they still have female sexual characteristics.
"How can they reduce the female half of the population to the appearance and body parts, and fail to consider their humanity"
Authors belief on what a woman is female human being (I don't disagree). A female is somebody with a vagina (body part), and estrogen induced morphology (appearance). To be of female sex is to have specific primary and secondary sexual parts. This is objectively the definition of female. It is not reduction to state that to be a female you need specific parts of the female sex. I do not understand what is a female (from this perspective) if not primary and secondary sexual parts.
"Almost all humans are normally sexed, and those who are born with disorders of sex development (DSDs) are still either female or male, albeit with some differences from the norm"
This is a contradiction in itself. If you have differences from a presumably binary sex system, you do not fit said system no matter how much you cope. You will have deeply different experiences of life as a intersexed female, than an endosexual female.
"Its worth mentioning that hermaphrodite, just like intersex, when applied to humans is a misnomer"
Interestingly how this book presumably criticizes a group of people who speaks over them, and turns around and does the same to another group. Again, no source on this claim. Intersex is a recent term. It is not a misnomer. To even imply hermaphrodite Is on the same level as intersex is straight up disrespect to a group of people who got mutilated since children by the medical system FOR NOT FITTING A SEX BINARY.
Author is erasing the reason why intersex individuals, both today and in the past, were discriminated: they did not fit the norm. You can parrot the same thing, women without ovaries are 100% female and men without testicles are 100% males, but it won't change the fact their experience is highly different from one of a normal male and female (need HRT to live (basically a lifelong patient), experience IGM, experience medical maltreatment due to being intersex). They are oppressed on the basis of NOT fitting in the norm. They are oppressed because of those differences. Intersex children of the John Hopkins hospital that were taken as experiments and exotic beings did not die for this.
"DSDs advocates have long asked both transactivists and the medical profession to stop using terms such as intersex and hermaphrodite to describe them, as these terms are erroneous and stigmatizing"
Again no source. Most of intersex individuals do not like the DSD terminology, because, if you use your brain, nobody likes to be called a disordered or failed fe/male. The DSD terminology feels mutilating in itself. I find it hilarious that those fictional DSD advocates find the term intersex as "stigmatizing" but not literally the words "sex disordered fe/male". In multiple online surveys intersexed individuals found both the words DSD and hermaphrodite as offensive and prefered to be called intersex. I have a feeling that endosexuals who think intersex is le big evil word and we should use DSD are the same people would defend with their life the word pseudohermaphrodite back in the 80s because "that's what the doctors said".
"One of John Money's most famous and tragic cases involved a Canadian boy called David Reimer[...]"
Using the Reimer case a guiltriping tactic and comparing it to CONSENTING adults choosing to undergo HRT and surgeries is immaculately insensitive. The Reimer case proves that you cannot trans children, and that children have a fixed sex identity since birth. It proves that parents choosing their child sex and deciding over their feelings ruins children lives. Reimer doesn't disprove sex identity incongruence. Another thing I find funny is the author obviously doesn't know who John Money is. Money himself hated transsexual people and even had a hateful letter sent to a trans woman about how she will never be a woman. He strongly believed in conversion therapy and that you can detrans children (with procedures akin to brainwash (spoiler, none of his methods detransed the kids and their sex incongruity remained, now with distress from prolonged conversion abuse)). Money didn't create the concept of gender identity out of love for transgenders or diversity, he created it because he wanted a second sex binary to justify mutilation on intersex patients. Back when he was alive, he couldn't bear the reality that SEX IS A SPECTRUM, thus creating gender as a result an explanation for intersex children. His reasoning for this are the base of modern day intersex genital mutilation that happens in every single country in the world. Money would very much love the authors book if he was alive today.
"The take home message here is: it is important to keep in mind that biological sex cannot be changed by any known medical procedure"
Yes it can. The act of taking HRT changes your hormonal sex, as we can see in the effects of transsexuals bodies on HRT. Author thinks sex is one singular trait. Sex is multiple primary and secondary characteristics. Chromosomes, gonads/gametes, hormones, genitals, and male/female reproductive organs (uterus, prostate, etc). Sex can be mutable, because sex is sexual characteristics and sexual characteristics can be mutable/changed. Denying this is simply denying the clear objective effects of HRT. The only immutable sex characteristic is chromosomes, also known as somatic/genetic sex. Uterus, ovaries, and testicles, while unable to be transformed in each other, can be removed, which objectively means they are mutable.
"Normal blood test values vary between the sexes and not knowing the true sex of a patient could lead to under treatment, over treatment, missing a diagnosis or making a wrong one"
AGAIN, no source provided. This blood transfer fear monger is blown out of proportions. The times where the blood from a specific sex truly is important to be known is when said individual is a pregnant woman.
In chapter 5, case study 1, author takes a case of a ftm transsexual developing kidney malignancy and blames it on the testosterone, when the patient had Kawasakis disease as a toddler. The author has an almost conspiracy theory that the kidney issue is not because of that, but because of the scary testosterone hormone increasing kidney deterioration. The transsexual was on IM injections. Known kidney issues due to HRT apply to oral pills, which no longer are prescribed due to the exact reason above.
Author also dives into saying that using patient preferred pronouns can DEEPLY affect clinical work and create clinical errors. I believe that not being a retard is more important in not making clinical errors than using the so called "wrong sex" pronouns (because pronouns have a biological sex) on a patient.
"However, gender identity ideology has already demonstrated the power to compel clinicians to ignore what their own eyes, instincts and years of clinical experience are trying to tell them"
Another thing interesting is that creator ruthlessly says how gender is inherently socially constructed, harmful stereotypes, and gender is evil (I agree). But at the same time, clinicians can "tell" if someone's a woman or a man by how they "look", indirectly implying that women and men have a "look" (alias the stereotypical gendered morphology associated with them). Another thing almost hilarious to read is that clinicians have an "instinct" of detecting females and males, again, which is a gender ideology belief. This spiritual clocking that clinicians do is something i'd see in a fictional theologist movie.
"The only thing that modern medicine is capable of doing is modifying human bodies to superficially resemble the opposite sex, through the use of opposite sex hormones and cosmetic surgery"
What is opposite sex hormone, when both females and males have estrogen/testosterone in their bodies? What is "girl hormone" and "boy hormone"? Modern medicine is capable of changing specific sexual characteristics; genital sex, hormonal sex, gonadal sex, and other sexed internal characteristics. True, somatic sex cannot be changed yet. But the others can be changed. Sexual characteristics are material. Some can be modified because they are PHYSICAL, not genetic. The act of taking the penis and rebuilding it into the anatomy of a vagina, with its functions (limited to only sexual intercourse although, due to lack of lubrication) is objectively no longer a penis. Call it whatever; mutilation, self harm, mental illness, rotten meat. But it is no longer a penis.
"Systematically the word woman started to disappear from women's health on account of being offensive and exclusionary[...]"
No source was provided here either. Today, laws pass everyday to stop transsexuals into transitioning and entering their desired sex places. This is a sensationalist sentence to fear monger the evil fictional rapist troon, when males kill and rape women in daylight without facing consequences. Men don't need to put a wig and makeup to rape women in bathrooms, they do it on the street, at home, in restaurants, in parks, at workplace as MALES, because they have accessibility to women whenever, however. I don't understand why a male would go to that extend when he can just rape wherever, while knowing he won't face recursions, or simply enter a bathroom as a male and assault a woman. Why do they need to pretend NOW when historically they never did. I assume author books was written pre-trans law bans in UK
"For example, we are already hearing about patients with DSDs struggling to access hormone supplementation because their clinicians have become so impressed by the "de-pathologising" arguments, they have come to believe DSDs are just a normal variation within the "sex spectrum"
No source yet again. Nowhere in the world do doctors believe intersex individuals are just a "natural variation" of the sex spectrum because if they did they wouldn't do genital mutilation on intersex infants, force them to be on HRT for life because they removed perfectly healthy testicles that happened to be undescended, and stigmatizing them to be silent about their condition. Completely fictional sentence blown out of proportions that all non-intersexed anti-trans individuals can validate each other with. Yes, intersex individuals get medical maltreatment a lot, but not because doctors believe they are "normal variations" but because they believe the opposite; defects that they don't know how to deal with.
The lack of sources on those claims is telling on itself.
"Likewise, masculinising doses of testosterone when prescribed to females abnormally elevate their serum testosterone [...] to post menopausal levels"
I don't think author is aware this is exactly what the female-to-male transsexual wants. They do not want an uterus or menstruation cycle. This is a wanted result. I recommend author should learn what consent means.
"Claim to he transgender, however, and your surgery (author refers to a hysterectomy) will be booked with no quibble"
Author makes up a fictional delusion yet again, and gets mad at it. Female-to-male transsexuals have to wait months, if not years and even decades for surgeries like this. They undergo much therapy and psychological evaluation to see if they are suitable for such a surgery. It is no easy for them. This also contradicts the wide accepted belief of TERFs that ftms are women and experience the same type of oppression as non-trans females, including not being allowed of autonomy over your body (such a hysterectomy). I'd call this a Freudian slip.
"The goal of treating all these conditions is to restore normal hormone levels. In the context of medical gender reassignment, we are led to believe the opposite - the doctors inducing severe hormonal imbalances for the rest of the patients life is beneficial for patients help"
Author did 0 research in HRT. HRT doses at one point in transition override the original sex hormones of the body. When individual does removal of gonadal sex, and is on HRT, he objectively has more stable hormonal level than an individual with gonadal sex and without HRT, due to regular, fixed hormone dosages every week. There are not "severe hormone imbalances" in the body in long term transition, as progesterone stops the production of testosterone in mtfs and testosterone limits heavily the production of estrogen in ftms.
Author also cannot wrap their head around medical consent and cannot believe trans-"identified" individuals want such a thing. HRT is indeed beneficial for those evil, mentally ill trans-"identified" individuals because it increases life quality and happiness.
"Both sexes acquire an increased risk of cancer and cardiovascular diseases"
Again, no source provided. The risks of cancer and cardiovascular diseases is blown out of proportions. Trans individuals have the same risks as cis individuals. Trans women who take HRT have a decreased risk of prostate cancer, but a cis woman risk of blood clots. Trans men who take HRT have higher cancer risks if they are on treatment for more than 5 years without removal of the uterus, which most do get rid of. They have the same risks of heart attack like cis men.
"Therefore, they ask that doctors treat this mind distress not with psychological therapies that aim to help the mind accept the body as it is, but by modifying the body to fulfill the desires of the mind"
I simply don't understand what is wrong with this. Author seems to want to do conversion therapy (that DEFINITELY never was used on trans individuals and DEFINITELY didn't fail and the only result was more psychological torture to trans individuals). Despite hating on John Money, author wants his methods of "detransing" therapy back. Money believed trans identity can be unlearnt.
Authors ignorance and uneducated claims proves me that author didn't research in the history of transgender individuals, and only took parts of different research that affirmed their bias only. Research that apparently is "better" than "pro-trans research".
"Patients may not be happy with us, they might not get exactly what they want in the moment and they might end up resenting us for it, but we need to fulfill our ethical obligations towards them"
And those ethical obligations are decided by who? What are those ethical obligations, in the first place? The ethical obligation of driving your patients to suicide or 1900s conversion therapy? The world would truly be nice if what author believes in actually happened. The refusal of giving trans patients their MEDICATION (because in essence this is what it is), won't suddenly make them love their body, it would either make them kill themselves (made up suicide statistics, according to the author!), or DIY hormones/surgery (black market/illegal hormones and operations). Famously, banning drugs has stopped the production of the drugs! Trans individuals will find ways to get what they need illegally or off the black market, whether you like it or not.
"Considering that sexuality and sexual orientation only starts to develop in puberty [...]"
Oh God. Stop. Just stop. Enough. You can't have a strong opinion on what's good for trans-"identified" children if you don't even know how children work. Many studies showed that child sexual orientation or sexuality is present before puberty. In the case of homosexual men, the median age of some studies was 7~ years old, and even younger. Cross-dressing behavior with sexual arousal in boys with transvestic fetishism is present as young as 4 years old. I am not saying this is normal, but I am saying sexual orientation is present way before puberty, just not intensified/triggered by puberty. You can easily find those researches by one Google click.
"Its not only our eyes but other senses, including smell, hearing and instincts, that helps us determine whether someone is male or female"
Author talks about the 2 sexes as if they're made of silk. There are no inborn instincts that clock people as "female" or "male". Those "instincts" are just as real as the "motherly instinct", aka it's a delusion. In what WORLD can you tell if someone is male or female by smelling them? There is no "way" a man or woman looks like. There's no "way" a man or woman smells like. There's no "way" to tell if someone's sex is truly female or male just by looking. The only thing that show us whether someone is truly male or female is lab tests of chromosomes, hormones, genitals and gonads. NO smell, NO instinct, NO hearing, NO seeing. We can only *ASSUME* sex.
The reason why we can "tell" if someone's male or female is because of patriarchal conditioning on how women and men "should look like", not evolution. Author mistakenly thinks sex is a concept unaffected from patriarchy. Sex is as real as gender is. Gender wouldn't exist without sex. Sex-based oppression won't disappear with gender abolition, neither transsexuals.
I believe this book isn't radical feminist neither gender critical, but simply anti-trans/trans critical. Author says contradictory things. Author in one sentence criticizes gender but then in another tells us we can clock if someone's male or female by smelling them. Author doesn't know how HRT works and what effects does on it's body. Author seems to demonize any choice a trans* individual might choose.
January 9, 2025
well-researched and evidence-based book outlining simple logical arguments about the lies that permeate gender ideology. there are many reasons sex should remain important to document and should not be conflated with the socially constructed idea of gender roles and identity.
December 2, 2023
Excellent overview of issues relating to gender Clearly written
July 4, 2025
This was a very informative and accessible book on the issue of transgenderism and gender identity. It had a lot of information and evidence on the issue as a whole and about gender dysphoria as a medical condition, not just about the effect it has on women's rights.
I appreciate the author providing an important counter-argument to 'affirmation only' approaches to treating gender dysphoria, regardless of the many physical and social issues this causes for those who are diagnosed, and for the rest of society, written in a factual, non-hateful way.
I appreciate the author providing an important counter-argument to 'affirmation only' approaches to treating gender dysphoria, regardless of the many physical and social issues this causes for those who are diagnosed, and for the rest of society, written in a factual, non-hateful way.
Displaying 1 - 8 of 8 reviews