Scan barcode
pictusfish's review against another edition
4.0
An interesting book, although the author's profuse and inappropriate use of commas made it difficult to follow at times.
aura_sv's review against another edition
5.0
Duro de leer, pero indispensable. Necesario para entender cómo el género es un mecanismo de opresión y una estructura para doblegar a las personas que caen presas de él. Es increíble toda la violencia que se está ejerciendo disfrazando el género de modernidad, de identidad y de derecho humano. Creo que en algunos años, cuando tengamos que lidiar con las consecuencias de su defensa, no vamos a entender cómo permitimos que se dañe tan profundamente y de forma tan perversa e irreversible a tantas personas, especialmente infantes y adolescentes, que solo buscan desarrollarse en libertad. Gracias a autoras como Sheila que saben todo el odio que les caerá encima, pero que aún así documentan y difunden sin miedo la verdad.
quackalacka's review against another edition
2.0
If you have a strong argument, you will embrace the counterpoints of your detractors, because methodically disproving them strengthens your own position. If you find yourself omitting criticisms or misrepresenting your opponent’s claims, this is a sign to you that your own position needs strengthening and does not stand up to scrutiny.
Not only does Jeffreys ignore valid counter-points and misrepresent her opponents, she also argues whatever is most convenient for her anti-trans rhetoric, even if the Argument of the Moment philosophically-contradicts an earlier belief or opinion she has stated. For example, she argues that we should attempt to abolish gender, then alternately claims that the title of “woman” is a special role in society that needs protection from the diluting forces of transgender ideology. She argues that gender-affirming surgery is akin to mutilation, but then fails to consider what that line of argument means for her position as a radical feminist in full-support of women’s bodily autonomy. It’s a “throw stuff at the wall and see what sticks” approach that doesn’t stand up to scrutiny of anyone who is even mildly educated on both sides of the subject.
I suppose the book was useful in the sense that it helped me to understand trans-exclusionary radical feminism better (hence my rating), but it also depends on the reader to agree unquestioningly with Jeffreys’s premises, such as that “transgender ideology is hurting lesbian communities by turning its members into men” or that “such a vast number of trans women are afflicted with autogynephilia that there is essentially no such thing as a trans woman”. I don’t agree with the premises the author assumes and she offers no credible evidence to support them; just cites her own earlier opinion pieces as if they constitute fact.
In short, I’m glad I read this because it strengthened my original position, as the arguments contained herein are so weak.
Not only does Jeffreys ignore valid counter-points and misrepresent her opponents, she also argues whatever is most convenient for her anti-trans rhetoric, even if the Argument of the Moment philosophically-contradicts an earlier belief or opinion she has stated. For example, she argues that we should attempt to abolish gender, then alternately claims that the title of “woman” is a special role in society that needs protection from the diluting forces of transgender ideology. She argues that gender-affirming surgery is akin to mutilation, but then fails to consider what that line of argument means for her position as a radical feminist in full-support of women’s bodily autonomy. It’s a “throw stuff at the wall and see what sticks” approach that doesn’t stand up to scrutiny of anyone who is even mildly educated on both sides of the subject.
I suppose the book was useful in the sense that it helped me to understand trans-exclusionary radical feminism better (hence my rating), but it also depends on the reader to agree unquestioningly with Jeffreys’s premises, such as that “transgender ideology is hurting lesbian communities by turning its members into men” or that “such a vast number of trans women are afflicted with autogynephilia that there is essentially no such thing as a trans woman”. I don’t agree with the premises the author assumes and she offers no credible evidence to support them; just cites her own earlier opinion pieces as if they constitute fact.
In short, I’m glad I read this because it strengthened my original position, as the arguments contained herein are so weak.
helenx's review against another edition
Escrito en 2014, aunque vale 9 años después, el libro aborda el tema del transgenerismo y su relación con la sociedad y, en concreto, con las mujeres. Se destaca que la transexualidad (en el momento de escribir el libro "transgenerismo", en el 2023 “lo trans”), es un problema social que está relacionado con los roles sexuales e identidades de género que se generan en una sociedad patriarcal, y cómo la medicina y la industria farmacéutica han tenido un papel importante en este fenómeno.
Me parece muy acertada la idea de que la sexualidad actualmente es atrozmente individualista, basándose en lo que nos excita sin tener en cuenta las implicaciones políticas y sociales de los deseos y prácticas individuales.
El texto también hace énfasis en cómo se ha ignorado sistemáticamente la relación entre abusos físicos, sexuales o emocionales y la disforia de género. Además, pone de manifiesto como desde la segunda ola del feminismo hasta hoy han ido desapareciendo espacios exclusivos de mujeres y, en general, todo lo que antes era de mujeres ahora es “de género”.
En general, el texto ofrece una reflexión profunda y crítica sobre la relación entre el género y la cultura patriarcal, así como sobre los desafíos que enfrentan las mujeres en este contexto.
Me parece muy acertada la idea de que la sexualidad actualmente es atrozmente individualista, basándose en lo que nos excita sin tener en cuenta las implicaciones políticas y sociales de los deseos y prácticas individuales.
El texto también hace énfasis en cómo se ha ignorado sistemáticamente la relación entre abusos físicos, sexuales o emocionales y la disforia de género. Además, pone de manifiesto como desde la segunda ola del feminismo hasta hoy han ido desapareciendo espacios exclusivos de mujeres y, en general, todo lo que antes era de mujeres ahora es “de género”.
En general, el texto ofrece una reflexión profunda y crítica sobre la relación entre el género y la cultura patriarcal, así como sobre los desafíos que enfrentan las mujeres en este contexto.
leelulah's review against another edition
4.0
As every time I read Sheila Jeffreys, I have more material to think the origins, reasons, reach and dismantlement of gender ideology. I disagree with her, however, in the promotion of same sex attraction as resistance and in the conception of essence as merely the "soul" or "the mind", a reason why, she argues, a feminine existence does not exist. Although there can't be any mismatch of soul and body, differences do exist in the way women and men relate to their own bodies and, in consequence, in the way we see others and the world. This, of course, does not mean the sinful inclinations of men and women are unredeemable. But men should be more open to read texts like this, and generally anyone whether they oppose or support "liberal feminism". Again, as a Catholic, I only agree with 80% of what this book tells for its major flaw is to be materialistic. But most of the refutations of transgenderism are on point.
katerrinah's review against another edition
3.0
I'm quite iffy on this book... basically how I feel about this book is how I feel about how radfems and trans politics.
We need to discuss these things critically. Definitely, however how we go about it is even more important.
I wonder how hard it would have been for Jeffries to not call transwomen men? or transmen women? whether you agree with people being trans or not have some bloody respect. It's not so much a political thing, its just plain polite.
it's been a while since I read this book. while there were bits of this book I agreed with there were bits I didn't.
I'd like to see another gender abolitionist analysis of trans politics that doesn't exemplify how transphobic some radfems can be.
We need to discuss these things critically. Definitely, however how we go about it is even more important.
I wonder how hard it would have been for Jeffries to not call transwomen men? or transmen women? whether you agree with people being trans or not have some bloody respect. It's not so much a political thing, its just plain polite.
it's been a while since I read this book. while there were bits of this book I agreed with there were bits I didn't.
I'd like to see another gender abolitionist analysis of trans politics that doesn't exemplify how transphobic some radfems can be.
More...