counter Gender Outlaw: On Men, Women and the Rest of Us - Free Download Books
Hot Best Seller

Gender Outlaw: On Men, Women and the Rest of Us

Availability: Ready to download

Part coming-of-age story, part mind-altering manifesto on gender and sexuality, coming directly to you from the life experiences of a transgender woman, Gender Outlaw breaks all the rules and leaves the reader forever changed.26 black-and-white illustrations.


Compare

Part coming-of-age story, part mind-altering manifesto on gender and sexuality, coming directly to you from the life experiences of a transgender woman, Gender Outlaw breaks all the rules and leaves the reader forever changed.26 black-and-white illustrations.

30 review for Gender Outlaw: On Men, Women and the Rest of Us

  1. 4 out of 5

    Shawn

    my mind was BLOWN Lots and lots of food for thought (aka just read it): "But the need for a recognizable identity, and the need to belong to a group of people with a similar identity--these are driving forces in our culture, and nowhere is this more evident than in the areas of gender and sexuality"(3-4). "I know I'm not a man--about that much I'm clear, and I've come to the conclusion that I'm probably not a woman either, at least not according to a lot of people's rules on this sort of thing. The my mind was BLOWN Lots and lots of food for thought (aka just read it): "But the need for a recognizable identity, and the need to belong to a group of people with a similar identity--these are driving forces in our culture, and nowhere is this more evident than in the areas of gender and sexuality"(3-4). "I know I'm not a man--about that much I'm clear, and I've come to the conclusion that I'm probably not a woman either, at least not according to a lot of people's rules on this sort of thing. The trouble is, we're living in a world that insists we be one or the other--a world that doesn't bother to tell us exactly what one or the other is"(8). "Two days after my lover and I appeared on The Donahue Show, the five-year-old child of our next door neighbor came up to me and asked me, 'So, are you a boy or a girl?' We'd been living next door to these folks for over two years. 'I'm a girl who used to be a boy', I replied. She was delighted with that answer and told me I'd looked very pretty on television. I thanked her and we smiled at each other and went about our days. I love it that kids will just ask"(9). "They [guys] want to know, 'what do lesbians do with one another.' It's a sad question really: it shows how little thought they give to exactly what pleases a woman"(10). "I've no idea what 'a woman' feels like. I never did feel like a girl or a woman; rather, it was my unshakable conviction that I was not a boy or a man. It was the absence of feeling, rather than its presence, that convinced me to change my gender"(24). "Variants to...gender-based relationship dynamics would include heterosexual female with gay male, gay male with lesbian woman, lesbian woman with heterosexual woman, gay male with bisexual male, and so forth. People involved in these variants know that each dynamic is different from the other. A lesbian involved with another lesbian, for example, is a very different relationship than that of a lesbian involved with a bisexual woman, and that's distinct from being a lesbian woman involved with a heterosexual woman. What these variants have in common is that each of these combinations forms its own clearly-recognizable dynamic, and none of these are acknowledged by the dominant cultural binary of sexual orientation: heterosexuality/homosexuality"(33). "...in other words, the sexual encounter is queer because both partners are queer and the genders of the participants are less relevent. Just because Batman is male and Catwoman is female does not make their interactions heterosexual--think about it, there is nothing straight about two people getting it on in rubber and latex costumes, wearing eyemasks and carrying whips and other accoutrements"(36). "In any case, if we buy into catergories of sexual orientation based solely on gender--heterosexual, homosexual, or bisexual, we're cheating ourselves of a searching examination of our real sexual preferences. In the same fashion, by subscribing to the categories of gender based solely on the male/female binary, we cheat ourselves of a searching examination of our real gender identity"(38). "As an exercise, can you recall the last time you saw someone whose gender was ambiguous? Was this person attractive to you? And if you knew they called themselves neither a man nor a woman, what would it make you if you're attracted to that person? And if you were to kiss? Make love? What would you be"(40)? "I try to engage these folks by asking, 'What's a woman? What's a man?' I wish someone would answer me that--it would make my life a lot easier. I could get on playing some other kind of game. But no one has been able to answer that"(43). "I never hated my penis; I hated that it made me a man--in my own eyes, and in the eyes of others"(47). "I remember one time walking into Woolworth's in Philadelphia. I'd been living as a woman for about a month. I came through the revolving doors, and stood face to face with a security guard--a young man, maybe nineteen or twenty years old. He did a double take when he saw me and began to laugh--very loud. He just laughed and laughed. I continued round through the revolving doors and left the store. I agreed with him that I was a joke; that I was the sick one. I went back in there almost a year later. He came on to me"(48). "It doesn't really matter what a person decides to do, or how radically a person plays with gender. What matters, I think, is how aware a person is of the options. How sad for a person to be missing out on some expression of identity, just for not knowing there are options"(51). "Are you a woman because your birth certificate says female? A man because your birth certificate says male? If so, how did that happen? A doctor looked down at your crotch at birth. A doctor decided, based on what was showing of your external genitals, that you would be one gender or another. You never had a say in that most irreversible of all pronouncements--and according to this culture as it stands today, you never will have a say"(57). "We are trapped in the wrong body. I understand that many people may explain ther preoperative transgendered lives in that way, but I'll bet that it's more likely an unfortunate metaphor that conveniently conforms to cultural expectations, rather than an honest reflection of our transgendered feelings...It's time for transgendered people to look for new metaphors--new ways of communicating our lives to people who are traditionally gendered"(66). "I really would like to be a member of a community, but until there's one that's based on the principle of constant change, the membership would involve more rules, and the rules that exist around the subject of gender are not rules I want to obey"(69). "'Ladies' are the kind of people who won't let my girlfriend use that public ladies' room, thinking she's not a woman. Oh, but they're not going to let her use the men's room either-they're not going to let her be a man either. If she's not a man, and she's not a woman, then what is she? Once I asked my mother what fire was: a solid, liquid or gas? And she said it wasn't any of those things-It was something that happened to things: a force of nature, she called it. Maybe that's what she is: a force of nature. For sure she is something that happened to me.-Holly Hughes, Clit Notes, 1999 (102)." "The preferred gender in our patriarchal society is male, and so males mostly take gender for granted, most men do not try and analyze what it means to be male. Even the men's movement seems more predicated on a desire to not be drawn into some web of femininity, rather than a desire to question the construct of male identity. Women, on the other hand, have been taught that they're the 'second sex,' the distaff gender, so their lives are an almost daily struggle with the concept of gender. The trap for women is the system itself: it's not men who are the foe as much as it is the bi-polar gender system that keeps men in place as more privileged"(106). "Please--don't call it 'biological sex,' or 'social gender.' Don't call it 'sex' at all--sex is fucking, gender is everything else"(116). "Let me tell you what happened, the way it looked from inside my head. The world slowed down...The words echoed in my ears over and over and over. Attached to that simple pronoun was the word failure, quickly followed by the word freak. All the joy sucked out of my life in an instant, and every moment I'd ever fucked up crashed down on my head. Here was someone who'd never known me as a man, referring to me as a man"(126). "Straights and gays alike demand the need for an orderly gender system: they're two sides of the same coin, each holding the other in place, neither willing to dismantle the gender system that serves as a matrix for their (sexual) identity. Because of the bi-polar nature of both sexual orientation and gender, one system strengthens the other. Bisexuality and androgyny also hold two sides in place by defining themselves as somewhere in the middle of two given polar opposites"(133). "So let's reclaim the word 'transgendered' so as to be more inclusive. Let's let it mean 'transgressively gendered,' Then, we have a group of people who break the rules, codes, and shackles of gender...It's the transgendered who need to embrace the lesbians and gays, because it's the transgendered who are in fact the more inclusive category"(135). "I've come to see gender as a divisive social construct, and the gendered body as a somewhat dubious accomplishment. I write about this because I am a gender outlaw and my issues are gender issues. The way I see it now, the lesbian and gay community is as much oppressed for gender transgressions as for sexual distinction. We have more in common, you and I, than most people are willing to admit. See, I'm told I must be a man or a woman. One or the other. Oh, it's OK to be a transsexual say some--just don't talk about it. Don't question your gender any more, just be a woman now--you went to so much trouble--just be satisfied. I am so, not satisfied"(144-145). "I grew this body. It's a girl body. All of it. Over the past seven years every one of these cells became girl, so it's mine now. It doesn't make me female. It doesn't make me a woman. And I'm sure not a man. What does that make me"(234)? "'My grandmother,' he said, 'told me something I've never forgotten. 'Never fuck anyone you wouldn't want to be.' The room went silent for a long time"(245). "And I'm looking forward to the day when people look at this book and say to themselves, 'How curious to have put all that energy into talking about gender. I wonder what the world must have been like in those days for folks with only two choices"(246).

  2. 4 out of 5

    l.

    this is a really engaging, witty read. kate bornstein must be a blast to hang out with. however, bornstein misinterprets basic radical feminist arguments & continually conflates sex/gender, thus betraying a lot of assumptions that i find troubling. what i see time and time again is the assumption that for cis people, gender isn't an issue, and of course it is! particularly for cis women! and the failure to acknowledge that in so many of these texts is an issue for me that i find hard to overlook. this is a really engaging, witty read. kate bornstein must be a blast to hang out with. however, bornstein misinterprets basic radical feminist arguments & continually conflates sex/gender, thus betraying a lot of assumptions that i find troubling. what i see time and time again is the assumption that for cis people, gender isn't an issue, and of course it is! particularly for cis women! and the failure to acknowledge that in so many of these texts is an issue for me that i find hard to overlook. bornstein eventually acknowledges that gender roles are enforced to benefit men and oppress women but fails to examine/understand the implications of this. for example, bornstein has a list of the different type of gender outlaws and never mentions the possibility of gender nonconforming 'cis' people; we're just in the privileged group of 'cisgender, binary-identified men and women.' (pg 85) i do like that she views the whole lesbian separatist vs trans women debacle with some level of nuance (pg 104). and how she acknowledges and discusses male privilege (in some places (pg 140), in others the text implies bringing it up is transphobic (pg 61)) but other things - saying that gay bashing is more about gender performance than sexual orientation (pg 135)... these things aren't divisible. being gay is to be in a sense, gender non-conforming.... (see: wittig) tbh, some of the thing she says are kind of homphobic i.e. calling LGBT people straight if they don't identify as 'queer' (pg 172). i just find her thoughts a bit scattered, and not very rigorous.

  3. 4 out of 5

    Erin

    While Bornstein raises interesting points (the idea of a third sexuality, neither male nor female), her arguments against recognizing gender suffered from her nearly complete ability to ignore that one key signifier....the ability to bear children, and her failure to discuss this issue within her theories made the whole premise rather circumspect. In addition, this is an entire book that might have really been two magazine articles; the first would cover Bornstein's thoughts on gender, summarized While Bornstein raises interesting points (the idea of a third sexuality, neither male nor female), her arguments against recognizing gender suffered from her nearly complete ability to ignore that one key signifier....the ability to bear children, and her failure to discuss this issue within her theories made the whole premise rather circumspect. In addition, this is an entire book that might have really been two magazine articles; the first would cover Bornstein's thoughts on gender, summarized above, and the second, a discussion of gender as it relates to Bornstein's true love, the theatre. She also includes one of her plays, which takes up nearly a quarter of the book. I probably wouldn't recommend this to someone looking for a clear study of transsexuality - it's dated and seems like a fair amount of repetitive ramblings, with little substance.

  4. 4 out of 5

    Bek MoonyReadsByStarlight

    Gender Outlaw is a reflection that is part gender studies, part memoir. This book takes on many topics related to gender and even sexuality, many of which are controversial even within the trans community. This text is very queer -- not just queer as in "gay" but queer as in "radical" queer as in "fuck your black-and-white". LGBTQ+ framework is constantly in flux, so as time goes on, the definitions that it covers might change -- framework, much like gender that Borntein describes, is constantly Gender Outlaw is a reflection that is part gender studies, part memoir. This book takes on many topics related to gender and even sexuality, many of which are controversial even within the trans community. This text is very queer -- not just queer as in "gay" but queer as in "radical" queer as in "fuck your black-and-white". LGBTQ+ framework is constantly in flux, so as time goes on, the definitions that it covers might change -- framework, much like gender that Borntein describes, is constantly in flux. But the core of queerness will stand strong as a queer classic.

  5. 5 out of 5

    Zefyr

    There's a lot of problems with the book (see the appropriation of the term "shaman" in a quote below, although this edition includes some commentary about the politics around that) but the good stuff is so so good. There's a strength in knowing we have our own comics, our own jokers. But here it gets tricky. The pressure and temptation is to create art or politics for a particular group, which is in turn based on some inflexible identity: special interest groups, identity politics, whatever you w There's a lot of problems with the book (see the appropriation of the term "shaman" in a quote below, although this edition includes some commentary about the politics around that) but the good stuff is so so good. There's a strength in knowing we have our own comics, our own jokers. But here it gets tricky. The pressure and temptation is to create art or politics for a particular group, which is in turn based on some inflexible identity: special interest groups, identity politics, whatever you want to call it. The group becomes loyal audience, supporters, and followers, if for no other reason than the fool is speaking their language, performing their lives. But this is so important: the fool becomes a fool by flexing the rules, the boundaries of the group, and this is antithetical to the survival dynamic of most groups. A group remains a group by being inflexible: once it stretches its borders, it's no longer the same group. A fool, in order to survive, must not identify long with any rigidly-structured group. When more and more of the fool's work is done for a particular identity-based group, then the fool becomes identified with the group. The fool is indeed foolish who serves a special interest, and will quickly cease being a fool... Like the fool, the shaman can't take sides or be part of any identity politics. The shaman needs to seek broader and broader groups of people to serve—by staying in a fixed time and place, the shaman's message will only be repeated over and over to those who've already heard it, and then the madness sets in. --- Most of us assume that there is gender; that there are only two categories of gender; and that we are (have the identity of) one or the other. We have a lot invested in this belief—it's very difficult to imagine ourselves genderless. It's difficult to the degree that our identities are wrapped up in our gender assignments. We need to differentiate between having an identity and being an identity. --- I write when nothing else will bring me peace, when I burn, when I find myself asking and answering the same questions over and over. I write when I've begun to lose my sense of humor and it becomes a matter of my life and my death to get that sense of humor back and watch you laugh. I write in bottom space. I open up to you, I cut myself, I show you my fantasies, I get a kick out of that—oh, yeah. I perform in top space. I cover myself with my character and take you where you never dreamed you could go...my instrument is my audience and oh how I love to play you.

  6. 5 out of 5

    Andrew

    It's weird how fast the culture changes, sometimes. When I was a kid in small-town Iowa in the '90s, the tranny joke was simply part of the repertoire of playground banter among boys. To a certain extent, so was casual homophobia -- plenty of things were called gay -- but I can say with certainty that that always made me a bit uncomfortable. My parents had gay friends, and they seemed alright. But trans folks -- not that we'd ever heard the word "trans" yet -- were a species apart, to be made fu It's weird how fast the culture changes, sometimes. When I was a kid in small-town Iowa in the '90s, the tranny joke was simply part of the repertoire of playground banter among boys. To a certain extent, so was casual homophobia -- plenty of things were called gay -- but I can say with certainty that that always made me a bit uncomfortable. My parents had gay friends, and they seemed alright. But trans folks -- not that we'd ever heard the word "trans" yet -- were a species apart, to be made fun of, completely without consequence. I can look back on that with serious shame, and now I can call actual, real-life, flesh-and-blood trans men and women my friends (an adulthood split between Seattle and Bangkok will enable that). But many people don't have that. Someone like Kate Bornstein could help bridge the gap. Why? Because Kate Bornstein writes like a friendly, witty trans grandma, a refreshing change from the po-faced struggle sessions (hey there, Tumblr) and mush-mouthed theory (hey there, Judith Butler) that mark so much of the gender justice and trans rights public discourse in America. She cares about being funny, entertaining, playful, and even seductive (if you've watched Contrapoints on Youtube, you get the idea) just as much as she cares about the salient points of trans experience (whereby my main objective as Mr. Cishet over here is to not be a dick -- something I think we can all manage).

  7. 4 out of 5

    Kate Haskell

    Gender Outlaw was somewhat frustrating for me on a critical level. The whole book seemed to be written from a Marxist methodology wherein binary pairs are actually waging some kind of dialectic war. Since reading Levinas, I've never really seen binarisms in that way. Polar opposites are self-defining pairs, yes, but one need not be superior. Also, the extremes of the poles aren't the only valid options. Every binary pair is, in essence, a continuum. North has no meaning without South, but it als Gender Outlaw was somewhat frustrating for me on a critical level. The whole book seemed to be written from a Marxist methodology wherein binary pairs are actually waging some kind of dialectic war. Since reading Levinas, I've never really seen binarisms in that way. Polar opposites are self-defining pairs, yes, but one need not be superior. Also, the extremes of the poles aren't the only valid options. Every binary pair is, in essence, a continuum. North has no meaning without South, but it also has no meaning without context. South of what? North of where? Likewise gender is a spectrum. More masculine than what exactly? Feminine with respect to which point on the chart? Bornstein and I arrive in similar places by completely different means, and it drives me batty. As a result, we seem preoccupied with completely different questions. Her questions seem to have a more activist tone — which leads neatly into her call for queer theatre as a form of activism. My questions lead me to ponder the structure itself and what the flaws in the structure have to tell us about our perception of gender and, more generally, the queer.

  8. 5 out of 5

    Ross

    Don't let my review fully influence you. I'm sure this book is very enlightening and empowering for some genderqueer out there, but I just couldn't get through it. I just too fundamentally disagree with her on the value of science and biology, disagree on the most basic terminology and have no sympathy for how often she conflates the multiple meanings of words in different contexts as if they all shared the same context. For those with stouter tolerances, have at it, but don't be surprised if you Don't let my review fully influence you. I'm sure this book is very enlightening and empowering for some genderqueer out there, but I just couldn't get through it. I just too fundamentally disagree with her on the value of science and biology, disagree on the most basic terminology and have no sympathy for how often she conflates the multiple meanings of words in different contexts as if they all shared the same context. For those with stouter tolerances, have at it, but don't be surprised if you find yourself alternatively horrified and throwing it against the wall in anger.

  9. 4 out of 5

    Bryan

    Thank You Kate Bernstein!!! If only this book fell into my hands in my teenage...geez...pre-teen years, maybe I wouldn’t have spent so many nights crying into pillow wondering “what’s wrong with me”?

  10. 5 out of 5

    Joanna

    MIND BLOWN. Completely fucking brilliant. I want to buy this book for everyone in my life. As someone who feels pretty informed around issues of gender (IT IS PERFORMATIVE!), I need to write about, think about and unpick this all loads more. Which is brilliant, particularly as this book is over 20 years old. It still has so much resonance. Some questions: “What’s your gender? When did you decide it? How much say do you have in your gender? Is there anything about your gender or gender role that you MIND BLOWN. Completely fucking brilliant. I want to buy this book for everyone in my life. As someone who feels pretty informed around issues of gender (IT IS PERFORMATIVE!), I need to write about, think about and unpick this all loads more. Which is brilliant, particularly as this book is over 20 years old. It still has so much resonance. Some questions: “What’s your gender? When did you decide it? How much say do you have in your gender? Is there anything about your gender or gender role that you don’t like, or that gets in your way? Are there one or two qualities about another gender that are appealing to you, enough so that you’d like to incorporate those qualities into your daily life? What would happen to your life if you did that? What would your gender be then? How do you think people would respond to you? How would you feel if they did that?” "There is most certainly a privilege to having a gender. When you have a gender, or when you are perceived as having a gender, you don't get laughed at in the street. You don't get beat up. You know which public bathroom to use, & when you use it, people don't stare at you or worse. You know which form to fill out. You know what clothes to wear. You have a past." "The first question we usually ask new parents is: is it a boy or a girl? There's a great answer to that one going round: 'We don't know; it hasn't told us yet'. Personally, I think no question containing either/or deserves a serious answer, & that includes the question of gender." “One answer to the question, ‘Who is a transsexual?’ might be ‘Anyone who admits it.’ A more political answer might be, ‘Anyone whose performance of gender calls into question the construct of gender itself’.” HIGHLY RECOMMENDED.

  11. 5 out of 5

    Raven

    I’ve had this book since I was fourteen and somehow never got around to reading it until now. Anyways - it was FANTASTIC. Very interesting, although sometimes quite a bit outdated (I didn’t agree with all of Bornstein’s ideas, and some of them likely wouldn’t fly in modern times, but the writing was all so thoroughly original and thoughtful. I would absolutely recommend it to anyone willing to spend time thinking about the complexity of gender - though they should probably have a decent understa I’ve had this book since I was fourteen and somehow never got around to reading it until now. Anyways - it was FANTASTIC. Very interesting, although sometimes quite a bit outdated (I didn’t agree with all of Bornstein’s ideas, and some of them likely wouldn’t fly in modern times, but the writing was all so thoroughly original and thoughtful. I would absolutely recommend it to anyone willing to spend time thinking about the complexity of gender - though they should probably have a decent understanding of modern gender theory before starting this book). I really enjoyed Kate Bornstein’s ideas about the gender binary and gender roles, and how she felt distanced from them even after her transition. And just reading all of the experiences that she went through as a transgendered woman - so much of it is unchanged since she was writing this in the 80s and 90s. I found myself very interested in her thoughts on all kinds of subjects. And, lastly, my favourite passage: “Experts agree that we don’t even think about gender in terms of ourselves. No, it’s not until we see someone walking down the street and we can’t tell if it’s a man or a woman. Ever wonder why you can’t stop staring until you decide one way or another? It really bothers you, doesn’t it! We don’t have to know someone’s age. Their race may be somewhat indistinct, and we might be mildly curious. We may look at someone and think they are gay or straight, but we don’t have to know. We can wonder. Yet we insist, and this is the curiosity, we insist that a person must be one gender or the other and we remain unsettled until we assign one gender or another.”

  12. 4 out of 5

    Joanna

    Kate Bornstein is so incredibly charming. This book is charming. But I'm already sold on most of what she is trying to convince me, uh... mainly "Let's not be defined by gender because it sucks being confined to stereotypes and anyway it's crazy." Agreed! Uh... now what? But that question, "now what?" is difficult for this book to answer because it is an incredibly 90s book. Which I didn't think was too long ago but man, this book is nearly 20 years old. So "now" was 20 years ago. OMG i am so ol Kate Bornstein is so incredibly charming. This book is charming. But I'm already sold on most of what she is trying to convince me, uh... mainly "Let's not be defined by gender because it sucks being confined to stereotypes and anyway it's crazy." Agreed! Uh... now what? But that question, "now what?" is difficult for this book to answer because it is an incredibly 90s book. Which I didn't think was too long ago but man, this book is nearly 20 years old. So "now" was 20 years ago. OMG i am so old. As a result the book's revolutionary tone strikes me more as a relic of its time than anything passion rousing. Man, time's an asshole. She really shines when she talks about her personal experiences, which is why I much prefer her memoir, A Queer and Pleasant Danger: The True Story of a Nice Jewish Boy Who Joins the Church of Scientology and Leaves Twelve Years Later to Become the Lovely Lady She is Today. In fact, reading that book before this one really helped me understand what she was trying to get across better.

  13. 5 out of 5

    Alison

    I read excerpts from this in college fifteen years ago and I thought I should actually read it all the way through sometime and it took me a while, but I finally did. Kate Bornstein is a trailblazer and an icon and a vivid personality and this book was a pleasure to read. This is an engaging and candid memoir and examination of gender identity that discusses plenty of things that, even now, let alone in 1994, are pretty radical. This book is almost twenty-five years old (1994!) and it is a bit d I read excerpts from this in college fifteen years ago and I thought I should actually read it all the way through sometime and it took me a while, but I finally did. Kate Bornstein is a trailblazer and an icon and a vivid personality and this book was a pleasure to read. This is an engaging and candid memoir and examination of gender identity that discusses plenty of things that, even now, let alone in 1994, are pretty radical. This book is almost twenty-five years old (1994!) and it is a bit dated, but Bornstein tackles complex gender theory in a very personal, fun, and offhand way. Her writing is very easy-going and casual, but it's still very powerful and moving. I think it's a good, accessible introduction to the idea that gender is not as simple as "one or the other" and she challenges her readers to really examine their own gender identity and not just blindly accept what they're been told. It's a very thought-provoking book, but its tone is affable and personal and upbeat while still being fiercely unapologetic. I read the 1995 version and it has some issues and I gather a new, updated edition is in the works now (2017), so I look forward to reading it again someday. This book is vivid and fun and unique and hopeful and still so relevant today. It's a classic.

  14. 4 out of 5

    Audacia Ray

    Here's the thing: when I was in college, I read Judith Butler's Gender Trouble, and it made me feel crazy. That book was my first intro to gender deconstruction, and it left my head spinning and heart hurting. I felt like I was trapped in the gender system, and that was a miserable miserable place to be. Then I read Gender Outlaw. Gender Trouble is the problem, Gender Outlaw is the solution. Re-reading this book after 10 years, it was just as fun and fabulous as the first time I read it all those y Here's the thing: when I was in college, I read Judith Butler's Gender Trouble, and it made me feel crazy. That book was my first intro to gender deconstruction, and it left my head spinning and heart hurting. I felt like I was trapped in the gender system, and that was a miserable miserable place to be. Then I read Gender Outlaw. Gender Trouble is the problem, Gender Outlaw is the solution. Re-reading this book after 10 years, it was just as fun and fabulous as the first time I read it all those years ago in college. Kate Bornstein gives readers a sense of hope, encouragement, and plain old fun when thinking about and experimenting with gender. And it doesn't hurt that I've gotten to know Kate a bit since reading this book for the first time, so now I smile and picture her gestures and hear her voice as I read.

  15. 4 out of 5

    Simon

    'Gender Outlaw' is in my opinion a must-read for anyone who wants to be actively involved in gender theory. Although I disagree with a lot's Bornstein's points and conclusions, she expertly challenges us to re-evaluate what identity and gender really mean. A lot of the points she makes are a bit scattered around the book and it's not a very cohesive book, but considering the way she looks at things I guess that makes sense. Kate Bornstein is a very intriguing person and I very much enjoyed the w 'Gender Outlaw' is in my opinion a must-read for anyone who wants to be actively involved in gender theory. Although I disagree with a lot's Bornstein's points and conclusions, she expertly challenges us to re-evaluate what identity and gender really mean. A lot of the points she makes are a bit scattered around the book and it's not a very cohesive book, but considering the way she looks at things I guess that makes sense. Kate Bornstein is a very intriguing person and I very much enjoyed the way she questioned everything and constantly highlights that no conclusion can be 100% certain when it comes to such complicated topics as these.

  16. 5 out of 5

    Devin

    I wanted to love this book. I wanted so, so bad to love this book. When I picked it up and researched Kate Bornstein, and saw that they were an emerging voice in the world of gender studies and deconstruction of gender, a non-binary/genderqueer figure in a time where it was only them and Leslie Feinberg and a few others, vocally speaking out against the colonialist gender system, I wanted to LOVE this book. As an agender person -- someone who identifies with no gender whatsoever, who lives outsi I wanted to love this book. I wanted so, so bad to love this book. When I picked it up and researched Kate Bornstein, and saw that they were an emerging voice in the world of gender studies and deconstruction of gender, a non-binary/genderqueer figure in a time where it was only them and Leslie Feinberg and a few others, vocally speaking out against the colonialist gender system, I wanted to LOVE this book. As an agender person -- someone who identifies with no gender whatsoever, who lives outside of gender and really has no concept of what it feels like to "feel" a gender, I wanted this to be one of the best books I have ever read, to lay a framework for my own studies in the world of gender. But it wasn't. And unfortunately, I didn't love this book. I stayed on the fence about whether or not I should give this 2 or 3 stars, because Goodreads doesn't have an option for half stars, so I feel it's closer to 2 1/2, maybe 3 if I think about it any longer. First, Kate Bornstein is a performer. It took a long time for me to fully grasp this -- they are a performer, a playwright, now writing a work of non-fiction. So, right away, the writing style threw me for a complete curve. The book is written in an unorthodox style, where Bornstein is speaking to the reader, and simultaneously has conversations with themself (your colonialist grammar means shit to me) in the margins, which made this very confusing at times to read. Almost like they wrote a book, then went back, edited it by arguing or debating with themselves in the side notes, and THEN published it. On some pages, the words are broken up and scattered all around the page, like a bad e.e. cummings poem. The first chunk of this book is just a disorganized mess of what at times, seemed to be non-sequitur, random "interludes" that consisted of possibly? fictitious interviews with Bornstein and an unknown speaker. If stripped down to its core, the first half of this book reads as an autobiography -- a very...colorful and confusing autobiography, but an autobiography nonetheless. Bornstein's repression of gender variance while growing up in the baby boomer/gen X times is a core theme of this section, and one I highly relate to, given that I am a transgender individual myself whose concepts of gender and sexuality were repressed by mainly gen X, growing up in a small Southern town. So that part, I could relate to. But at times I would lose complete track of where Bornstein was going with their words. It became confusing and eventually I put the book down. I actually started reading this book in 2014, nearly 4 1/2 years ago. I struggled through the first 111 pages, trying to make some sense of their words, but eventually I gave up and as mentioned above, put the book down for several years. So I picked it back up recently and started where I left off: page 113. Chapter 12. Suddenly, the whole theme, the whole tone of the book, just shifted. It changed completely. I had evidently left off on the brink of what is to me, the best part of the book. Starting in chapter 12, Bornstein begins to directly challenge the notions of the male-female gender binary, and amazingly, they begin to incorporate the art and history of theatre, and especially queer theatre, into the theories surrounding gender and sexuality, and the social movements of the time (this book is 25 years old, it was released the year I was born). They confront and challenge the assimilation shift of the mainstream LGBT community that was re-beginning around this time (it started in the 1970s but was quickly put away during the AIDS epidemic of the 1980s), and acknowledge this assimilation movement that has drowned out queer (as in strictly non-normative) and trans voices from the far-left who believe in alternatives to assimilation into heteronormativity. Suddenly I found myself excited to turn the page and read what they had to say next. From here on out, it became a great read. Bornstein also incorporates a play they wrote, produced, and directed, into the middle of the book. It's a fun play that brings history, transgender culture, and queer culture into the middle of an intersection and encapsulates them in a vessel of theatre. I liked it a lot. And I am someone who hates plays, but usually because when I think of plays, I think of Shakespeare and what not, and I hate Shakespeare, but Bornstein really made me think about why I hate plays and the like, and how it's because I'm so used to the typical Aristotelian method of conflict > solution, within the scope of heterosexual, cisgender, watered down theatre. They're right. Now suddenly I'm intrigued by theatre for the first time. Unfortunately, despite the sudden and complete 180 in writing style and content, I have to stick to my 3 star rating, because despite the sudden and complete 180, I had to wait over 100 pages for it. If it had been a 1 or 2 chapter, 10 or 20 or MAYBE even 50 pages, before it got to the good stuff, I think I could still give it a better rating, but this book took 113 pages, and 4 years for me to trek through. I dreaded picking it up each time I tried to restart it, but I have that problem where, unless a book is absolutely reactionary or outright fascistic, I'm going to HAVE to finish it at some point. I wouldn't be able to live with myself if I didn't. So I finished this book. I'm glad I did. I just hate that it took so long to make me glad to read it. Overall, I still like Kate Bornstein, and I love their contributions to gender theory, but overall, this book was just lukewarm; tepid. I might give another one of their newer books a chance and compare the styles. Hopefully the result is better.

  17. 4 out of 5

    Dana Jerman

    Great memoir/gender studies discourse by the author of "My Gender Notebook". Bornstein is an assumed name for "her"- a MtoF Transsexual/S&M player whose "lesbian" partner is now an FtoM post-op transsexual. The confusion of role switching, she not only brings to her relationships but to her work in "queer" theatre, where she revels in it the most. She constantly challenges her audiences to redefine the roles we each must find for ourselves in society. Well written and quoted, with an emphasis on n Great memoir/gender studies discourse by the author of "My Gender Notebook". Bornstein is an assumed name for "her"- a MtoF Transsexual/S&M player whose "lesbian" partner is now an FtoM post-op transsexual. The confusion of role switching, she not only brings to her relationships but to her work in "queer" theatre, where she revels in it the most. She constantly challenges her audiences to redefine the roles we each must find for ourselves in society. Well written and quoted, with an emphasis on not adhering to one font or page side or style of writing, Kate puts down the story of her existence with illustrated moments of power and reflection and pretty good pacing. The play contained in her memoir is her story, but somehow it is insincere in its high camp.

  18. 5 out of 5

    Max Seader

    Plenty of the language and the way in which we now discuss gender, especially in regards to trans people has changed since this book came out. But there was valuable discussion of gender theory, especially in regards to the way it intersects with sexuality and the other letters in the LGBTQIA acronym that I had not considered before.

  19. 5 out of 5

    Reija

    The first half of the book is an interesting philosophical exercise in gender theory. You really need to go into this book expecting philosophy and social commentary, and not science. The play on the second half of the book, was kind of a miss for me. Some parts were interesting, others felt incredibly self indulgent.

  20. 4 out of 5

    Cameron

    It seems very obvious to me that Bornstein became involved in trans thought and politics before being involved in feminist thought and politics; the lens is not a feminist one, and I do wish she had brought in more discussion about gendered power dynamics, masculinity and femininity. She says in at least a couple bits and implies in many others that upholding our gender system upholds misogyny; breaking it down is inherently anti-patriarchal, while I think that it’s actually perfectly possible t It seems very obvious to me that Bornstein became involved in trans thought and politics before being involved in feminist thought and politics; the lens is not a feminist one, and I do wish she had brought in more discussion about gendered power dynamics, masculinity and femininity. She says in at least a couple bits and implies in many others that upholding our gender system upholds misogyny; breaking it down is inherently anti-patriarchal, while I think that it’s actually perfectly possible to have a society with fluid gender and a vast range of genders and gender expressions, and still have patriarchy in the form of femmephobia and misogyny. Really, trans women don’t get a break from misogyny just because they transgress gender boundaries – they’re hit with it very hard, because they’re usually seen as choosing to be women, which is a giant middle finger to the patriarchy, and also means they’re seen as asking for objectification and violence. Again, and again, she groups all trans people into one massive lump – as gender outlaws, as people who should form a community separate from the lesbian and gay ones, as people who are defined in the largest part by their trans-ness and transgression of gender. (This is another way in which I think we can see that her trans politics precluded her feminist ones (although the two, ideally, are not separate.)) She specifically says she doesn’t think it’s wrong for trans women to be excluded from women’s spaces; while I think current discourses tend to fall into the oppression Olympics (cis lesbians are more privileged than trans women, therefore they need to shut up and let us in!), I disagree strongly with this for a multitude of other reasons, and it threw me off very strongly. I also find the mindset that possessing one or several oppressed identities entitles one to not examine one’s actions is a really troubling dynamic – it’s the same one that is employed by white women to avoid discussing racism, or black men to avoid discussing misogyny, or trans men to avoid discussing misogyny. She states in another section that anger has little place in activism, its main role being to reveal a need for action – I would have thought that this extended to many other emotions as well, and would end up with a model of activism in which all are rational about their actions, who is included in their groups, and who isn’t. It will probably come as no surprise that she also seems to fall into bits of discourse that would be labeled, without context, subversivist, and although if we take into account her viewpoint that very few people are “entirely men” or “entirely women,” (oh, this is phrased badly), it isn’t technically subversivist, it ends up having the same implications. Her analysis of the oppressive gender binary (“gender system”) entirely fails to address its patriarchal and colonial roots, and the misogynistic and racist dynamics it helps to perpetuate today. Some of her analyses are simply lacking – in one paragraph, she’s talking about The Crying Game, and how the guy who discovered that a woman was transsexual vomited. She says that it’s “not so much as a sign of revulsion as an admission of attraction, and the consequential upheaval of his gender identity and sexual orientation.” I mean – if the dude’s throwing up, he’s disgusted to be attracted to you, and that stems from degendering and misgendering the woman in front of him, the disgust with her deceit, the disgust with his own doubt at his sexuality, the disgust with something so unnatural that it disturbs every conception he’s had about gender and sexuality and gendered appearances in general. Bornstein seems to view it as – well, his own identity was uprooted, therefore he’s nauseous – whereas I think if he’s vomiting, his own identity hasn’t been uprooted in any meaningful way – he’s desperately scrabbling to maintain his hold on them, he’s still convinced that every previous conception of gender and sexuality he held is correct. In one section, she also describes Navajo nadle as “sort of transgendered male-to-female persons,” and I’m really, really uncomfortable with her projecting our vocabularies and notions of gender onto indigenous cultures and genders. She’s already stated very early in the book that society constructs not only gender roles but genders; I expected better from her.

  21. 5 out of 5

    duck reads

    The "collage" style is not pleasing to me -- among other things, I fail to see why Beatles lyrics are relevant or necessary to the points being discussed. I'm also finding that too little support is given for the assumptions underlying most of the book's prescriptions: in one instance there is a mention that the author began to wonder if gender was socially constructed, and then the next paragraph assumes that gender is socially constructed, as do all subsequent paragraphs. There is a step missi The "collage" style is not pleasing to me -- among other things, I fail to see why Beatles lyrics are relevant or necessary to the points being discussed. I'm also finding that too little support is given for the assumptions underlying most of the book's prescriptions: in one instance there is a mention that the author began to wonder if gender was socially constructed, and then the next paragraph assumes that gender is socially constructed, as do all subsequent paragraphs. There is a step missing there: it is the step between wondering and taking as read: "proving it". (Or putting a line in to indicate that while it is unproven it is going to be the basis of all subsequent points.) I'm uncomfortable with the use of colonialist descriptions of Native American practices in re: gender being used as examples of alternative cultural attitudes to the subject. If the goal is to illustrate that contemporary Western customs are not the only option why are Native American practices the only alternative systems mentioned? And why are only accounts by white settlers (and terms coined by white observers) used to describe them? The sweeping statements made about transsexuality seem largely generalised from Bornstein's own experience. I don't know how much of this appearance is produced by the fact that the book is fifteen years old. Perhaps some of the topics that seem unduly fixated on from my perspective were commonly presumed to be widely applicable in 1994? There is a section that lists some common "myths" about transness and proceeds to disavow their relevance or accuracy. One of these is the idea that transpeople are the chosen people of some particular higher power. A few chapters later, Bornstein seems to suggest that the proper role of a transperson in society is that of a "shaman" or a "fool." The "shaman" idea--the idea that gender transition gives trans people some kind of mystical knowledge or exceptional insight that they then have a responsibility to share with the world--seems to stray awfully close to suggesting that transpeople are "chosen" for a mystical task, IMO. The "fool" idea is offensive on almost every level: it suggests transpeople are freaks and fitting subjects of exploitative entertainment, and that their obligation is to laugh first at what other people may perceive as laughable in them -- to make light of their own mistreatment by others. (Of course, the idea that there are certain specific roles that are somehow the only (or most) fitting roles for transpeople is ridiculous and offensive in itself. Urk.) This section is in fact so weird and transphobic that I almost think it must be meant to say that this is what society thinks, and to denounce it, except that there is no indication of that whatsoever. But hey, maybe that part's like the bit where socially constructed gender is proven, i.e. MYSTERIOUSLY MISSING.

  22. 5 out of 5

    The Center for Sexual Pleasure & Health

    Gender Outlaw: On Men, Women and the Rest of Us by Kate Bornstein is a fabulous book on gender. It is a very engaging read with Bornstein’s humor and wit shining through, even while it is a book on gender theory. It is in part a chronicle of Bornstein’s journey through transition, having been raised a boy in a Conservative Jewish family, to transitioning to live as a woman, to the choice to move beyond the gender binary into new territory all together. However, it goes far beyond that into explo Gender Outlaw: On Men, Women and the Rest of Us by Kate Bornstein is a fabulous book on gender. It is a very engaging read with Bornstein’s humor and wit shining through, even while it is a book on gender theory. It is in part a chronicle of Bornstein’s journey through transition, having been raised a boy in a Conservative Jewish family, to transitioning to live as a woman, to the choice to move beyond the gender binary into new territory all together. However, it goes far beyond that into exploring the societal reliance on gender as part of the larger system of oppression. At times, the book can seem disjointed as there are three interspersed texts: the main text, comentary and sidenotes, and quotations from other sources, all with their own font and formatting style. Yet, the three are woven together into a very cohesive whole. Depending on a person’s background with gender and sexuality, this book could simply reaffirm already preseant thoughts, or it could radically alter a person’s views on gender and sexuality. Written over 15 years ago, it still does an impressive job at covering many of the underlying issues and thoughts of contemporary gender theory and expression. Bornstein brings up thought provoking and sometimes uncomfortable questions, encouraging the reader to push their own boundaries of identity. Everything from questioning sexualities of those attracted to non-binary folk (and even questioning the need for a gender-based sexual orientation) to the importance of undermining developing stereotypes within subcultures are placed as part of the important work of transgressing normative views of gender. At the same time, there are moments when Bornstein seems to unwittingly undervalue the experiences of binary trans people, who find their identity of man or woman comfortable and well suited to themselves. Nevertheless, one of the things Bornstein stresses most throughout the book is the importance of self-identity, and the need for communities to be more willing to accept and interact with people regardless of gender. Interestingly, the end of the book is actually a play, Hidden: A Gender, which Bornstein wrote that is an interplay between two stories. The first is that of Herculine Barbin, a french person who was born intersex. The second is that of Herman Amberstone, an analogue to Bornstein herself. It tackles many of the same questions of the book, but in the format of theater rather than text. Overall, the book is a great place to begin a personal exploration of gender and gender theory, or to give language and grounding to already present thoughts. It might not be as groundbreaking now as it was when it was published, but Gender Outlaw still holds great importance for both academic gender theory as well as many individuals’ journeys.

  23. 5 out of 5

    Evangeline Wilder

    Worth reading. A lot of it felt boring, but feeling like a book like this is boring is a privilege I have in part bc of Bornstein. I imagine a lot of this book seemed (and was!) new and radical when it first came out. Interesting to see how Bornstein updated the book from the first edition to reflect new ideas abt gender, even new ideas about her own. The chapters were pretty hit or miss for me (see: starting this book in September and abandoning it half-read until January) but I’m glad to have Worth reading. A lot of it felt boring, but feeling like a book like this is boring is a privilege I have in part bc of Bornstein. I imagine a lot of this book seemed (and was!) new and radical when it first came out. Interesting to see how Bornstein updated the book from the first edition to reflect new ideas abt gender, even new ideas about her own. The chapters were pretty hit or miss for me (see: starting this book in September and abandoning it half-read until January) but I’m glad to have read it & glad Bornstein exists. I didn’t always agree with her, either. A lot of her arguments for gender as an individual’s id*ntity and not a socially constructed binary felt wishy-washy and materially untrue. For ex, in her play Hidden: A Gender, a character representing Bornstein says, “Death and Gender were once the property of the individual. Soon they were taken over by the community, the church, the medical profession, the state.” Which sounds nice & feels like it should be true, but to suggest gender has ever existed without depending on community enforcement is ludicrous. Bornstein writes elsewhere, “Instead of imagining gender as opposite poles of a two-dimensional line, it would be interesting to twirl that line in space, and then spin it through several more dimensions. In this way, many more possibilities of gender identity may be explored.” Like, what? How does that—hm. But her insights on passing, and on the strange “gender blur” zone, are priceless. She writes abt this non-binary space both as a home of constant flux for NB people like her, a place to find refuge. But she also acknowledges this same space is occupied in early transition for binary trans people, when they are “No longer a woman, not yet / a man. Standing outside. / Bidding myself adieu” (and vice versa). On this her writing is clear & fascinating & insightful & beautiful.

  24. 4 out of 5

    Alice Lemon

    I am a little torn about whether this book should get three or four stars. I thought that a lot of the material was interesting, but I found Bornstein's writing style really disorganized and many of the pages visually confusing: there were often multiple paragraphs aligned differently in different fonts, which I think were intended to be separate trains of thought. On a more personal level, I felt that the book just didn't resonate with me as a non-binary person in the ways I had hoped it would. I am a little torn about whether this book should get three or four stars. I thought that a lot of the material was interesting, but I found Bornstein's writing style really disorganized and many of the pages visually confusing: there were often multiple paragraphs aligned differently in different fonts, which I think were intended to be separate trains of thought. On a more personal level, I felt that the book just didn't resonate with me as a non-binary person in the ways I had hoped it would. I got the impression that Bornstein thinks of non-binary identities as being necessarily genderfuck, which is essentially the opposite of my identity and presentation. I also found Bornstein's extended appropriation of the term "shaman" disturbing. She seemed convinced that her identity as a non-binary person automatically makes her into a shaman, while ignoring that (a) this is a rather limited interpretation of non-binary genders and (b) that the word "shaman" refers to a specific set of religious practices and beliefs that she doesn't appear to subscribe to, and doesn't have any connection to the cultures they are indigenous to.

  25. 5 out of 5

    Cat

    I have a lot of thoughts about this book and I wanted to review it when I had them more in order. when I started reading it, I was really, really into it. I loved the authors voice and I thought they had great insight on gender. They didn't ignore the privileges they did have and they stated quite a few times that their experience of being neither male nor female did not speak for all non-binary people. having said that, there were parts of the book that really confused me. the more philosophica I have a lot of thoughts about this book and I wanted to review it when I had them more in order. when I started reading it, I was really, really into it. I loved the authors voice and I thought they had great insight on gender. They didn't ignore the privileges they did have and they stated quite a few times that their experience of being neither male nor female did not speak for all non-binary people. having said that, there were parts of the book that really confused me. the more philosophical discussions of gender did not entirely make sense to me. I am genderfluid so it was refreshing to read about gender from someone else who is too but some of it i found culturally appropriative and off-base. I think those were the unaltered chapters from when the book was published in the 90s. I think the beginning got updated for language and more nuanced social views. still, I would recommend this book. I thought the parts that were good, were very insightful and interesting. it is definitely a book that starts discussion. I am glad this book exists and I hope to see more like it in the future.

  26. 5 out of 5

    Elliot Ratzman

    After reading Michelle Goldberg’s New Yorker article on trans vs radfem I set out to understand the transgendered movement in more depth. Bornstein is a theater person (performer and playwright) as well as a significant voice in the movement. More than a memoir, I found the book a clear explication of gender queer theory and practice. Released around the time that Judith Butler’s Gender Trouble was establishing the philosophical-theoretical deconstruction of gender, Bornstein gets to Butler’s in After reading Michelle Goldberg’s New Yorker article on trans vs radfem I set out to understand the transgendered movement in more depth. Bornstein is a theater person (performer and playwright) as well as a significant voice in the movement. More than a memoir, I found the book a clear explication of gender queer theory and practice. Released around the time that Judith Butler’s Gender Trouble was establishing the philosophical-theoretical deconstruction of gender, Bornstein gets to Butler’s insights more quickly and with humor and clarity. I am not convinced that gender binarism is the right “system” to be overthrown rather than patterns of exploitation, discrimination and intolerance. Nevertheless, there are plenty of bon mots, vivid points, and confident qualifications making this a thought-provoking read. Surprisingly most of the book could have been written yesterday, not 20 years ago, with the caveat that “T” issues have been added to the LGB agenda—and victories—in record time.

  27. 5 out of 5

    rosalind

    this book is problematic in an ignorance kind of way, but she apologizes in the afterword, like hey i published this years ago, what can you do? which i guess i don't really have any say in whether she's forgiven. i feel like that should be noted. also, a lot of the terminology is dated. it's amazing how far that stuff has come since just 20 years ago. what's stuck with me about this book, even months after reading, is something bornstein pointed out about orientation-based discrimination - that this book is problematic in an ignorance kind of way, but she apologizes in the afterword, like hey i published this years ago, what can you do? which i guess i don't really have any say in whether she's forgiven. i feel like that should be noted. also, a lot of the terminology is dated. it's amazing how far that stuff has come since just 20 years ago. what's stuck with me about this book, even months after reading, is something bornstein pointed out about orientation-based discrimination - that it is, at its heart, just more gender discrimination and fear of defying the Almighty All-Powerful Gender Binary. it's something i've found to be largely true. people aren't scared of us falling in love, they're scared that when we do, we'll come to realize that gender roles & the binary aren't as immutable as we've been lead to assume. that's why feminine gay dudes and dykes are so terrifying - and let's not even start on trans and nonbinary people! memorable, and probably worth a read.

  28. 5 out of 5

    Tyler

    This book has the strange symptom of knowing it makes no sense whatsoever yet claiming it does. Why on earth would someone who has so impossibly transcended gender get a sex change, and spend their career simultaneously renouncing gender roles and relishing certain ones? At the end of the book in the FAQ, "why did you get a sex change" was answered with "because I didn't know what I know now", followed by "would you do it again" answered with "absolutely!" As far as I've been able to glean from This book has the strange symptom of knowing it makes no sense whatsoever yet claiming it does. Why on earth would someone who has so impossibly transcended gender get a sex change, and spend their career simultaneously renouncing gender roles and relishing certain ones? At the end of the book in the FAQ, "why did you get a sex change" was answered with "because I didn't know what I know now", followed by "would you do it again" answered with "absolutely!" As far as I've been able to glean from Kate's own words, one should get a sex change because it's totally fun and stuff. If gender is a symptom, then what's wrong with a sex change as a cure? It's not exactly anyone's fault for internalizing gender roles, and we all have - was looking for this concession in the book. Anyway, still worth the quick read in the end.

  29. 5 out of 5

    M

    Largely useful as a lens into what the trans community was like in its fledgling days/formation of the community itself. The author expresses many counter-productive and at times outright transphobic ideas and the rhetoric used to discuss everything is rather dated (expect lots of "transgendered" "ftm" "Mtf" etc.) The author does bring up nonwestern genders outside the binary, however its almost always done in a manner which summarizes millenia of a culture in a paragraph and then dismissively, Largely useful as a lens into what the trans community was like in its fledgling days/formation of the community itself. The author expresses many counter-productive and at times outright transphobic ideas and the rhetoric used to discuss everything is rather dated (expect lots of "transgendered" "ftm" "Mtf" etc.) The author does bring up nonwestern genders outside the binary, however its almost always done in a manner which summarizes millenia of a culture in a paragraph and then dismissively, accuses navajo nonbinary people of misogynistic existences for existing as mediators between men and women (not sure why that bit happened, there was a lot of reaching in that section and it was rather ahistorical and antimaterialist--she says things happened but never cites examples, which, in a society based around oral traditions would have been well documented). All in all it was Not Good.

  30. 4 out of 5

    Ari

    I find it odd that this book is classified as a memoir. It doesn't read like a memoir. It reads like a Sociology of Gender class text in most parts, with supplementary memoir bits woven in. I do love Kate Bornstein. She gently gathers the reader up and lovingly drags them through the mindfuck that is dismantling gender. I don't necessarily agree with her every point, or at least how she conceptualizes/explains some points, and yet I full-heartedly support the overarching cry of this book. And I I find it odd that this book is classified as a memoir. It doesn't read like a memoir. It reads like a Sociology of Gender class text in most parts, with supplementary memoir bits woven in. I do love Kate Bornstein. She gently gathers the reader up and lovingly drags them through the mindfuck that is dismantling gender. I don't necessarily agree with her every point, or at least how she conceptualizes/explains some points, and yet I full-heartedly support the overarching cry of this book. And I wholly appreciate how she makes the deconstruction of gender palatable for people at differing positions on this topic, while maintaining an unwavering, unapologetic stance.

Add a review

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Loading...
We use cookies to give you the best online experience. By using our website you agree to our use of cookies in accordance with our cookie policy.