What do you think?
Rate this book
Female Masculinities and the Gender Wars: The Politics of Sex
Female Masculinities and the Gender Wars provides important theoretical background and context to the 'gender wars' or 'TERF wars' - the violent feminist fracture at the forefront of the LGBTQ international conversation. Using queer and female masculinities as a lens, Finn Mackay investigates the current generational shift that is refusing the previous assumed fixity of sex, gender and sexual identity. Transgender and trans rights movements are currently experiencing political backlash from within certain lesbian and lesbian feminist groups, resulting in a situation in which these two minority communities are frequently pitted against one another or perceived as diametrically opposed.
Uniquely, Finn Mackay approaches this debate through the context of female masculinity, butch and transmasculine lesbian masculinities. There has been increasing interest in the study of masculinity, influenced by a popular discourse around so-called 'toxic masculinity', the rise of men's rights activism and theory and critical work on Trump's America and the MeToo movement.
An increasingly important topic in political science and sociological academia, this book aims to break new ground in the discussion of the politics of gender and identity.
Uniquely, Finn Mackay approaches this debate through the context of female masculinity, butch and transmasculine lesbian masculinities. There has been increasing interest in the study of masculinity, influenced by a popular discourse around so-called 'toxic masculinity', the rise of men's rights activism and theory and critical work on Trump's America and the MeToo movement.
An increasingly important topic in political science and sociological academia, this book aims to break new ground in the discussion of the politics of gender and identity.
264 pages, Paperback
First published October 7, 2021
21 people are currently reading
347 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 11 of 11 reviews
November 16, 2021
This was great. Thoroughly researched and a very considered approach at handling a difficult topic sensitively.
Some of the key points:
- The gender wars are portrayed as a clash between ‘TERFs’ (offensive term) and trans activists. Radical feminists are not a threat, they do not run institutions or hold power. The real threat is fundamentalists and conservatism
- Radical feminists argue that gender is constructed. Gender identity in its truest sense plays with this construction, as well as challenging the stereotypes we have about gender norms.
- Some people (eg Butch queer) have lived on the edges of gender diversity for decades - but are threatened as an identity. They can help all of us come to terms with hegemonic masculinity.
The only area I had problems with was a feeling that the reworking of challenging gender identities should sit with women. It may be the case that I am uncomfortable sharing a communal shower with a person with a penis, regardless of how they identify, because of a history of male violence and the norms constructed by this. But I’m not sure this is just about me confronting my prejudice, there has to be a wider piece addressing male violence and understanding why so many women are threatened by male bodies.
Also while I completely agreed with McKay’s misgivings about policing who accessed toilets and questioning all but the feminine - I’m not sure if she properly addressed safeguards against men using liberalised spaces as an opportunity to abuse.
Nevertheless, for a challenging topic, this was the best book I have read so far, and the balanced tone was a breath of fresh air in an age of shouting, blame, slogans and bullying.
Highly recommend
Some of the key points:
- The gender wars are portrayed as a clash between ‘TERFs’ (offensive term) and trans activists. Radical feminists are not a threat, they do not run institutions or hold power. The real threat is fundamentalists and conservatism
- Radical feminists argue that gender is constructed. Gender identity in its truest sense plays with this construction, as well as challenging the stereotypes we have about gender norms.
- Some people (eg Butch queer) have lived on the edges of gender diversity for decades - but are threatened as an identity. They can help all of us come to terms with hegemonic masculinity.
The only area I had problems with was a feeling that the reworking of challenging gender identities should sit with women. It may be the case that I am uncomfortable sharing a communal shower with a person with a penis, regardless of how they identify, because of a history of male violence and the norms constructed by this. But I’m not sure this is just about me confronting my prejudice, there has to be a wider piece addressing male violence and understanding why so many women are threatened by male bodies.
Also while I completely agreed with McKay’s misgivings about policing who accessed toilets and questioning all but the feminine - I’m not sure if she properly addressed safeguards against men using liberalised spaces as an opportunity to abuse.
Nevertheless, for a challenging topic, this was the best book I have read so far, and the balanced tone was a breath of fresh air in an age of shouting, blame, slogans and bullying.
Highly recommend
December 23, 2021
Absolutely recommended! Very well researched, providing a much-needed insider perspective from a side of “the gender wars” that’s not heard much. The book gives a much-needed “grey” view on things. Instead of black and white picking a side, it investigates gender issues and highlights where sensitivities and problems are and where they come from. A call for acknowledging all the many shades and the un-fixedness of gender, and for solving the real problem, which is the lack of a true sex revolution that maintains the patriarchal status quo, rather than fixating gender in its existing binaries and picking sides.
April 26, 2022
such a good book on masculinities, feminine masculinities & gender and sexuality as a whole - if u fancy reading more about gender (specifically masculine feminine identities) this is a fab book for that and really breaks things down in both an accessible and academic way (a lot more than just a basic book about gender for example). rlly made me think a lot & rlly made me think about the way terf is used, and how we should not refer to every woman who is transphobic as a terf, bc guess what? probably not a radical feminist. anyways! good book
October 17, 2024
absolutely loved this book - and as you can see by my essay of a review, i have SO many thoughts and questions as a result!! it made me rethink and question and expand my understanding of so much which i am so grateful for <3
was also pleasantly surprised by how accessible this book was - i was expecting a butler level of density/difficulty in comprehending but it was written and structured so well - everything was expressions clearly and so often any questions that were raised (e.g., due to confusion about something being said) was answered in the very next paragraph
with that being said, there is so much packed into this book that i could read it again and again and get more out of it - and i definitely didn’t get my head around everything on this first read - but it opened my mind to so much - providing a nuanced and thorough understanding to some really complicated ideas and questions
identities: embracing the messiness and the grey
“nothing is simple. there are areas of overlap, there are areas of conflict and this is real life. not only are there different, competing accepted positions on political questions, but each of us has a unique standpoint from which we view those questions and most of the time we assume our own ‘truth’ is the truth. there are actually multiple truths; some may not look normal to us, and they may be outside our experience. those are the very occasions we should open our eyes and ears, because learning how others see things helps us to better see the world”
one of the big takeaways from this book for me was becoming increasingly accepting and understanding of the nuances and subjectivity of identities - it is ok that identities don’t always fit neatly into distinct boxes - identities can overlap and contradict, everyone will experience identities differently - two people may use the same identity in different ways and others may use different identities despite being otherwise indistinguishable. there is no black and white, or right and wrong. some people may experience their identity as something innate and others may view it as a choice. some will have many identities over their lives and others just one. perhaps in some ways, it doesn’t actually matter if these identities are innate or socially constructed or either/or any of these other things (and indeed, i am now reflecting on the binaries still present in my questioning here!) - either way, these identities are valid and real and based on lived experiences and realities (more on all of this below)
(feel its important to clarify i wasn’t disrespectful/judgemental of how people identified before haha - rather, i couldn’t fully reconcile “how [identities] might actually encapsulate lots of different and perhaps seemingly contradictory identities all at once” - for example, how some might view butch as a gender identity, because it didn’t fit with the current normative understandings of gender, and therefore i thought it was an outdated term - whereas now im able to expand my thinking and understanding if that makes sense)
and linking in with this, solidarity is so so important - we need to remember that we (the queer and feminist communities) have more in common than not - and we need to remember who the real enemy is - that is, male violence (see below) and the rising right-wing populists/nationalists - who have real and increasing political power and are enacting real violence and consequences on our lives (with that being said, i think there was too quick a dismissal of the real consequences of terfism though!!)
no gender liberation without liberation from patriarchy and male violence
a key underlying argument throughout the book that i think is a really important point - and one that i’d not fully made the connection between before - was that we can’t achieve gender liberation without ending patriarchal and sexualised male violence. it is important to recognise that there are justified reasons for women being fearful of sexed as male bodies being in certain spaces - we are “socialised into a lifetime of hypervigilance” and many women have experienced violence enacted on them by men with male bodies - this therefore isn’t due to homophobia or transphobia but “by a lifetime of cultural conditioning” - and as such “the enemy of gender revolution is sexualised male violence against women” - as we won’t be able to achieve this goal of viewing biology as neutral until there aren’t real reasons to be afraid of certain types etc.
equally however, it is important to recognise that such experiences do not excuse any homo/transphobia that may result from these fears and importantly, “it is not acceptable to make trans women uniquely responsible for societal male violence, especially given that male violence is precisely what trans women fear most in their lives too” - once again, we share a common enemy!
identity: an internal essence or socially constructed?
this book raised a lot of questions about how to reconcile/embrace the complexities of there being this innate feeling/persistence of identities versus them being socially constructed - as with everything else, we obviously have to respect that different people will experience their identities in both/many diverse ways - and none of these are any more or less valid. but this isn’t an answer to these questions!
“the sense of masculinity as what they are then drives them to do masculinity. the internal sense of oneself as masculine cannot exist outside society though, so the identity has been shaped by a society that teaches men to act in masculine-defined ways and suggests that these are natural ways for men to act. a self is formed by these lessons, but that does not mean the self is not then experienced as real”
for example, i understand that identity is socially constructed, enforced and performed due to social norms - but where do non-cis people and their identities fit into this? people who aren’t socialised as the gender they identify as? how is this explained by social construction? how is this “innate essence” explained? and if we acknowledge there is something innate, how do we reconcile the issues of accepting some form of essentialism?
how do we define and respect identities and labels without reinforcing stereotypes? is this possible?
i hadn’t even considered the problems of associating butch with masculinity before reading this book - i just took it for granted that butch = masculine and didn’t think beyond that. and while i can now appreciate the problems with this (reinforcing stereotypes, limits what it means to be a woman/lesbian) - how can we define butchness without using terms like male and masculinity? does the term collapse/disappear without this point of reference? similarly, how do we define masculinity without using stereotypes? i really like this definition:
“a socially negotiable quality that is understood through agreed-on symbols (such as the body and its secondary sex characteristics) and signals (such as clothing, behaviours, occupations, speech patternse tc. understood within a given cultural context) that together informs other people in that context concerning the individual person’s status in a given group”
but does such a vague/general description become ultimately meaningless? and do we want masculinity and femininity to become meaningless/irrelevant terms? (because they are socially constructed) and if so, what happens to people who identify as such?
perhaps similarly, if women is defined by experiences of sexism and male violence, what happens to this identity if we ever eradicate such experiences on a systemic level? as we achieve our goals of gender liberation, do all terms and identities become obsolete? what happens to the many who find labels important? but how else do we keep these labels without reinforcing stereotypes and/or essentialism?
i also found it interesting that many butches didn’t feel totally comfortable with womanhood because they didn’t fit stereotypes/expectations of what it meant to be a woman. but if your discomfort with a label stems from not fitting stereotypes, does this invalidate this discomfort? is the answer not to challenge stereotypes rather than reject the label? what does it mean that in a different context, with different stereotypes (or lack thereof) you would feel more comfortable with this label?
my current non-answer to a lot of these questions: like everything else, this lack of identification with womanhood is socially constructed, but doesn't make it less real or valid - it is ok for identities to be not innate or fixed!! and regardless of if someone's discomfort with an identity is innate or due to social norms, the impact (feelings of alienation and exclusion and discomfort) are the same. and really, what right do we have to police these labels and peoples lived experiences and feelings?
but also, we have to acknowledge such feelings don’t happen in a vacuum - we have to consider their reasons and impacts. if these beliefs perpetuate stereotypes and rigid ideas of womanhood/lesbianism (e.g., some who didn’t identify with lesbian because it felt associated with womanhood even though we now view lesbianism as including non-binary people, the concept of bi lesbians), how can we acknowledge this and prevent harm whilst also respecting peoples experiences and identities? how do we balance our obligations to the wider queer community with what ultimately involves critiquing what people experience as true to them? how can we ensure this is done respectfully and remembering that we’re all ultimately on the same page?
butches: “a million raindrops of shifting butch identities make up a whole rainbow of queer”
i particularly loved chapters 7 and 8 where we got to hear from so many butch voices - these chapters in particular really deepened my understanding about the contents of this book in ways that theory alone can’t and i’m so glad we got to hear from so many diverse perspectives. however, as the author acknowledged, these respondents were largely from an older generation (mostly in their 40s/50s) - and perspectives of terms such as butch have changed over time - it would be really interesting to compare these older perspectives with younger perspectives therefore, and its a shame we didnt get more younger voices (also interesting that there weren’t more younger voices! i would have assumed it would always be easy to get younger participants - perhaps this in itself is due to how different generations view language like butch/female masculinities and thus who wanted to respond?)
as i noted, before reading this book, my understanding of butch was quite limited - i was aware it was used as some sort of gender identity for lesbians and was masculine - but i didn’t really understand it, and thought it was outdated as i couldn’t reconcile it with modern understandings of gender - i’m really glad i now have a much better, nuanced, and more open understanding of the term now !! in particular, i loved learning about how being butch is so varied! there is no one way to be butch - it is a spectrum - some people may use it as a gender identity, others as a sexual orientation, others as both or neither, some butches may identify with womanhood and others not, some may identify as a lesbian and others not etc etc
it was also really interesting to learn about how the connotations and “historical baggage” associated with butch that led some people to prefer newer terms. for example, not only how it is associated with womanhood/lesbianism, but also how it has “raced and classed assumptions” - all of which may influence people feeling comfortable or not with this label
i would have liked to see a greater discussion regarding the beliefs of butch and butch/femme relationships reinforcing gender norms and why this isn’t true - we got a little bit of a discussion into this but not a lot - for example, the “masculinity of butches… is an inherently subverise masculinity because it is mediated through and on a female body… do not in fact want to be men” (i also really liked this quote: “adopting and often transforming traits traditionally associated with men, butches threated masculinity more than they imitate it, they colonise it”)
expanding and fucking with gender
i loved the ongoing reminder of the unlimited potential for gender and sexuality and how we can make them whatever we want them to be!!! i think when thinking about these definitions its so easy to get caught up in stereotypes (e.g., of what it means to be masculine or feminine) when really, there are so many ways to be masculine (e.g., feminine trans and cis men!) or feminine - they are infinite and open to anyone! and we can also create new ways of embodying them!! all of these identities are valuable and beautiful and there is no one way to be
i also loved this quote and the idea that transness/gender queering/fuckery was seen as inevitable - and indeed the more a system tries to enforce rigid norms, the more inevitable this becomes:
“any fiercely policed binary gender society would inevitably produce those who did not, could not or would not fit in to it, and so would seek to shift or exist between the allowed boxes and labels. in fact, to be human was considered by definition fluid, and therefore it was human not to fit into inhumane constraints and labels”
“landing firmly on one side of the fence rather than the other… is important and meaningful for some people and that the task of doing so is neither trivial nor unnatural”
equally however, i think it is important to remember that not every queer person is interested in this gender fuckery and that’s ok. indeed, i think recognising this is increasingly important given the increasing discourse and hierarchies of queerness/being queer enough within queer communities - which would be a whole essay in itself and a topic i would love to read more about! i thought this simple quote really highlighted this idea: “for some butches their masculinity… just is” - it's not political or subversive or linked to men or womanhood, we don’t need to overthink/overcomplicate everything, some things just are!
some other interesting points:
- problems associated with increasing assimilation - while more diverse identities are being tolerated, this is only if they fit within certain boxes/labels (e.g., trans versus genderqueer/unlabelled), still being forced into binaries (e.g., critiques associated with the medicalisation/pathologisation of non-cisness)
- sex is socially constructed and a spectrum (also something that had never really clicked for me before for some reason is that sex isn’t even fixed given all the medical procedures!!) - and while it is important that we are increasingly recognising that sex also isn’t innate, there isn’t really any point in trying to categorise/identify all these possible classifications as all this does is reinforce binary and essentialist thinking
- found chapter 3 - a deep dive into history and a specific case study - so interesting! learning so much interesting history, and gaining a deeper understanding about a lot of historical terms/contexts - this is really important to me as a lesbian - to gain this greater understanding of my community’s history, especially its tensions/complexities. like i said, it definitely expanded my understanding a lot even though some of the nuances/distinctions were confusing/i definitely don’t fully understand them yet (cultural feminism, political lesbians v lesbian feminism, terfism, radical feminism, separatism, the lesbian sex wars, gender critical feminism etc) - i think understanding the nuance is just something that comes with time/the more of these perspectives you consume, rather than forcing yourself to read more theory if that makes sense? i’m keen to read some more manifestos/primary texts from this era to help my understanding on this
- also provided me with a greater understanding of a lot of butlers arguments/other key gender studies theories for me - which i already understood on some level, but feel these have been enhanced now - of gender as a performance, the notion that women are oppressed because they are assumed to have bodies sexed as female etc (though lets be honest, i will never fully understand butler - but i do have two of their books on my shelf which i am keen/very daunted to read at some point haha)
- “I do not think there is much to be gained from speeding or celebrating the extinction of our predecessors, to which many of us owe a debt” - importance recognising the value of historical theories/ideas (or in this context, the MichFest) but also recognising the flaws - but we shouldn’t easily dismiss them, but understand why problems arose and change this etc.
- another concept that i became more understanding of while reading this book was the idea of lesbianism/womanhood as political identities - i was initially quite dismissive of this concept (especially in the context of de-sexing lesbianism and the idea of straight women taking on such labels through political lesbian movements) - however, it was really interesting reading how such butches felt this way too! (interesting how many of the harmful beliefs of terfism, political lesbianism etc can also be very empowering, positive, and come from within communtiy with different impacts!) was interesting to consider how, for many butches, “the only they could feel a sense of belonging with women as a group” was through political solidarity - with feminism, sexism, having been socialised as a woman - where the political remains political rather than personal. would have been interesting to see more about lesbian as a political identity in this context too (it was touched on but i just find it really interesting haha)
- raised an interesting point how a lot of negative lesbian stereotypes centre around the butch identity which i think is important to recognise
- “being part of queer communities was a way to fit in and deal with a feeling of difference from women” - i resonated a lot with this and i am becoming increasingly drawn to the idea of lesbianism as being more of a gender identity/marker for me
- rethinking “transness as a matter not of what one is but what one wants” - another concept that i’ve slowly been wrapping my head around for years and want to read more about - we should be able to accept transness/queerness without it being biological - the freedom and liberation of our identity as being a choice, the limits of born this way model
was also pleasantly surprised by how accessible this book was - i was expecting a butler level of density/difficulty in comprehending but it was written and structured so well - everything was expressions clearly and so often any questions that were raised (e.g., due to confusion about something being said) was answered in the very next paragraph
with that being said, there is so much packed into this book that i could read it again and again and get more out of it - and i definitely didn’t get my head around everything on this first read - but it opened my mind to so much - providing a nuanced and thorough understanding to some really complicated ideas and questions
identities: embracing the messiness and the grey
“nothing is simple. there are areas of overlap, there are areas of conflict and this is real life. not only are there different, competing accepted positions on political questions, but each of us has a unique standpoint from which we view those questions and most of the time we assume our own ‘truth’ is the truth. there are actually multiple truths; some may not look normal to us, and they may be outside our experience. those are the very occasions we should open our eyes and ears, because learning how others see things helps us to better see the world”
one of the big takeaways from this book for me was becoming increasingly accepting and understanding of the nuances and subjectivity of identities - it is ok that identities don’t always fit neatly into distinct boxes - identities can overlap and contradict, everyone will experience identities differently - two people may use the same identity in different ways and others may use different identities despite being otherwise indistinguishable. there is no black and white, or right and wrong. some people may experience their identity as something innate and others may view it as a choice. some will have many identities over their lives and others just one. perhaps in some ways, it doesn’t actually matter if these identities are innate or socially constructed or either/or any of these other things (and indeed, i am now reflecting on the binaries still present in my questioning here!) - either way, these identities are valid and real and based on lived experiences and realities (more on all of this below)
(feel its important to clarify i wasn’t disrespectful/judgemental of how people identified before haha - rather, i couldn’t fully reconcile “how [identities] might actually encapsulate lots of different and perhaps seemingly contradictory identities all at once” - for example, how some might view butch as a gender identity, because it didn’t fit with the current normative understandings of gender, and therefore i thought it was an outdated term - whereas now im able to expand my thinking and understanding if that makes sense)
and linking in with this, solidarity is so so important - we need to remember that we (the queer and feminist communities) have more in common than not - and we need to remember who the real enemy is - that is, male violence (see below) and the rising right-wing populists/nationalists - who have real and increasing political power and are enacting real violence and consequences on our lives (with that being said, i think there was too quick a dismissal of the real consequences of terfism though!!)
no gender liberation without liberation from patriarchy and male violence
a key underlying argument throughout the book that i think is a really important point - and one that i’d not fully made the connection between before - was that we can’t achieve gender liberation without ending patriarchal and sexualised male violence. it is important to recognise that there are justified reasons for women being fearful of sexed as male bodies being in certain spaces - we are “socialised into a lifetime of hypervigilance” and many women have experienced violence enacted on them by men with male bodies - this therefore isn’t due to homophobia or transphobia but “by a lifetime of cultural conditioning” - and as such “the enemy of gender revolution is sexualised male violence against women” - as we won’t be able to achieve this goal of viewing biology as neutral until there aren’t real reasons to be afraid of certain types etc.
equally however, it is important to recognise that such experiences do not excuse any homo/transphobia that may result from these fears and importantly, “it is not acceptable to make trans women uniquely responsible for societal male violence, especially given that male violence is precisely what trans women fear most in their lives too” - once again, we share a common enemy!
identity: an internal essence or socially constructed?
this book raised a lot of questions about how to reconcile/embrace the complexities of there being this innate feeling/persistence of identities versus them being socially constructed - as with everything else, we obviously have to respect that different people will experience their identities in both/many diverse ways - and none of these are any more or less valid. but this isn’t an answer to these questions!
“the sense of masculinity as what they are then drives them to do masculinity. the internal sense of oneself as masculine cannot exist outside society though, so the identity has been shaped by a society that teaches men to act in masculine-defined ways and suggests that these are natural ways for men to act. a self is formed by these lessons, but that does not mean the self is not then experienced as real”
for example, i understand that identity is socially constructed, enforced and performed due to social norms - but where do non-cis people and their identities fit into this? people who aren’t socialised as the gender they identify as? how is this explained by social construction? how is this “innate essence” explained? and if we acknowledge there is something innate, how do we reconcile the issues of accepting some form of essentialism?
how do we define and respect identities and labels without reinforcing stereotypes? is this possible?
i hadn’t even considered the problems of associating butch with masculinity before reading this book - i just took it for granted that butch = masculine and didn’t think beyond that. and while i can now appreciate the problems with this (reinforcing stereotypes, limits what it means to be a woman/lesbian) - how can we define butchness without using terms like male and masculinity? does the term collapse/disappear without this point of reference? similarly, how do we define masculinity without using stereotypes? i really like this definition:
“a socially negotiable quality that is understood through agreed-on symbols (such as the body and its secondary sex characteristics) and signals (such as clothing, behaviours, occupations, speech patternse tc. understood within a given cultural context) that together informs other people in that context concerning the individual person’s status in a given group”
but does such a vague/general description become ultimately meaningless? and do we want masculinity and femininity to become meaningless/irrelevant terms? (because they are socially constructed) and if so, what happens to people who identify as such?
perhaps similarly, if women is defined by experiences of sexism and male violence, what happens to this identity if we ever eradicate such experiences on a systemic level? as we achieve our goals of gender liberation, do all terms and identities become obsolete? what happens to the many who find labels important? but how else do we keep these labels without reinforcing stereotypes and/or essentialism?
i also found it interesting that many butches didn’t feel totally comfortable with womanhood because they didn’t fit stereotypes/expectations of what it meant to be a woman. but if your discomfort with a label stems from not fitting stereotypes, does this invalidate this discomfort? is the answer not to challenge stereotypes rather than reject the label? what does it mean that in a different context, with different stereotypes (or lack thereof) you would feel more comfortable with this label?
my current non-answer to a lot of these questions: like everything else, this lack of identification with womanhood is socially constructed, but doesn't make it less real or valid - it is ok for identities to be not innate or fixed!! and regardless of if someone's discomfort with an identity is innate or due to social norms, the impact (feelings of alienation and exclusion and discomfort) are the same. and really, what right do we have to police these labels and peoples lived experiences and feelings?
but also, we have to acknowledge such feelings don’t happen in a vacuum - we have to consider their reasons and impacts. if these beliefs perpetuate stereotypes and rigid ideas of womanhood/lesbianism (e.g., some who didn’t identify with lesbian because it felt associated with womanhood even though we now view lesbianism as including non-binary people, the concept of bi lesbians), how can we acknowledge this and prevent harm whilst also respecting peoples experiences and identities? how do we balance our obligations to the wider queer community with what ultimately involves critiquing what people experience as true to them? how can we ensure this is done respectfully and remembering that we’re all ultimately on the same page?
butches: “a million raindrops of shifting butch identities make up a whole rainbow of queer”
i particularly loved chapters 7 and 8 where we got to hear from so many butch voices - these chapters in particular really deepened my understanding about the contents of this book in ways that theory alone can’t and i’m so glad we got to hear from so many diverse perspectives. however, as the author acknowledged, these respondents were largely from an older generation (mostly in their 40s/50s) - and perspectives of terms such as butch have changed over time - it would be really interesting to compare these older perspectives with younger perspectives therefore, and its a shame we didnt get more younger voices (also interesting that there weren’t more younger voices! i would have assumed it would always be easy to get younger participants - perhaps this in itself is due to how different generations view language like butch/female masculinities and thus who wanted to respond?)
as i noted, before reading this book, my understanding of butch was quite limited - i was aware it was used as some sort of gender identity for lesbians and was masculine - but i didn’t really understand it, and thought it was outdated as i couldn’t reconcile it with modern understandings of gender - i’m really glad i now have a much better, nuanced, and more open understanding of the term now !! in particular, i loved learning about how being butch is so varied! there is no one way to be butch - it is a spectrum - some people may use it as a gender identity, others as a sexual orientation, others as both or neither, some butches may identify with womanhood and others not, some may identify as a lesbian and others not etc etc
it was also really interesting to learn about how the connotations and “historical baggage” associated with butch that led some people to prefer newer terms. for example, not only how it is associated with womanhood/lesbianism, but also how it has “raced and classed assumptions” - all of which may influence people feeling comfortable or not with this label
i would have liked to see a greater discussion regarding the beliefs of butch and butch/femme relationships reinforcing gender norms and why this isn’t true - we got a little bit of a discussion into this but not a lot - for example, the “masculinity of butches… is an inherently subverise masculinity because it is mediated through and on a female body… do not in fact want to be men” (i also really liked this quote: “adopting and often transforming traits traditionally associated with men, butches threated masculinity more than they imitate it, they colonise it”)
expanding and fucking with gender
i loved the ongoing reminder of the unlimited potential for gender and sexuality and how we can make them whatever we want them to be!!! i think when thinking about these definitions its so easy to get caught up in stereotypes (e.g., of what it means to be masculine or feminine) when really, there are so many ways to be masculine (e.g., feminine trans and cis men!) or feminine - they are infinite and open to anyone! and we can also create new ways of embodying them!! all of these identities are valuable and beautiful and there is no one way to be
i also loved this quote and the idea that transness/gender queering/fuckery was seen as inevitable - and indeed the more a system tries to enforce rigid norms, the more inevitable this becomes:
“any fiercely policed binary gender society would inevitably produce those who did not, could not or would not fit in to it, and so would seek to shift or exist between the allowed boxes and labels. in fact, to be human was considered by definition fluid, and therefore it was human not to fit into inhumane constraints and labels”
“landing firmly on one side of the fence rather than the other… is important and meaningful for some people and that the task of doing so is neither trivial nor unnatural”
equally however, i think it is important to remember that not every queer person is interested in this gender fuckery and that’s ok. indeed, i think recognising this is increasingly important given the increasing discourse and hierarchies of queerness/being queer enough within queer communities - which would be a whole essay in itself and a topic i would love to read more about! i thought this simple quote really highlighted this idea: “for some butches their masculinity… just is” - it's not political or subversive or linked to men or womanhood, we don’t need to overthink/overcomplicate everything, some things just are!
some other interesting points:
- problems associated with increasing assimilation - while more diverse identities are being tolerated, this is only if they fit within certain boxes/labels (e.g., trans versus genderqueer/unlabelled), still being forced into binaries (e.g., critiques associated with the medicalisation/pathologisation of non-cisness)
- sex is socially constructed and a spectrum (also something that had never really clicked for me before for some reason is that sex isn’t even fixed given all the medical procedures!!) - and while it is important that we are increasingly recognising that sex also isn’t innate, there isn’t really any point in trying to categorise/identify all these possible classifications as all this does is reinforce binary and essentialist thinking
- found chapter 3 - a deep dive into history and a specific case study - so interesting! learning so much interesting history, and gaining a deeper understanding about a lot of historical terms/contexts - this is really important to me as a lesbian - to gain this greater understanding of my community’s history, especially its tensions/complexities. like i said, it definitely expanded my understanding a lot even though some of the nuances/distinctions were confusing/i definitely don’t fully understand them yet (cultural feminism, political lesbians v lesbian feminism, terfism, radical feminism, separatism, the lesbian sex wars, gender critical feminism etc) - i think understanding the nuance is just something that comes with time/the more of these perspectives you consume, rather than forcing yourself to read more theory if that makes sense? i’m keen to read some more manifestos/primary texts from this era to help my understanding on this
- also provided me with a greater understanding of a lot of butlers arguments/other key gender studies theories for me - which i already understood on some level, but feel these have been enhanced now - of gender as a performance, the notion that women are oppressed because they are assumed to have bodies sexed as female etc (though lets be honest, i will never fully understand butler - but i do have two of their books on my shelf which i am keen/very daunted to read at some point haha)
- “I do not think there is much to be gained from speeding or celebrating the extinction of our predecessors, to which many of us owe a debt” - importance recognising the value of historical theories/ideas (or in this context, the MichFest) but also recognising the flaws - but we shouldn’t easily dismiss them, but understand why problems arose and change this etc.
- another concept that i became more understanding of while reading this book was the idea of lesbianism/womanhood as political identities - i was initially quite dismissive of this concept (especially in the context of de-sexing lesbianism and the idea of straight women taking on such labels through political lesbian movements) - however, it was really interesting reading how such butches felt this way too! (interesting how many of the harmful beliefs of terfism, political lesbianism etc can also be very empowering, positive, and come from within communtiy with different impacts!) was interesting to consider how, for many butches, “the only they could feel a sense of belonging with women as a group” was through political solidarity - with feminism, sexism, having been socialised as a woman - where the political remains political rather than personal. would have been interesting to see more about lesbian as a political identity in this context too (it was touched on but i just find it really interesting haha)
- raised an interesting point how a lot of negative lesbian stereotypes centre around the butch identity which i think is important to recognise
- “being part of queer communities was a way to fit in and deal with a feeling of difference from women” - i resonated a lot with this and i am becoming increasingly drawn to the idea of lesbianism as being more of a gender identity/marker for me
- rethinking “transness as a matter not of what one is but what one wants” - another concept that i’ve slowly been wrapping my head around for years and want to read more about - we should be able to accept transness/queerness without it being biological - the freedom and liberation of our identity as being a choice, the limits of born this way model
March 3, 2023
A brilliant, thought-provoking and insightful book investigating the politics of gender, sex and sexuality
Good demolition of trans-exclusionary/gender-critical arguments:
Those opposed to trans inclusion may raise points of transwomen having male privilege, but like all groups, transwomen are not a homogenous group and it stands to reason that individuals who rejected the roles imposed on them from an early age would have been punished for doing so. Homophobia and transphobia blight the lives of young people who reject sex and gender norms, regardless of how those young people actually define or identify themselves
If we acknowledge that women are more than whatever reproductive system and capacity they may (not) have, then feminism stands for precisely this "more" - feminism is the political unity of women under conditions of patriarchy, and all those treated as women by patriarchy should have a place in that unity
Chu points out that gender is implicated in such processes of desire, and it should need no biological justification or ‘born this way’ style apology; it just is, like any other desire. Her theory should, in theory, have much to appeal to GC and gender-abolitionist feminists alike. In its avowed anti-essentialism it has received much criticism from some trans activists, and due to the sharpness of the sides in the gender wars, it is unlikely to be read as closely as it deserves.
In conclusion, like many GC activists and queer activists, the author believe gender is indeed a social construction. Masculinity, femininity, both, neither or something in between are not born; they are made. GC activists argue that only sex matters, as in the sex we were recorded at birth. The author agrees that sex matters; it affects our life trajectory and places us into one of two hierarchical sex classes. Our sexed bodies affect how we understand and experience our own bodies and the bodies of others. However, the author disagrees that gender identity is irrelevant. Gender too shapes how we understand and experience our bodies. This is intimately connected with sexuality too. Gender affects how we understand and experience our sexuality. Masculinity and femininity shape and construct heterosexuality; in fact, heterosexuality couldn’t exist without them because heterosexuality is masculinity and femininity.
Lesbian feminist Sheila Jeffreys also argues that sexuality, including lesbianism, is a social construction, but concludes that this does not mean it is not significant: "Lesbian feminist identity is a social construction, I suggest, as is lesbian identity; but this does not mean that it needs to be abandoned" This acknowledgement can surely extend to gender identity, even if some people feel that they have no inner sense of themselves as a woman or a man. Whether it is purely biological, social or a mixture of those things, everyone has a right to express themselves how they wish. If a nonnormative individual has a sense of their gender identity as masculine, feminine or it is important that they can express that without punishment or threat, let alone risk to life. We have as much of a right to express and have that identity recognized, as all those gender-conforming individuals who are male, masculine men or female, feminine women.
Other highlights include:
The discussion of Connell's research on the patriarchy dividend - Not all men perform the role of poster boy for patriarchy by displaying and embodying visible practices of hegemonic masculinity. However, while not all men are within the ranks of what counts as hegemonic masculinity, and do not perform these configurations of gender practice, Professor Connell argues that all men benefit from it because they benefit within a current gender order that, in the main, puts men above women. This is what Connell calls the patriarchal dividend, the varying degrees and scale of benefits that accrue to men within patriarchy, simply for being men and not being women.
Discussion on masculinity - Perhaps a more tempting answer to the question of what is masculinity is to suggest that it is probably a mixture of two approaches; that is to say that masculinity is something men do, but also something that men are. This is a melding of biological and cultural or social perspectives; it is an approach of having it both ways and it is popular. Many people acknowledge societal stereotypes about what men are meant to be, which is masculinity, but they are also committed to the idea that men are just different to women, and do have some drives that make them drawn to what we would classify as masculine behaviours and roles.
Good demolition of trans-exclusionary/gender-critical arguments:
Those opposed to trans inclusion may raise points of transwomen having male privilege, but like all groups, transwomen are not a homogenous group and it stands to reason that individuals who rejected the roles imposed on them from an early age would have been punished for doing so. Homophobia and transphobia blight the lives of young people who reject sex and gender norms, regardless of how those young people actually define or identify themselves
If we acknowledge that women are more than whatever reproductive system and capacity they may (not) have, then feminism stands for precisely this "more" - feminism is the political unity of women under conditions of patriarchy, and all those treated as women by patriarchy should have a place in that unity
Chu points out that gender is implicated in such processes of desire, and it should need no biological justification or ‘born this way’ style apology; it just is, like any other desire. Her theory should, in theory, have much to appeal to GC and gender-abolitionist feminists alike. In its avowed anti-essentialism it has received much criticism from some trans activists, and due to the sharpness of the sides in the gender wars, it is unlikely to be read as closely as it deserves.
In conclusion, like many GC activists and queer activists, the author believe gender is indeed a social construction. Masculinity, femininity, both, neither or something in between are not born; they are made. GC activists argue that only sex matters, as in the sex we were recorded at birth. The author agrees that sex matters; it affects our life trajectory and places us into one of two hierarchical sex classes. Our sexed bodies affect how we understand and experience our own bodies and the bodies of others. However, the author disagrees that gender identity is irrelevant. Gender too shapes how we understand and experience our bodies. This is intimately connected with sexuality too. Gender affects how we understand and experience our sexuality. Masculinity and femininity shape and construct heterosexuality; in fact, heterosexuality couldn’t exist without them because heterosexuality is masculinity and femininity.
Lesbian feminist Sheila Jeffreys also argues that sexuality, including lesbianism, is a social construction, but concludes that this does not mean it is not significant: "Lesbian feminist identity is a social construction, I suggest, as is lesbian identity; but this does not mean that it needs to be abandoned" This acknowledgement can surely extend to gender identity, even if some people feel that they have no inner sense of themselves as a woman or a man. Whether it is purely biological, social or a mixture of those things, everyone has a right to express themselves how they wish. If a nonnormative individual has a sense of their gender identity as masculine, feminine or it is important that they can express that without punishment or threat, let alone risk to life. We have as much of a right to express and have that identity recognized, as all those gender-conforming individuals who are male, masculine men or female, feminine women.
Other highlights include:
The discussion of Connell's research on the patriarchy dividend - Not all men perform the role of poster boy for patriarchy by displaying and embodying visible practices of hegemonic masculinity. However, while not all men are within the ranks of what counts as hegemonic masculinity, and do not perform these configurations of gender practice, Professor Connell argues that all men benefit from it because they benefit within a current gender order that, in the main, puts men above women. This is what Connell calls the patriarchal dividend, the varying degrees and scale of benefits that accrue to men within patriarchy, simply for being men and not being women.
Discussion on masculinity - Perhaps a more tempting answer to the question of what is masculinity is to suggest that it is probably a mixture of two approaches; that is to say that masculinity is something men do, but also something that men are. This is a melding of biological and cultural or social perspectives; it is an approach of having it both ways and it is popular. Many people acknowledge societal stereotypes about what men are meant to be, which is masculinity, but they are also committed to the idea that men are just different to women, and do have some drives that make them drawn to what we would classify as masculine behaviours and roles.
July 13, 2023
Oh my goodness this book was amazing. Very dense and took me a while to get through as it is a sociology book (love to all my humanities baddies) but has amazing deep dives into constructions of masculinities, how this is separate from male anatomy, lesbian identities and conflicts within this and how to continue to heal our community and make space for the trans masc lovelies around us. Super interesting few chapters of interviews with older butches and GNC people about their identity and relationship to their female bodies. I LOVE BEING A LEZZA!
May 12, 2025
I really appreciated the historical recap of trans-inclusion and exclusion narratives, and the contribution of lesbians, butches, and trans people to the feminist activism. In here lies the strength of the book. It was done with a great nuance and backed up by extensive literature that inspires some further reading. The main conclusion is that protected spaces are needed for as long as patriarchy is still a model for the society. Trans people and feminists are allies in the fight against it, but the current discourse is pitching us forever against each other. I fully agree that trans people should not have to answer for male violence, and that the main problem is that the male body is read as a threat by so many women. Her answer is: why not both, i.e., single sex protected spaces for women (just like the specialised services of people of different races or nationalities etc.), alongside unisex services. She is also really honest on issues where she has not formed an opinion (i.e. best course of medical care, or sports).
The book was rather long and not always engaging. I'm quite used to academic reading, albeit not in the gender studies area, and I found it fairly difficult to read. I wish there was a follow-up publication for "common people", who are often so lost in the gender war discourse, because the core of the message is really valuable.
The book was rather long and not always engaging. I'm quite used to academic reading, albeit not in the gender studies area, and I found it fairly difficult to read. I wish there was a follow-up publication for "common people", who are often so lost in the gender war discourse, because the core of the message is really valuable.
August 1, 2023
Well summarised history of modern feminism and the gender wars and how many butch identities are overlooked , or even perceived as “traitors”, in many discussions surrounding women’s & lgbtq+ rights. It redefined my own perceptions of what masculinity is beyond the fragile masculinities inherent in patriarchal society, and rather ironically how butches/ trans men / GNC pose the most threat to patriarchal gender norms.
February 4, 2024
This was an overall very nuanced and extremely well researched study of our current 'gender wars'. I enjoyed the format of the book and felt it was well paced and structured. I have however been left with more questions that were answered and have been left a good footing for further research on the topic- 4.5/5
Read
November 16, 2022the diss really is dissing
March 1, 2023
*SMACKS THIS BOOK IN EVERY SINGLE PERSON I KNOW’S FACE* READ.
Displaying 1 - 11 of 11 reviews