Look right, I like a lot of things about the foundational 2007 text Whipping Girl by Julia Serano. But if you've ever been told to read this book without any qualifiers, I'd like to apologise on behalf of the trans community.
Obviously the concepts of traditional and oppositional sexism, the idea of transmisogyny, Serano's analysis of media depictions of trans women, and more are all superb and well worthy of praise. However, Serano is a land of contrasts, as AcidSmiley so concisely put it. She's read both Leslie Feinberg and Kate Bornstein's works, and writes this extremely salient quote:
We must also stop pretending that there are essential differences between women and men. This begins with the acknowledgement that there are exceptions to every gender rule and stereotype, and this simply stated fact disproves all gender theories that purport that female and male are mutually exclusive categories.
Despite all that, Serano has a perspective that's utterly mired in exorsexist* binary-only assumptions, with language to match. On own, describing someone taking estrogen as "hormonally female" or her body prior to hormone replacement therapy as "physically male" would be unpleasantly cisnormative, but just that. I respect fully that the intent of this book is to analyse the ins and outs of being trans in the gender binary, and so the text is focused in that direction. When Serano writes goofy shit like "mtf spectrum" though, you wonder if she wouldn't be better served by thinking a little outside of the two-genders box.
She doesn't want to, though; Julia Serano circa 2007 (the text has not been meaningfully updated to my knowledge) is a brave warrior going against the grain of non binary domination :citation to defend our poor, repressed binary genders. She's taking down those woke non-binary moralists from their ivory towers:
There are many different (but often overlapping) forms of gender entitlement and gender anxiety. For example, one of the most frequently discussed forms of gender entitlement is heterosexism, the belief that heterosexuality is the only "natural," legitimate, or morally acceptable form of sexual desire. Heterosexist gender entitlement ean lead to homophobia, which is an expression of gender anxiety directed against those people who engage in same-sex relationships. Similarly, the gender-entitled belief that all women are (or should be) feminine and men masculine-which some have called cisgenderism-gives rise to transphobia, a gender anxiety that is directed against people who fall outside of those norms. While homophobia and transphobia have both received mainstream attention, thinking in terms of gender entitlement and gender anxiety also allows us to consider less well- known (but just as disparaging) forms of gender and sexual discrimination. For example, many gays and lesbians who believe that all people are "naturally" either homosexual or heterosexual often express biphobia, a gender anxiety directed toward bisexual people because they challenge the presumption that people can only be attracted to one sex or the other. I have also met some people in the transgender community who feel that identifying outside of the male/female binary is superior to, or more enlightened than, identifying within it. Such people often express gender anxiety (binary- phobia?) at people who identify strongly as either female or male.
I would be laughing if I weren't actually really mad about this classic, foundational transfeminist text featuring tons of brainworms about anyone outside the binary. It's a punchline, the phrase "binary-phobia" is perfect to sit right next to "heterophobia" or "cisphobia". It's right up there alongside white westerners claiming to be victims of racism when someone calls them a cracker, even. It should be plainly self-evident how ridiculous a claim this is. I want to ask Serano circa 2007 to tell me which genders have legal recognition - binary or non-binary ones?
It is truly incredible that a woman can write so sharply about the cultural/societal hedgemony of cis gender and heterosexuality, about how the concept of anything being inherently gendered is antithetical to feminism, and then turn around and write a deeply unserious aside about how non-binary people are apparently smug moralists commiting discrimination against people of binary gender due to the same gender anxiety**--in itself a smart concept about how queer people disrupt assumed gender/sexual normality--that drives cis people to be transphobes!! I am for real left somewhat speechless.
I don't think Whipping Girl is a book nobody should read, obviously. But I scoured the bearsite to see if anyone had dome criticism of or even qualified their recommendation of Whipping Girl, and I found nothing. Part of me wonders if anyone has made a concerted criticism of this book before, but surely someone has before me. I yap exclusively for your benefit! I wonder if Sexed Up or Excluded are better, but frankly I'm just disappointed and angry. Truly a joke.
--
*Exorsexist, I learned today, is discrimination against people outside the gender binary!
**Serano describes gender anxiety as "the act of becoming irrationally upset or being made uncomfortable by the existence of those people who challenge or bring into question one's gender entitlement." In turn, she describes gender entitlement being "an arrogant conviction that one's own beliefs, perceptions, and assumptions regarding gender and sexuality are more valid than those of other people". She is more or less insinuating that non-binary people are befuddled supremacists who cannot stand... adherence to the gender binary. Cool.
spoiler from ch 20
Have you got to the part where Julia just says non-binary people are creating their own binary?Don't get how someone who seems to think a lot about things these could write something like that unironically...
The gotcha wording is why I said I don't get how someone could seriously write it if they've thought about it at all. Its about as insightful as the "you live in the society, yet you want it to change" meme that I can only believe people would say if they either have not thought about it at all OR are arguing in bad faith. I'm willing to give the benefit of the doubt to Julia that I wouldn't give to a random internet stranger who said that and nothing else to suggest otherwise, but its still embarrassing and given the binarist bent of the language throughout the book (probably because that was the language in vogue at the time), it hardly seems like NBs and anti-binary sentiment was really as big a of a thing as portrayed (or Julia intentionally chose to use such language despite widespread alternatives without even mentioning them).
I don't disagree with the idea that people should present how they want and not restrict themselves based on avoiding to be too conformist. OTOH, people should question if they want certain things to conform or because they genuinely want to. I get this book is written about a specific time and place that I was not part of (early 2000s California trans scene IIRC), but it doesn't seem to describe anything I've actually seen at scale from trans people (maybe because this book was successful? Maybe just because of my limited exposure to such groups) But I still feel [citation needed] applies and without that I still feel like I should lump it in with the conservative stories about how they went to a coffee shop in a place like San Francisco and got beat up for being a cishet white male and no other reason. If it is just a story about a niche scene from 20 years ago, the book should still be given qualifiers about such when recommending it today.
I don't think it never happens, but it seems most popular among TERFs. "Feminists" were separately called out and cited in the book.
I can't help but wonder if she's mistaking her disproportionate negative feelings towards a couple of "subversive for the sake of subversiveness" types for a more widespread nature of it. Like on the ace meme subreddit, you would regularly see people complaining about too much "sex-favorable" and too much "sex-negative" content, often on the same day. And both would seriously believe that the other experience had some extreme disproportionate influence when like 90% of the jokes were just garlic bread, dragons, spACE, and invading Denmark and had nothing to do with sex in any way; yet, I still essentially took a side despite thinking the whole argument was silly, so I'm not gonna hold it against Julia for responding to that sentiment even if it wasn't as dominant as she seemed to portray it (I finished the book and I don't read - I still think its a good read).