This was so powerful and beautifully written, Erin. I especially liked this line: “a warped mirror into which Jamie gazed, seeing not the whole person that she was, but instead only her constituent parts.” Those who truly love us see our whole selves. These online communities are committing the Kantian sin of valuing only those parts of us that they can exploit. They are using people as a means to an end--as fodder for their ideology. Thank you for writing this review.
I really like this book review and now I’d like to read the book. I, too, had heard Shannon on the Gender: A Wider Lens podcast and was really impressed with her-- and felt terrible for what she’d been through.
Here’s a question -- and this is not at all being asked in a confrontational way, but a sincerely curious way.
Why do you refer to Jamie as “she”?
On the podcast, Shannon referred to him as “he.” He’s clearly not a person who was in any way made happier by his gender transition and going along with his pronouns feels almost cruel to me.
I certainly don’t think _you_ are being cruel. I’m just saying _I_ would feel cruel to go along with a deeply mentally ill person’s ideas that make him feel worse.
To me it would be like agreeing with a person with anorexia that she’s too fat. Or agreeing with a paranoid person that the CIA really IS coming for him. That might be what they really believe, what they truly want to hear from us, but it seems cruel to agree.
So I’m just genuinely curious what your feeling is re the “she” for this very unhappy guy, whose best chance at happiness might indeed be relinquishing his addiction to / obsession with gender and coming back to reality and the rest of his interests and his life.
I'll be the first to say it. Great article. I'll be sending it to a dear friend who's going through the exact some issue with a family member. Maybe the book can help them too.
I'll say this. I'm a lifelong progressive. But I'd be lying if I said that this new movement does't just seem a bit off. I'm PRO trans rights, as I'm sure you are. But there's elements of the extreme wing of this movement that either don't have people's best interest at heart, or they just don't realize how tricky and dangerous it all is.
No easy answers. Thanks for boldly writing about it.
Nice review! It sounds like a valuable book. And I don't know if you coined the term "online-ward" yourself, but you should patent it because it's both a brilliant concept and a nifty turn of phrase (though I guess the ableist connotations would stand out if you emphasize that part).
At several points you emphasize the limits and perils of language when navigating this kind of situation, including the closing "make them mean something better" which I loved because you don't just stop at blanket critique. Something you seem to be trying to reconcile throughout the review - and which Shannon and Jamie clearly grapple with - is the gap between the embodied reality of not feeling at home in your gender identity and wanting to reinvent it. and the verbal gymnastics and politics involved in having that new identity be socially and relationally real. If your partner still loves you for who you presently are, yet this comes by way of who you once were, than you have to decide what it means to be loved and to love.
I find myself wondering how much this would play out differently without the online factor figuring so strongly. Does it end up primarily being a commentary on the toxicity of online identity cultures, or is it still about the inherent challenges of transition in the context of relationships? Anorexia is an interesting alternate case study, though I think there are limits to how well this analogy carries over. There does seem to be something unique about gender and how identity (or its reconstruction) functions in that space, whose cultural resonances go so far beyond embodiment per se.
Thanks for sharing. Wow, that sounds so painful for Thrace and Jamie. I do question the narrative of "support is the only option" in these cases, though I understand the reasoning behind it. But it doesn't seem like support actually helps that much.
Can you say a little more about what Shannon herself considered to be "The Problem"? You are persuasive in making the case that the villain is the "ideological community... a funhouse of distress...a society of mutual self-destruction," but to specify these things is to beg the question: what did these structures do to Jamie and, by extension, the marriage? Was it Jamie's depression? Her escalating insecurity? The collapse of purpose and, say, "outwardness," for lack of a better word?
I appreciate that Shannon maintained her love, openness and support for her husband as he went through all of this. I really do believe her assertion that it was not the unconventional gender representation itself which destroyed her marriage to Jamie. But again, it isn't clear what changed, unless the story is really about Jamie's mental breakdown, which just happened to occur in the forms and vocabulary of this strange journey our culture has undertaken in dealing with gender expression. Is this a book about mental illness? Or about the trans experience? Or is that question itself too either/or?
Thanks Erin!
May I add: 18 Months will be available on Amazon October 16.
This was so powerful and beautifully written, Erin. I especially liked this line: “a warped mirror into which Jamie gazed, seeing not the whole person that she was, but instead only her constituent parts.” Those who truly love us see our whole selves. These online communities are committing the Kantian sin of valuing only those parts of us that they can exploit. They are using people as a means to an end--as fodder for their ideology. Thank you for writing this review.
This is offensive Erin. I'm banning you from this blog
Erin, I love the compelling way you write and how you tackle the tough and delicate issues with grace. I think I will be ordering this book. Thanks!
I really like this book review and now I’d like to read the book. I, too, had heard Shannon on the Gender: A Wider Lens podcast and was really impressed with her-- and felt terrible for what she’d been through.
Here’s a question -- and this is not at all being asked in a confrontational way, but a sincerely curious way.
Why do you refer to Jamie as “she”?
On the podcast, Shannon referred to him as “he.” He’s clearly not a person who was in any way made happier by his gender transition and going along with his pronouns feels almost cruel to me.
I certainly don’t think _you_ are being cruel. I’m just saying _I_ would feel cruel to go along with a deeply mentally ill person’s ideas that make him feel worse.
To me it would be like agreeing with a person with anorexia that she’s too fat. Or agreeing with a paranoid person that the CIA really IS coming for him. That might be what they really believe, what they truly want to hear from us, but it seems cruel to agree.
So I’m just genuinely curious what your feeling is re the “she” for this very unhappy guy, whose best chance at happiness might indeed be relinquishing his addiction to / obsession with gender and coming back to reality and the rest of his interests and his life.
Hey Erin -
I'll be the first to say it. Great article. I'll be sending it to a dear friend who's going through the exact some issue with a family member. Maybe the book can help them too.
I'll say this. I'm a lifelong progressive. But I'd be lying if I said that this new movement does't just seem a bit off. I'm PRO trans rights, as I'm sure you are. But there's elements of the extreme wing of this movement that either don't have people's best interest at heart, or they just don't realize how tricky and dangerous it all is.
No easy answers. Thanks for boldly writing about it.
This is a great review, Erin. "Funhouse of distress" is a wonderful characterization of so much of online culture. Well done!
Nice review! It sounds like a valuable book. And I don't know if you coined the term "online-ward" yourself, but you should patent it because it's both a brilliant concept and a nifty turn of phrase (though I guess the ableist connotations would stand out if you emphasize that part).
At several points you emphasize the limits and perils of language when navigating this kind of situation, including the closing "make them mean something better" which I loved because you don't just stop at blanket critique. Something you seem to be trying to reconcile throughout the review - and which Shannon and Jamie clearly grapple with - is the gap between the embodied reality of not feeling at home in your gender identity and wanting to reinvent it. and the verbal gymnastics and politics involved in having that new identity be socially and relationally real. If your partner still loves you for who you presently are, yet this comes by way of who you once were, than you have to decide what it means to be loved and to love.
I find myself wondering how much this would play out differently without the online factor figuring so strongly. Does it end up primarily being a commentary on the toxicity of online identity cultures, or is it still about the inherent challenges of transition in the context of relationships? Anorexia is an interesting alternate case study, though I think there are limits to how well this analogy carries over. There does seem to be something unique about gender and how identity (or its reconstruction) functions in that space, whose cultural resonances go so far beyond embodiment per se.
Thanks for sharing. Wow, that sounds so painful for Thrace and Jamie. I do question the narrative of "support is the only option" in these cases, though I understand the reasoning behind it. But it doesn't seem like support actually helps that much.
Can you say a little more about what Shannon herself considered to be "The Problem"? You are persuasive in making the case that the villain is the "ideological community... a funhouse of distress...a society of mutual self-destruction," but to specify these things is to beg the question: what did these structures do to Jamie and, by extension, the marriage? Was it Jamie's depression? Her escalating insecurity? The collapse of purpose and, say, "outwardness," for lack of a better word?
I appreciate that Shannon maintained her love, openness and support for her husband as he went through all of this. I really do believe her assertion that it was not the unconventional gender representation itself which destroyed her marriage to Jamie. But again, it isn't clear what changed, unless the story is really about Jamie's mental breakdown, which just happened to occur in the forms and vocabulary of this strange journey our culture has undertaken in dealing with gender expression. Is this a book about mental illness? Or about the trans experience? Or is that question itself too either/or?
Thank you for the great review... and the thoughtful insights with which you ended. Sincerely, Frederick