Gender(s) (The MIT Press Essential Knowledge series)

Thought provoking, surprising and illuminating for those new to the conversation and those who have been in it for a long time

I approached this book with a lot of interest, mainly because I never thought it would be something that would fascinate me. I have to honestly say, though, once I started reading GENDER(S) it was difficult to stop.The amount of research and work that went into writing this book shows. Kathryn Bond Stockton takes us into a look at genders and what belongs where in a way I have never seen before.Love that it's a book that is about discussion and thought, not judgment and and anger. If you're looking for something that can add value to discussions and enlightenment as well, GENDER(S) does the trick.

Gender discussions tend to spark powerful responses, as they orbit our views and feelings about identity, society, even "natural order" itself. I found this volume to be incredibly thought-provoking and awareness-raising -- these were the reasons I chose to read it. The author's discussion of intersectionality, for instance, were incredibly insightful, providing a history of the term, potent analogies, and revealing case studies. And many other concepts were just ask skillfully and thoroughly developed. There were places where the language felt inflammatory or provocative (I won't say manipulative, but some might). My responses certainly are (must be!) tied to my own identity, systemically privileged as I am in just about every sense.They could also be an artifact of my tendency to read scientific non-fiction more than philosophical non-fiction or literary criticism. To wit, there are some stylistic elements in this discourse to which I simply do not and cannot relate. However, I never felt that the arguments were distorted, reductive, or off-base. I grew in my understanding, awareness, and appreciation for gender diversity from reading this book, and that has made it worth it. For me. If you cannot approach the subject with an open mind, you should pass on this. But if you are open to diverse points of view, this book, filled with vibrant language and passionate argumentation, will open your mind even further.

This timely, beautifully written book helped me step outside the binary box to better understand the complexities of gender(s) in contemporary life. A must read!

This little book packs a lot of incisive thinking, sparkling writing and wit into a few pages. Making cutting edge gender theory accessible to everyone who is confused by the gender wars, this is the book to read and give to all your friends and family this year!

Brilliant and Accessible!

I read Gender(s) thinking I would come away more informed and understand the science surrounding this topic Gender(s) is difficult to read. Em dash’s are strung together in lieu of complete thoughts. Littered with appeals to celebrity, authority, and journalism as science, the science thin. Ms. Stockton argues “Cisgender (is) assigned at birth.” Doctors are scientist interpreting the physical results of Mitosis. The doctor uses words articulate a new being existence: weight, height, and physical organs. As a matter of post-modern binary opposites deconstruction Girl/Boy, Ms. Stockton dialectic answer is “…everyone’s gender is queer.” However, Ms. Stockton defines queer as “irredeemably strange, ungraspable, out of sync with male and female, weirdly not normal…” How can a doctor, at the birth of a child, conclude such a value laden observation. Wouldn’t the manifestations of DNA provide an objective initial answer: girl or boy. I didn’t know more after reading this book about the subject of “The Science of Gender.” The book, a work of post-modern deconstruction, while using Ms.Stocktons definitions didn’t provide a logical conclusion argument to the argument that the binary opposition of “Girl/Boy” would best be replaced by the new word “queer” I gave this book 3 stars because it is a Post-modern deconstruction that Derrida or Foucault would be proud of.

Very fluffy and unspecific, a Rare piece of coal in the essential knowledge series

Her facts are backed up by citations from a Google search. Google results are tailored algorithms so contrary evidence doesn’t necessarily show. Wikipedia references are a joke because Wikipedia is now highly censored. Other facts lack context, and details which are misleading by omissions. This is not scholarly. How it passed peer review is telling, It should not have.